Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 29 October 2020

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [1] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good news!^{[citation needed]} SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
(from WP:NSEASONS)
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news!

Oh wait, there are more.

Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

This is from the PAST MONTH:

... and there were more before that.

These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!

Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this notice has served its purpose now, as to be fair there has been a sea-change in @Spiderone:'s attitude and behaviour. He's recognised that the WP:FOOTY shibboleth of "fully professional leagues" should be ignored altogether when dealing with female players. In another startling 180° turn, the other day he even voted !keep in an AfD for a female soccer player of pretty dubious notability. So this ANI report has undoubtedly served its purpose, although it's a shame it had to get to this stage for Spiderone to see the error of his ways. Especially when plenty of us tried to discuss it with him informally first. Still, I'm sure in future he will be more receptive to other editor's concerns and use this experience to improve as an editor going forward. Disappointingly @Fenix down: has gone the other way and 'doubled down', claiming that legitimate concerns over him closing discussions early, !supervoting and/or being openly not neutral are all "unfounded". And while there are still open questions over the WP:GANG antics of a handful of other WP:Football editors, they are probably disussions for another day. There doesn't seem much sense in dragging this (or the artifice below) out any longer. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
Additional canvassing (diff)

This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 5 7 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. Giant Snowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [2]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [3] and June 2019 [4]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Le v!v ich 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. Giant Snowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.

Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.

Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from ~~Millwall~~ London City Lionesses.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Le v!v ich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban When will Wikipedia leadership start looking at the referenced deletion discussions and the patterns of many of the editors here who are proposing a topic ban aka targeting the same editor and women's football articles in general? I'm not sure what the obsession is about - it's rather comical, really -- but indeed an old and quickly decaying pattern on an equally aging platform. Surely, there are more productive things to do in life and on Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia's systemic bias against coverage of women's subjects is no better exemplified nor more infamous than in our grossly out-of-balance guidelines on "PrOfEsSiOnAl" football leagues, which as others have said in both more and less colourful terms, are bullshit. Here we have another very small group of editors claiming this bullshit guideline as a justification for erasing every bit of information anyone has ever written here on football teams/leagues/players who are not men, and whining to administrators when anybody notices. Daz's pointed commentaries on this phenomenon are fair comment; you're supposed to be offended when this crap happens. Counter-proposal: the proposers of this topic ban are themselves banned from the subject of women's football. That would both stop the disruption and improve the encyclopedia. And can we please trash that garbage guideline once and for all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and further, WP:FPL is an essay with years of evidence of "ownership" behaviors exhibited by some of these same editors here attempting to silence BBDS again (just look at the edit history). See also WP:BULLY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think in football parlance some of the lads can "dish it out but not take it". They expect to foul with impunity themselves but when faced with a robust challenge in return they roll about on the ground, feigning injury and squealing to the referee! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. It has already been demonstrated that the user originally accused (Spiderone) was not targeting women's football, and that many of the deletion arguments were legitimate, albeit sparse. There is nothing about Bring back Daz Sampson's comments that comprise a "fair comment"; slinging ad hominems while contributing nothing to the discussion (as they have done once again, immediately above my comment), canvassing editors, and continued lack of demonstration of good faith. There are perfectly legitimate ways to debate these issues without stopping to that level. You seriously think a counter-ban is what's necessary here? You have no issues with how Bring back Daz Sampson has behaved? You're not at all concerned that they have a demonstrated history with these issues? Jay eyem (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposed ban is not warranted based on the record presented. Cbl62 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose boomerang

This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I propose a topic ban. This was done by Number 57. And given how massively disruptive you have been at the AfDs on which you have been commenting, I think it merits attention. And reubtting points made against myself is perfectly legitimate argumentation. Literally the point of AfD is to make arguments on whether or not an article should be kept. Comparing my actions to yours is completely absurd. Your slinging of ad hominems and hostile tone, while frequently contributing nothing to discussion, is not comparable to my rebutting points made in an AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wanted to look through the diffs, you will notice that I did not initially attach this complaint to this discussion; it was added as such later by an uninvolved individual. Claiming that I am trying to "silence [you] and open up a new front in the above content dispute" is completely absurd and continued showing of bad faith. Jay eyem (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff showing my initial post on ANI. Here and here is the uninvolved user incorporating it into this argument. The diffs are clear, that wasn't my doing. And yes, your abusive language and bad faith arguments had gotten to the point where I felt it was necessary to bring it up at ANI, and it appears my concerns are shared. As Number 57 noted, this is not your first time dealing with issues like this. Responding to questions with reasoning is not bludgeoning. Linking individual users to a discussion is the clear definition of vote-stacking, which is covered under WP:CANVASS. You have, and continue to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive editing, and this "boomerang proposal" is another pretty clear example of that. No idea what you are proposing here. If an uninvolved admin would let me know, that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a ~~permanent~~ (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working ~~on my draft and future articles~~ (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just now I see that Eggishorn is not an administrator. I was scared by the comment and misread the small print, as is obvious. Eissink (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ice

sink

Time

sink

Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [5], and this [6], and this [7]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. E Eng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests

Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.

I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.

There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?

Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My advice to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening didn't penetrate, I guess. E Eng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Le v!v ich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Le v!v ich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. E Eng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too impressed. I was pretty sure he'd blow himself up with his suicide vest so I'd get all the Gunga Din credit without the headache of having to actually deal with him in the future, and my crystal ball did not fail me [8]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. E Eng 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Boomerang site ban

It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked. Good god, I'll never get back the time I spent slogging through the above. What a life. It's obvious that Eissink has not lived up to the promises that were the basis for their unblock in May 2019, where they for instance said "I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal."[9] The unblocking admin, Huon, warned them at the time: "Should the previous behaviour recur, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again, and getting unblocked again would be far more difficult". Yup. I have indeffed again, based on Eissink's personalising of disputes, as can be seen in this very ANI discussion as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, which Eissink, according to his own statement above, took part in purely in revenge against The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bish, you beat me to the punch. This was a timesink of the highest kind, and we don't need an editor like this here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban. Thanks to Bish for stopping the immediate disruption. This is now Eissink's second indef on enwiki, plus they're indef'd on nlwiki; seems to meet the criteria for a site ban, and if disruption occurs again on some other project, a cban here will probably make a global lock easier. Le v!v ich 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Update: Eissink has used his talkpage access to abuse his opponent, so I've revoked it. He'll have to use UTRS if he wishes to appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed (but of course I always agree with Bish). Is this still necessary? Indef-blocked with TPA revoked is essentially site-banned, is it not? Does a formal site ban serve any distinction at this point other than officially making him persona non grata? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Le v!v ich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [10]. We've seen this pattern from him over and over and over. It's the way he is. He's harassed and abused people at multiple projects, and meta. No more ~~second~~ ~~third~~ ~~fourth~~ chances. Done. E Eng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I don't think it counts unless you say it in bold. Le v!v ich 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it E Eng 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Support siteban though this editor is now blocked with TPA revoked, I think a siteban is still appropriate. The personal attack they made on their talk page after being blocked and the modification of another users comment as a "joke", when it modified the meaning of said sentence to imply the said user thinks their writing is unintelligible, on top of the other issues / personal attacks they have made, pushes me to support a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Eissink managed to get out of an indef block once before, so let's make it official this time. This comment, which is clueless on multiple levels, was enough to send me over the edge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:
An editor: I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around.

Eissink: Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia.

E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? E Eng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that finger is in a dike please don't have them remove it. We don't want to be responsible for any national catastrophes. E Eng 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC) That's d-i-k-e. No tasteless jokes, please.[reply]

@Drmies and EEng: Someone needs me? Trijnstel_talk 14:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, genie. Can you tell us the background to Eissink's block/ban at nlwp? E Eng 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genie? GENIE??? E Eng 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Nope. That comment shows this isn't someone we want editing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Just in case it wasn't clear. E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban to prevent another admin from unilaterally overturning the block, as unlikely as that may be. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban This user had their second chance and blew it spectacularly. Going out with a parting insult just proves they are WP:NOTHERE and should not be a part of this community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban I'll have to roll with the fellows above. ~ HAL333([11]) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose:

1/ He has been goaded by The banner several times, as I could witness myself on articles I wrote.
2/ He has contributed a lot, with interesting articles created, and has a lot to contribute, as noted by several contributors, and as opposed to "contributors" who only delete.
3/ Above all, would the community risk using different yardsticks when, on the one hand banning Eissink, and on the other hand let The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction? whereas The Banner has, on top of his goading actions which have pushed Eissink beyond his limits, a long history of being blocked himself?
- See The Banner's block log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=The+Banner&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=--
- The Banner has been blocked 12 times (!), among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread)", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion)",...
Emigré55 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that:

The Banner has not been blocked since 2015 (nearly 5 years ago).
They haven't been blocked 12 times. They have been blocked 9 times. The number of times someone has been blocked doesn't necessarily correspond to fault.
Just because we are discussing the ban of one editor doesn't mean we need to sanction the other editor.
Regardless of if someone has contributed constructively doesn't mean we should ignore their personal attacks against multiple editors.
If you believe that The Banner needs to be sanctioned, propose it here. Partly opposing a ban because there isn't a discussion to sanction the other editor seems counterproductive to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested about the goading by The Banner. Can you provide some diffs which show this? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: to answer your last question about the diffs on the goading by The Banner :

Eissink provided very precise examples on how he was chased by The Banner.

He described the process of this hunt by the Banner in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=982999994#Wielding_the_Salmoninae?

And precisely in his contribution to this thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=982974533

In the links he gave, he provided The Banner's first goading edit (who chose to interact with Eissink, not the contrary, while he knew they had a difficult past together), in a discussion The Banner was not part of, where he tried to publicly stigmatise Eissink in a reference to "elsewhere" (being Dutch Wikipedia) — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=974491790&diffmode=source
His very next edit after that, was on Anna van Egmond, so it quite clear that he followed Eissink’s edits and once again thought it wise to interfere with Eissink’s editing — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_van_Egmont&diff=974495041&oldid=974438938&diffmode=source

These are the two main diffs. As Eissink stressed out, it was The Banner following him around that started the unfortunate and lengthy deliberations on Van Egmond and Pourbus.

The edits don't lie: The Banner was chasing Eissink, not the contrary. Basically, revenge from the past, something that he should never have done: he undeniably provoked the conflict that followed.

--Emigré55 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Now outline the provocation that forced Eissink to refer to another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [12]. E Eng 01:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the votes so far. Le v!v ich 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ EEng : I agree that these words are not acceptable. And I think Eissink acknowledged it.

However, my point is not to discuss here his bad words, or that he got carried away, beyond limits, and the fact that he was blocked for that.

My point here is to discuss the fact that in so doing the community would be using different yardsticks: if, on the one hand , the community is banning Eissink, and on the other hand leaves The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction.

Whereas there is a huge discrepancy between the number or times when Eissink was blocked (one time in 2019) and when The Banner was blocked (9 times, as Dreamy Jazz rightly pointed out here above, and 1 times indef.!, among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion",...), and for actions which now repeat ("what's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh") , and not only with Eissink.

The community, in that very case, would have been abused in its judgment. And in my opinion, clearly manipulated by The Banner playing the victim, whereas he was, and is, the hunter who provoked all this.

In my opinion, it would be very unfair to leave The Banner continue as if nothing had happened. A clear permit then given to him to continue his negative only actions, which others suffer too.

@ Drmies,Pawnkingthree,RickinBaltimore,Grandpallama,HandThatFeeds,Dreamy Jazz,Levivich,HAL333 Lepricavark,Joefromrandb,Eggishorn,Bishonen,Huon,Joefromrandb : I appeal to the fairness of the community in that case, so that there is no “premium given” to persistent hunters, such as The Banner, who deserves in my opinion an indef block this time, if not a ban as he has successfully overturned a previous indef block in the past.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as you are fishing for block information here. And that seems to be response on you sources being shot down as unreliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Something you still seems to reject. In fact, you are also creating an unsafe working environment. The Banner talk 10:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your links. They lead to wall of text after wall of text. You keep saying The Banner did something, but darned if I can tell what it is. If it's hounding or goading, a laconic -- LACONIC -- list of diffs is all that would be needed. E Eng 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the lot of us was not exactly helpful. If you have a distinct proposal against The Banner, make a new subsection and put your evidence forward. Right now, though, what you've put forward is not going to result in any action against Banner. If that's all you've got, I suggest you drop the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. @Emigré55:, I said above that I did not feel that Eissink deserved any more of the community's time and I meant it. I am highly annoyed that you've dragged this out by mouth-piecing their accusations against The Banner. There was never any evidence provided by Eissink that The Banner was hounding them and your repeated insistence that there was is equally a personal attack. After reading through these jeremiads twice, I can only say that both Eissink's and your reasons for harassing The Banner remain opaque to me and that I should never have wasted the time trying to understand them. You have presented no grounds for action against the Banner other than some warped version of "fairness" but if you continue to pursue this line of attack you will certainly be presenting grounds for action against yourself. I really, really strongly advise dropping the bludgeoning instrument and backing away from the nag's cadaver. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55, attacking Banner is not doing your cause, of that of Eissink, any good. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jer·e·mi·ad / jerəˈmīəd / noun / plural noun: jeremiads / a long, mournful complaint or lamentation; a list of woes / "the jeremiads of puritan preachers warning of moral decay" RandomGnome (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! E Eng 09:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Jtbobwaysf is indefinitely topic banned from Imelda Marcos. After these threads stay open for a month or two because no admin wants to deal with it, maybe editors will stop doing these "multiple choice" sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[13]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[14][15] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [16][17]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [29] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [30] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [31]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [32], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [33][34][35]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [36] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [37], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:

"blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
"unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
"one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([38]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
"effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
"do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.

—seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:

• From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

• From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.

• From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.

• From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.

• From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

• From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.

I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. E Eng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.

Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.

Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You said content failed verification when you did not even read the citation sources. . -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.

Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Object404, I think we'd fix that if it happened, by extending the ban. See also WP:ROPE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the intent is to prevent further disruption by stopping you from expanding into other areas of Philippines politics. This is something that can also be done by means of an indefinite block. I can apply that if you wish, you've only got to say so. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I retain the position that more than the case of the three or so articles which have become the focus of discussion so far, subject's dismissive behavior towards other editors and towards sources which disagree with his view, and his insistence on his own interpretation of other editors's supposed intentions (his refusal to acknowledge the difference between supposed net worth vis a vis ill-gotten wealth, for example) - thus creating an environment where it is impossible to have discourse under WP:Assume Good Faith - are the broader and more-essential arguments in favor of Proposals 1 and 2. These violate WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, quite blatantly. I do not see that this broader behavior has been sufficiently addressed, thus my continued support for Proposal 2 and 1. - Chieharumachi (talk)

First, I apologize for taking the wrong approach. I have opened RFC Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire to begin to address a few issues in the lede that appear conflated: One if the subject is a billionaire now (aka if she has wealth in the billions) which was the lede around the time of this ANI's opening, two if she and her deceased husband were billionaires (their 'personal net worth') in 1986 when they fled (the lede currently reflects this), and three if the wealth is ill-gotten (aka stolen). Each of these are separate claims and to keep the RFC simple, I only included the first of these claims in the linked RFC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 (DS)

I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is unnecessary. -Object404 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block

It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, let me point out that I am mainly uninvolved in the article. My only edits there are correcting her position (Manila -> Metro Manila) and removing an excess period. I agree with what Object404 has said. Typically, disruptive editors are given blocks. Also, I don't think I could still assume that the edits were made in good faith based on everything on this thread and on the article's talk page. ~~Having said that, I am at a tipping point. I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for Proposal 1 and support a heavier sanction.~~ I'd like to see how this will go and how other editors would comment. To the other editors, a lot of you are probably irritated already with how things are going here. ~~The user is unapologetic.~~ However, I would like to remind everyone to exercise caution with the proposals. Please support the proposal that you think is the most appropriate with regard to his behavior/actions. Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some progress now. The user has acknowledged the error. Even before that, I still think that an indefinite ban is an overkill (consistent with my previous comment). In the meantime, I'm staying with proposal 1. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this dispute I made the mistake of TE and RGW rather than running a RFC (or other DR process). In retrospect that would have been more logical in this type of highly politicized article. I apologize for that and accept whatever punishment is meted out even if it means the end of me editing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at last we seem to be getting somewhere. Jtbobwaysf has at last acknowledged they were in the wrong. If there is a chance that they will participate constructively in a DR process, then let's allow them to take that chance. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is too much. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos are unbalanced, and I believe Jtbobwaysf was trying to remove the clutter of undue weight on Imelda's article.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I periodically try to cleanup this article (havent made any attempt at the husband's as he is not a BLP and less priority I figured), and made the mistake of TE rather than doing an RFC. I have started Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire on the subject that related me my veering off course in my approach that ultimately resulted in this ANI. Feel free to comment. Apologies and thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

Thread retrieved from archive after a lull

Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. E Eng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sound of crickets chirping. E Eng 04:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this to prevent automatic archiving. Could this be closed already? HiwilmsTalk 09:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.

Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [39]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [40] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [41] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [42], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [43] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [44], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [45] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [46], as was the third [47] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That 60% figure is only because someone just split the page and there's only one year left in it... 2020. So I'm responsible for adding 60% of the content for fatalities in 2020. Before the split, just two days ago, I was responsible for 42% of the content [48] (fatalities in 2010-2020), and before the first article-split (in early 2019), when ALL the fatalities were on one page and I had finished the bulk of my work adding dozens of fatalities, I had still only authored 8% of the page [49]. That list-article has been edited for over 11 years and 4,000 edits; having been started 9 years before I was even an editor here. I am NOT the predominant editor for the content (of four list-pages of fatalities). Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above: At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with "Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian"." because we were discussing an AfD for the three articles List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians and that was too much of a mouthful (or typing-ful). I never "compared" veggers to ordinary folks, either — that was your misinterpretation and you got pissed off, and regardless of how I tried to explain what I'd wrote you continued to push the button (as you did above) that somehow I "contrasted veggers to ordinary people". And perhaps you're contributing to this ANI because you're still pissed off about that, and that a week later I arrived in your wiki domain and opened some cans of worms (at Template:Discrimination) and some other editor has picked up that baton and is beating you in your own debates (at WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism) and you see that as a reason to pop one at me here. (BTW, I bowed out of those conversation because I couldn't keep up with the esoteric language and had no access to the sources being discussed, and that other editor was a master at all that and has been doing just fine without me.) Perhaps you should re-read WP:Casting aspersions which refers to accusing others "without reasonable cause". Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mentioned a few times here as someone who made Normal Op "pissed off". I don't have a dog in this hunt and simply advise that any interested party peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album). Compare my brief and rather bland comment to the vociferous fury that it unleashed in Normal Op, which has continued here and caused a lot of work for everyone. Good luck. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If you want to "get the facts straight", let's clear up a few errors in your last post. I have not said that no editor can be pissed off; quite the opposite. And I do not know why you think I am angry. I am not. And I did not say that you compared "veggers" to "ordinary folk". I said that you contrasted "veggers" with "ordinary people", which you did, here -- there are "veggers", including those people who are "veggers" who "ordinary people" wouldn't believe didn't eat meat. You can accuse me of misinterpretation until you're blue in the face, but it's right there for all to see. I don't really have anything to say about your "beating you in your own debates" nonsense, but I think it's striking that the accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who disagrees with you is such second nature that I'm not even the first person you've targetted in this subsection. I've already said more than I want to; I do not want to be pulled into some pointless back and forth. I will not be posting here again. If anyone wants to talk to me, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, if you weren't contrasting 'veggers' to 'ordinary people', you must acknowledge that the way you worded your points could have given that impression to a reasonable observer. When I first read "If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat...)", that's exactly what I thought you were doing. I appreciate that being discussed at ANI must be stressful, but your tone here is exceedingly combative; a more conciliatory approach might be more effective if your aim is to convince people that you can collaborate effectively when you disagree with people. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [50] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the majority of my interactions with other editors have been just fine, but I'm sure it's especially important to focus on the minority that haven't. Stress? Introspection? Sorry, but I'm scheduled for surgery tomorrow and introspection isn't going to happen this week. Signing off now and un-watchlisting this page. If anyone needs to reach me, they can try the email function. Normal Op (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef t-ban - he has slid back into the same behavior that caused his t-ban a little over a year ago. He had a successful appeal July 6th, and within 2 months he was back at it, and received a warning from JzG on Sept 1st. A few weeks later, he received another warning by Nosebagbear. I think he is much too impassioned against bulldog types and a few of the larger breeds to edit collegially in that topic area. His responses in this discussion also speak to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef tban - despite warnings, the behaviour seems to have rapidly reoccurred. I'm willing to give the tban a chance before resorting to full on blocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating/expanding tban - WP:ROPE was given... Le v!v ich 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating the t-ban. Normal Op clearly can't hold back here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was hoping Normal OP would take a break from this area. I realize the stress of being at ANI so I do not hold the frustrated comments against them. Hard for me to argue with the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin recommendation - no Tban but a block for one week. WP:TBAN is used to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Only one editor in this section has claimed that the edits made were disruptive, without elaborating how. Other editors have stated that good work has been performed at times. The issue is one of behaviour and not of disruption. WP:CIVILITY allows blocking in cases of major incivility, therefore in this case a block is more appropriate. The editor would be well-advised to spend this blocked time reviewing the Wikipedia policies on CIVILITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and reference to RELIABLE SOURCES. Beyond this period, further incivility should result in a block for a longer period of time. William Harris (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broadened TBan, to cover animals in general (including animal products such as meat). Normal Op's combative attitude in this thread, and at the discussions listed above, and their unwillingness to accept that their own approach may be responsible for the heat in these discussions, in spite of two warnings issued since their TBan was lifted in July, convince me that there is a problem that requires action. I've considered William Harris's suggestion of a short block, but don't see that having the desired effect, whereas last time a TBan was applied, it seems that Normal Op was able to moderate their approach sufficiently to convince people to lift it. I don't know whether issues around animal welfare, vegetarianism and so on raise particularly strong feelings in them, but the civility issues on display in those areas at the threads above do constitute disruption in my view, and justify a reinstatement and expansion of their original TBan; the fact that the issues have spread to discussions about other animal-related matters suggest that it should be broadened. I wish them a speedy recovery from their surgery, and hope that they return to editing in some of the other areas where they have apparently contributed constructively. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban per Girth. This editor appears incapable of having a reasonable disagreement with other editors on the topic of animals or vegetarianism/veganism. The fact they felt the need to coin a new term for them versus "ordinary people" is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban I have had private email exchanges with five other Wikipedia editors going back 4 months about NormalOp's aggressive editing on articles related to veganism or animal rights, some of these users are too scared to voice this in open space because of a potential future grudge against them from Normal OP but emails could be send to the foundation privately if need be. Many examples could be cited but this user has a history of bullying users who edit articles in relation to animal rights. You can get an example of this at the Regan Russell article. Normal Op submitted the article for deletion [51], the vote was keep and he was not happy about that so he reverted any edits to the article, this user definitely has a WP:OWN problem. Normal OP then went onto the talk-page writing screeds of text and making offensive comments such as Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner. [52] Her stepson has since complained on the talk-page about Normal Ops aggressive editing [53]. I have seen many other incidents like this from this user, he cannot be trusted to edit articles in this field. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support T-Ban, the behavior here needs to stop.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have only interacted with Normal Op on the AfD discussion page about the "List of dog attacks ..." page and on the related discussion on the noticeboard about the reliability of dogsbite.org. Abrasiveness is not the same as being a dick. ImTheIP (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive

ShonRoY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: User name changed after ANI opened

New userlinks: MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will be thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have asked the user again to explain their edits, but it seems they have ignored as rather than explaining they again claimed something without providing any source. It's now out of control and quite frustrating to deal with such editing behaviour, my request to any admin please take the necessary actions, it seems the user is highly incompetent. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, Yamla and GiantSnowman, I am pinging you, since this has not been addressed yet and you all dealt with this user before. Can anyone of you please take a look into this user's edits and bring a solution to the matter. Drat8sub (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a competency block is probably required, this edit from 2 days ago is the latest example of them failing to add sources to BLPs. Giant Snowman 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources. I will probably see any response, but please alert me if I miss it or if similar editing continues with no response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a CIR-block is pretty plausible here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI opened on 18 and now it's 28, it's 10 days. In between I've asked the user to response, then Johnuniq, you asked on 25th, now after 3 days there is no response. Rather they did this edit, exactly the same edit here that they claimed without any source, (the player signing status which is not announced such by club). I don't think there is any need for waiting more to take action. They were given chances and now they wasted it instead. Drat8sub (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drat8sub: I have blocked MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Let me know if any problems continue (such as new users). Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by Tisquesusa, round 3

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made another personal attack on me for my edits cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. The latest attack[54] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.

Tisquesusa has been blocked on two previous occasions for personal attacks on me over similar issues:

Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
Nov 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#More_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks_by_User:Tisquesusa – blocked for 7 days by Black Kite, with a warning[55]

I have not attempted to discuss this with Tisquesusa, because my previous attempts to start a dialogue have just been deleted, sometimes with a hostile edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328, for the prompt response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was commendably quick, but I would note that, in theory, the last incident was a final warning. This PA was, compared to a previous particularly unpleasant one, less egregious, so that may be why it was only a doubling of sanction, but if it reoccurs anything less than an indef would appear inappropriate. I know that BHG has the standard admin thick skin, but PAs are one of things we're supposed to handle most severely. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nosebagbear, you identified the reason why I didn't indef. "Less egregious" is exactly what I was thinking. The last incident was almost a year ago as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the closing of this thread as there is still discussion. We seem to have edged back in to the too-quick closes that have been an issue in the past.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I mean I'm willing enough to accept Cullen's reasoning (both facets) - I distinctly don't hold a permanent "parole" status over individuals, but if we get a similar action in another 10 months, I'd probably interpret that as deliberate gaming of the system (that, by the way, I do not believe occurred here) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this was obnoxious, but nowhere near as bad as the vicious rant before. However, the pattern is consistent: refusal of dialogue, and prompt escalation to PAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa is a productive editor who makes large numbers of edits to geology related articles without issues. A 2 week block for an f bomb after the last issue was ten months ago is frankly excessive. Brownhairedgirl antagonises Tisquesusa by undoing his edits rather than simply removing the problematic part of them, which she knows from previous edits antagonises him and causes him to make personal attacks, because she can't be bothered. Tisquesusa does have some intractible behavioural issues, as demonstrated above, but one "fuck off" in 10 months is not indef worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Trying to argue that one editor causes another editor to make personal attacks doesn't seem like something that's going to gain much sympathy from others. Regardless of how much Tisquesusa is being antagonized by others, he is still responsible for what he posts and how he responds. This block might be excessive depending on how serious you view the situation, but WP:BROTHER and WP:NOTTHEM types of arguments are almost never considered accepted reasons to unblock someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, if you think that two weeks is excessive after a one week block was ineffective in ending the propensity to engage in personal attacks, then which block length would be appropriate? Nine days? Eleven days? Please note that I did not indef. So, do you favor a new policy that says it is OK for editors to assume bad faith when the reverted edit had fundamental flaws? I hope not. Yes, BHG could have cleaned up the edit but the actual responsibility for cleaning up a bad edit lies with Tisquesusa. Do you agree? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett got away with repeatedly calling editors cunts for years and made clear that he didn't care about the blocks. Tisquesusa isn't going to change his behaviour from this block so why bother? Blocking him is merely a waste of time. Blocking him as a WP:Punish because BHG cannot avoid antagonising him. Tisquesusa feels antagonised by BHG due to previous interactions during the portals debacle, BHG's conduct during the portal episode led to her being stripped of her adminship. The answer here is for Tisquesusa to have a one way interaction ban with BHG, for BHG to avoid undoing his edits and for other editors to try to reason with Tisquesusa to avoid personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of @Hemiauchenia,'s comments is their assertion that I cannot avoid antagonising him. That inverts the reality of Tisquesusa choosing to responding aggressively to routine cleanup of errors which they repeatedly create.

I have tried discussing issues with Tisquesusa, but the response was always to simply to remove my posts, dismissing them variously as "spam" or "harassment", usually with an insult attached. See e.g. the history which I set out at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa.

My response to Tisquesusa's addition of pages to redlinked cats is the same as with any other editor who adds a page to a non-existent category: if the redlinked cat was clearly an addition, I just remove it; but if it was part of a wider set of changes, it may be more appropriate to revert to an earlier set of categories. (E.g. if an article was in "Categ:Foos in Spain" and "Categ:Madrid", but was recategorised into the non-existent "Categ:Foos in Madrid", then simply removing "Categ:Foos in Madrid" is the wrong solution.)

That's why in such cases I do not simply remove the category. The options are a) to take time to investigate the history, or b) revert, leaving it to the editor who knows the topic to fix their error.

There are many hundreds of such redcats to be fixed every week: in the last few weeks the average has been ~700–1000 per week. Few editors do this tedious work, so there simply isn't time to stop and mount a detailed investigation of each of them. So in most cases, I simply revert, leaving the editor to fix their error.

I do hundreds of such everts every week. Those reverts get significantly more thanks than objections, and the only editor who responds abusively is Tisquesusa. The effect of Hemiauchenia's proposal is that I should refrain from reverting the errors created by Tisquesusa solely because they repeatedly choose to be dismissive and/or abusive when faced with an issue which the overwhelming majority of editors handle with civility. That is no way to run a collaborative project ... and I find it quite obnoxious that Hemiauchenia has repeatedly tried to blame me for Tisquesusa's sustained aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine cleanup" only makes sense if it improves the affected page(s). The net result of BrownHairedGirl's edit was the opposite of improvement. Although the edit did remove one non-existent category, thus slightly improving the page, that same edit also removed four good categories, restored a typo, got rid of two valid wikilinks, and undid a minor improvement to the sentence structure. That's a textbook example of what we call in the industry "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
The summary of BrownHairedGirl's edit failed to adequately explain what she was doing, making it impossible for Tisquesusa to understand why BrownHairedGirl's edit was to be regarded as anything other than borderline vandalism. BrownHairedGirl has since produced an explanation of why the edit was made the way it was made, the benefit of which Tisquesusa didn't have at the time the incident occurred.
Because BrownHairedGirl's edit was overall unhelpful, and its edit summary deficient, Tisquesusa's characterization of it as destructive was reasonable given the knowledge available to him/her at the time, as was his/her admittedly suboptimally phrased request that BrownHairedGirl discontinue her engagement with Tisquesusa's edits.
Holding grudges isn't helpful. At least a token attempt at communication with Tisquesusa should've been made prior to the opening of this ANI thread regardless of the fact that some year-old attempts to talk to the editor were unsuccessful. No such attempt was made.
Because no attempt to communicate with the reported user was made, it was disingenuous of BrownHairedGirl to describe the reported user as displaying a consistent pattern of refusal of dialog; no such refusal occurred in this instance other than, ironically enough, by BrownHairedGirl herself.
Blocking a highly productive and competent long-time editor over a single-diff complaint less than half an hour after the complaint was made, without allowing the reported editor a chance to respond, would be questionable at best even if there weren't any extenuating circumstances. In a case like this one, where the reported editor's regrettable outburst was clearly provoked by an overall unhelpful edit made by someone s/he used to feud over portals with prior to both editors getting banned from the namespace, an expedited block isn't just questionable, it's egregiously inappropriate.
Based on points one through six, and the history between the two editors, I recommend: a) vacating Tisquesusa's block; b) advising BrownHairedGirl that the high volume of her edits is not a valid justification for the subpar quality of some of these edits, such as the one that ultimately gave rise to this ANI thread; and c) instituting a two-way interaction ban between Tisquesusa and BrownHairedGirl. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp has constructed a highly selective and prejudiced view of the history.

First, I did not feud over portals with Tisquesusa. I was doing cleanup work of removing links to deleted portals. Most such links were removed by my bot task ([4]), and Tisquesusa was re-adding the redlinks. There was no feud; it was a simple case of Tisquesusa choosing to attack me for doing that cleanup and for asking them to desist from re-adding such links.

A detailed explanation of why I reverted fully rather than partially would have been available to Tisquesusa if they were open to discussion, because I would have discussed it with them, as I have done with other editors. The evidence is very clear that they are not open to discussion. See e.g. [56], [57], [58].

This is not a one-off error by Tisquesusa. It part of a long series of edits in which they have left articles in one or more redlinked categories. I have pinged them in those other cases too, so they have been well aware of the issue. See e.eg. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [], [66], [67], [68], [69].

Nor was my edit summary deficient. The summary [70] was Reverted 1 edit by Tisquesusa (talk): — Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT, which is the same edit summary that I have used on many thousands of similar edits. It explained precisely why the edit was reverted, with a link to the relevant guideline: WP:REDNOT. This is the same edit summary as I use in every other one of the hundreds of such edits which I perform every week. Note that Tisquesusa very rarely uses any edit summary at all. It is perverse to criticise me for not writing an essay in the edit summary but make no comment on Tisq's complete omission of any explanation of the vast majority of their edits.

This is not a matter of holding grudges. It is a simple consequence of the reality that every attempt I have made to discuss any of these issues has been removed by Tisquesusa with a hostile summary: see the history in 2019, and that in 2019 I was subjected to a lengthy vile and vicious highly personal attack. I do not want to expose myself again to that level of hatred, which has not just been directed at me: it was also directed at Black Kite, who blocked Tisq last time: their block notice was removed with the edit summary[71] fuck off with your bullying bullshit

Their general hostility and aggression is also directed at other editors, e,g.

[72] editsum Which idiot cannot spell Colombia?
[73] comment: you can fold and fuck off with your lazy BS

What on earth is the point of trying to communicate with an editor who has point-blank refused communication and a history of sweary aggression?

Why do you try to put the onus on me to waste my time and to expose myself to more abuse from an editor who has in no way changed their approach from when they made such a vicious attack that it was revdelled?

How does it any way help the 'pedia to demand sanctions against me for doing routine cleanup because Tisquesusa a) repeatedly creates an error which they are well of, b) has rejected communication with such severe personal attack that I am wary of exposing myself again? If Tisquesuasa wanted to reopen dialogue, they have had ample opportunity to do so.

If I don't cleanup Tisquesusa's additions to Special:WantedCategories, the task will be left to somebody else. How much abuse are they expected to endure before they too get threatened with sanction because Tisquesusa routinely prefers aggressive hostility to dialogue?

How does it help the 'pedia for editors dong cleanup to be required to avoid an aggressive, sweary, abusive editor like Tisquesusa for fear that they will be blamed for the aggressive response? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your edit summaries are deficient is that what your edits actually do goes well beyond merely removing the problematic category. An accurate edit summary for edits like this, this, this, or this would be something along the lines of "I'm undoing every single improvement you've made to the page because you happened to accidentally add a category that doesn't exist as part of your otherwise good edit." Does this sound to you like the summary of a useful edit, or does it perhaps sound to you more like the summary of a rather unhelpful edit?
The diffs you've provided to document "a long series of edits in which [Tisquesusa has] left articles in one or more redlinked categories" are highly disturbing but not in the way you intended. While they do provide us with evidence of a pattern of problematic editing, I'm sorry to inform you that it's your editing that's problematic, not Tisquesusa's. Your goal of ridding Wikipedia of red-linked categories, while noble, does not give you a license to mass-undo every single edit ever made that happened to consist in part of the addition of a non-existent category. If such were the case, we'd have a bot doing that. The whole reason we insist on human review is to avoid the sort of demoralization Tisquesusa has been subjected to by your bot-like edits (edit adds a red category = edit automatically gets undone in complete disregard of its content beyond the red category addition).
The answer to your question of how much abuse an editor is expected to endure is quite simple: exactly as much as they themselves dish out. Do you honestly believe Tisquesusa would've lashed out at you if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories? I don't. Does anyone? Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iaritmioawp, that's a quite extraordinary attitude. Your point #3 tries to equate Tisq's dropping of an f-bomb with me doing a type of edit which I do to hundreds of pages every week, to which nobody else responds abusively.

Your attempt to claim that my series of diffs shows me behaving badly is absurd. Those diffs show that Tisq repeatedly, over many weeks, creates an error of which a) he was repeatedly warned, b) is clearly flagged when he saves the page. (Because there's a redlink in the categories).

You seem to believe that there is no problem at all with Tisq continuing to repeat the same error ... but that I am a wicked monster for not spending my time to figure out whether the redlinked category is a) wholly mistaken, b) should exist, and if so c) what its parent categories should be.

In other words, it is considerably more work for someone not specialising in this area to clean up after Tisq's edits than it would require Tisq to fix them himself. When did it become the responsibility of others to fix errors knowingly introduced by another editor?

As I noted above, Tisq himself is the person best-placed to decide whether the category should be A) removed, B) replaced with another, or C) created. Why ae you so absolutely determined to absolve him of any responsibility for his edits and instead to pile with attacks on me? What's this really about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing someone's entire edit just because there's a small and easily fixable issue with it is unhelpful; if done repeatedly, it demoralizes the contributor, which, especially in the case of short-tempered individuals, may eventually lead to their losing their cool and lashing out. This is what happened here. It's true that we can find additional instances of incivility in Tisquesusa's editing history; however, that one particular instance that you reported in this thread, and for which Tisquesusa received an expedited two-week block, wasn't some gratuitous personal attack; rather, it was a request (admittedly rude) for you to stop your reversions that was brought about by your suboptimal handling of the cleanup task for which you volunteered. There is no doubt in my mind that if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest, Tisquesusa wouldn't have objected to them as his/her editing history clearly identifies him/her as a productive member of the Wikipedia community.
I suggest that, if you continue to engage in the cleanup of red categories, you change your mode of operation to simply removing such categories instead of undoing the edits in which they were added. This advice is consistent with our WP:Editing policy which clearly states that we should try to "[p]reserve the value that others add" whenever possible. It is my belief that it was very much possible to preserve the value that Tisquesusa added in every single instance where you instead chose to undo his/her edits in their entirety, and that it was your apparent disregard for the value s/he added that caused the unfortunate incident that brought us here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp, as I explained above, my practice is to simply remove a redlinked category only when that category is an addition rather than a replacement. That's because removing a red-linked category which replaces another leaves the article improperly categorised.

In other more complex cases I will continue to revert, to restore the status quo ante, so that the editor who made the error is notified that their changes wre problematic, and can bring their own expertise to bear on choosing the appropriate categories which actually exist, or creating new ones if needed.

This is likely to be my last reply to you, because it seems that you have little interest in reading what I write or in actually considering the problem which my edits address. The only reason that so many of Tisquesusa's edits have been reverted by me is that Tisquesusa is an extremely rare case of an editor who has chosen to ignore repeated notifications of a problem which they repeatedly create, so lot sf Tisquesusa's edits have landed on the cleanup list.

It is very striking that throughout your posts here you consistently refrain from any criticism of Tisquesusa for their persistent creation of problems which will have to cleaned up some other editor(s), whether me or some one else. Instead you have engaged in a thoroughly partisan, witchhunt-style exercise of seeking fault in my work while continually overlooking Tisquesusa prolific creation of errors. In doing so, you have falsely accused me of feuding with Tisquesusa, and you have falsely accused me of misleading summaries: if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest. That is pure fabrication: where I reverted, the edit summary clearly indicates that it is a revert: see the list of diffs that i posted above: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [], [81], [82], [83], [84].

I have no evidence of why you engage in such fabrication, but it is very ugly behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the summaries obviously do state that the edits were reversions. However, the explanation provided for these reversions in these edit summaries ("Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT") only addresses the component of removing the red category. It doesn't say why the entire edit had to be reverted. This is unsurprising because the entire edit didn't need to be reverted in any of these cases; just the removal of the red category would've been sufficient. If you continue to make such reversions in disregard of our editing policy, as you just said you're planning to, and the reversions continue to aggravate other editors, and you continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa, then I don't think I need to tell you how the story is likely to end—and just to be perfectly clear, I don't want to see that bad ending, I want to see the happy ending in which you agree to bring your editing in line with the policy and respect the value other editors add to articles with their edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iaritmioawp seems to have given up any pretence at doing anything other than hurling muck at me in the hope that some of it sticks.

Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for not writing longer edit summaries, but makes no criticism of Tisq consistently using no edit summary
Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for making full reverts rather than partial reverts, but makes no criticism of Tisquesusa repeatedly creating the same problem for others to clean up
Iaritmioawp chooses to smear me by misrepresenting my actions. Iaritmioawp says that I continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get. I have checked my ANI contribs for the past 12 months, and have verified my recollection that Tisquesusa is the only editor about whom I have made such a complaint, because Tisquesusa is the only editor to lash out.
Iaritmioawp says that there are multiple aggrieved editors lashing out ... but the reality is that there is only one.
Iaritmioawp also makes a wholly false ABF assertion that I go to ANI the first chance you get. That too is demonstrably false, because there are no other such cases.
Iaritmioawp continues to ignore the fact that if Tisquesusa wanted to discuss this, they could have done so at any time with a message on my talk page. But the history of my interactions with Tisquesusa is of me repeatedly trying dialogue which was deleted as "spam", and of Tisquesusa launching a vicious, vile, misogynist attack on me. Iaritmioawp's attempts to blame me for the lack of communication amount to an endorsement of Tisquesusa's misogyny, because they place all the onus on me to make repeated attempts to communicate with the misogynist attacker.

This smear campaign by Iaritmioawp is straight out of the swiftboating playbook: hurl at someone as many false allegations and as much unsubstantiated muck as you can fabricate, in the hope that some of it sticks and if not, the target of the smears is tied down writing rebuttals. The use of those vicious tactics should have consequences for Iaritmioawp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed the part where Iaritmioawp said If you continue... They were not saying that you have been actively doing these things for a while, but rather that you should be aware of the possible consequences if you repeat the steps that you have taken in this particular case. Point-by-point rebuttals only work when you actually understand the other person's points. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: intervening to claim that I didn't understand the point made only works if the intervener actually understands the facts of the matter.

The facts in this case are that there are no multiple editors, no multiple complaints, and no pattern of complaining at first opportunity.

However, there is a pattern of Iaritmioawp fabricating allegations and misrepresenting facts. I wish that I could be surprised that you choose to endorse that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I do understand what Iaritmioawp was saying. They were saying that if you continue to engage in the behavior that has characterized this specific case – which does not equate to an accusation that there is a preexisting pattern – you will probably find that it doesn't turn out very well. I literally explained this in my previous post. It's right there in plain English. Now, I don't think anyone expects you to agree with Iaritmioawp, but twisting their words around and then accusing them of fabricating is downright sleazy. In the arbcom case that led to your desysop, one of the findings of fact stated that you had repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying... With your unfounded claims of fabrication in this thread, you are demonstrating to the entire community that nothing has changed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, I have not twisted anyone's words. I have been falsely accused, e.g. of bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa ... and I am defending myself against false accusations and against the unfounded assumption that I was seeking an opportunity to open an ANI case. Arbcom has ruled that it is not acceptable to call another editor a liar, regardless of the evidence, so I make no such allegation here. But given that you quote Arbncom about AGF, it is richly ironic that you make no complaint about Iaritmioawp's assertion that I was seeking a opportunity for ANI case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You twisted Iaritmioawp's words by claiming that they were accusing you of continuing to do things that you had done on prior occasions. In reality, Iaritmioawp was cautioning you against what might happen if you continue to do what you have done on this particular occasion. This is my third and final attempt at explaining this very important distinction that should have been easily understood from a straightforward reading of Iaritmioawp's post. Also, it's too late to say that you aren't calling Iaritmioawp a liar since you have already accused them of fabrications in at least two separate posts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, the plain English meaning of Iaritmioawp's comments is an allegation that I have been engaged in a pattern of deception, provocation and entrapment. The only twisting here is the sustained efforts of Iaritmioawp to misrepresent my position, and your subsequent efforts to obfuscate the assumptions of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this movie before. If you intend to start slinging mud at me as well, you'll have to do it without my participation. Good day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iaritmioawp, here is the bottom line: Engaging in personal attacks is a serious violation of policy, and Tisquesusa has a history of making attacks that are vile, prolonged, intensely personalized and dehumanizing. The next time that Tisquesusa chooses to engage in that behavior, they will be blocked indefinitely. I hope that's clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope it doesn't come to that because we're hardly in a position to expel prolific expert editors from the site. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, we routinely indef and/or site-ban prolific editors for intractable problematic behavior. That's why we have policies, pillars, noticeboards, administrators, ArbCom, etc. No one on Wikipedia is indispensable, and competence, both behavioral and editorial, is required to remain an editor here. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two comments: (1) regardless of what you think of BHG's approach, personal attacks like these are not justifiable. (2) we should not allow any edit that lowers the quality of article content for the sake of its categories. That lowering the quality or requiring that others fix it makes it easier to make hundreds or thousands of such changes is not a good reason. Categories are useful to some, but secondary to the rest of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa has demonstrated their ability to create categories; see the recently-created Category:Jurassic mammals of South America, Category:Paleocene mammals of Europe and Category:Silurian Sweden. This current dustup seems to have been sparked merely by the addition of one red-linked category; it seems to me that this issue could have been easily solved by the creation of Category:Fossils of Lesotho as a perfectly valid sub-category of Category:Fossils by country. Yes, Lesotho is entirely surrounded by South Africa (see Category:Enclaved countries), but it's a country nonetheless. We do have Category:Paleontology in Lesotho. Tisquesusa, why did you neglect to create that category. If you had promptly done so before BrownHairedGirl ran across the red link as part of her routine patrol, a lot of grief could have been avoided. Cullen328 can we unblock Tisquesusa so that they can respond to me, and participate in this discussion about their behavior? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tisquesusa should not be unblocked. He doesn't need to answer your question (although you are welcome to ask him that on his talk page), and it wouldn't change the fact that his block was deserved and that his pattern of behavior is and has been problematic. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this editor's "pattern of behavior". I disagree with the idea that an F-bomb in an edit summary is a personal attack. Rather, it is an example of incivility. And, yes the community should take incivility more seriously. Tisquesusa if you respond on your talk, I'll copy your response to here. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's pattern of behavior is demonstrated by his block log [85] and BrownHairedGirl's abundant evidence (including prior ANIs) throughout this thread. If you read this entire thread, you'll see that Tisquesusa has a habit of adding non-categories to articles, and knows it shouldn't be done, but does it anyway, and then attacks BHG when the non-categories are removed, so at this point it's a pattern of aggression and abuse on his part. Softlavender (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civility enforcement on Wikipedia is woefully inconsistent. I've had far worse than an f-bomb directed at me and seen the offending editor not given even a mild censure. Civility enforcement usually depends on whether the attacking editor or the attacked editor has higher standing in the community. The offending edit summary that led to this block didn't just happen in a vacuum; the above discussion has made it quite clear that there are deeper issues which need to be resolved. A draconian block issued less than 30 minutes after this thread was filed – and before the reported editor had a chance to respond – sends the message that the personal attack is the only thing that we need to worry about. This is one of my biggest frustrations with how we handle conduct cases. Once one editor is identified as the 'bad guy', there is a bizarre aversion to examining the context for possible mitigating circumstances. We are told that "Editor A's provocation does not excuse Editor B's behavior, and then we usually end up giving Editor A a free pass (except, of course, for cases in which Editor B is too popular to become a 'bad guy'; provocation is the primary topic of discussion in those cases). The kind of comment that led to a two-week block here often leads to absolutely nothing in other cases. I say we lift the block as time served and try to find a resolution for the underlying dispute so that articles are not tagged with red-linked categories and article improvements are not needlessly undone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through the full thread and all the evidence therein? The editor was not blocked merely for an f-bomb, they were blocked for continuing a pattern of aggression and abuse that had already ended up at two ANI threads and numerous repeats of the same deliberate disruptive behavior -- deliberately and knowingly adding non-categories to articles even though they've been reverted, warned, and/or blocked many many many times for the same deliberate disruption. So it's not merely a civility issue, it's a DE issue, and a distinct and ongoing pattern of DE at this point. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Tisquesusa's block log. It contains three blocks for personal attacks and one block for edit warring. Not a single one of those block summaries indicates that the editor was ever specifically blocked for adding non-categories or for any other form of deliberately disruptive editing. You appear to be mistaken. I'd like to get an explanation from Tisquesusa as to why they were adding those non-categories before jumping straight to the conclusion that it was deliberate disruption. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be deliberate if she has been through this with him time and time and time and time again, which she has; see for instance [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that she has repeatedly reverted his edits. However, your assumption that he was deliberately trolling her (as you suggested below) is not the only possible explanation. As I have already said, I prefer to wait for Tisquesusa's explanation instead of trying to be a mind-reader. You are demonstrating another pet peeve that I have with this kind of thread. Once one editor is labelled as the 'bad guy', it becomes open season for attacks on that editor's motives and AGF flies out the window. Yes, Tisquesusa was wrong to personally attack BHG, but that does not mean that we should tar and feather him by assuming that all of his actions stem from ABF motives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved outsider re this, not an admin, and not new to ANI (please do not research archives ;-) ).

Having read this thread, I have this question: why cannot an ANI-discussion lead to a forked admonishing? As in: Party-1 did X so consequence Y, party-2 did P so consequence Q? Example in case. As pointed out by Iaritmioawp about this edit by BHG (which lead to the reported reversal-with-f-bomb). I say this edit by BHG is inacceptible by any editing standard we know. (I would have been be kicked off an automate like twinkle or AWB for sure, especially when doing so repeatedly. 'you are responsible for your own edit'). So irrespective of the judgement on the reported editor, why cannot ANI discuss and conclude: "Inacceptible so Z"? (boomerang is only to turn 180°, not broadening in this sense). -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (+clarification, ping @BrownHairedGirl:. DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think there was any problem with BHG's edit, especially since, as she has explained, she was reverting yet another deliberately disruptive edit (one of dozens of the same type of edits over the past year) by Tisquesusa. That he continues to make those disruptive edits -- adding non-categories to articles -- after all of the warnings, reverts, ANIs, and blocks, can only be because he is trolling BHG. I'd say if it happens again, it's time for an indef. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect: this is missing my point (or: illustrating it). My point is: the BHG edit by itself can be unacceptible (it is, IMO). Then why not judge that as such here? IOW Just as BHG's edits do not nullify (undo, clear, undo, excempts, ...) the issue reported, the reported editor's fault does not nullify the fault in BHG's edit. So why is BHG's behaviour not admonished by itself? That is: without jumping to a "but the other editor did ..."-argument? (this argument never accepted outside of ANI, and rightly so). -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her edit was not unacceptible. There is no reason to admonish her. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that an edit which removed four valid categories, restored a spelling mistake, removed two valid internal links, and undid an improvement to the sentence structure was not unacceptable just because it also happened to get rid of a single red category is an interesting take on the situation. Personally, I disagree with that view as I believe such reversions are at odds with our editing policy which instructs us to "preserve the value that others add" whenever possible. The article was very clearly made worse by the revert. Surely you agree that we should only make edits such that they improve the pages we edit, and that anyone who regularly does the opposite should be asked to stop? Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: same misunderstanding/mistake. I am not interested in opinions about the reported editor. My question is: why is BHG's editing not admonished by itself? That is: irrespective of the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I blocked Tisquesusa last November I left a note saying that any repeat of the behaviour may possibly lead to an indefinite block. That block was also for multiple attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl, which were of such a vile and misogynist nature that they have been revision-deleted; not to mention an edit summary which equated the reversion of his edits to the Holocaust. (If any admin wants to confirm this, they were the edits from 12:47 to 13:38 UTC here). Given that, I believe that Cullen328 has been pretty lenient here. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Tsushima

Report found to concern a content dispute with no problem by the reported editor. If necessary, resolve with an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion ensued here (perma). I'm not going to even attempt to summarize it because I don't think I can in an objective way, so please read the whole thread (perma) before chiming in. It's not long.

The incident itself is arguably not a big deal (and I'm not without fault), and I would have simply moved on if it was virtually any other user. But seeing Hijiri88's overall unwillingness to engage in a collegial discussion, repeated failure to acknowledge points brought forward (re: /iː/ vs /i/, YouGlish) while accusing the other party of the same, and accusation of bad faith even in the face of the other party yielding, just over a month after an indefinite block was lifted, I thought it important to bring it to admins' attention. Nardog (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is bad faith to point out obvious canvassing. After reading the whole thread Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) seemed reasonably patient with a user trying to push original research into the article and then canvassing when they were losing the argument.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pointing out of the canvassing was valid, I own up to that. What I find problematic is his insinuation that I intentionally omitted information, when in fact that piece of information that I allegedly left out was something I'd been mentioning as a factor for my position from the beginning. Could be an honest mistake, but IMHO that speaks to the way he engages in mere content disputes, coupled with wordings like inaccurate (impossible!) in the section title, So, you are not going to address any of my points and just talk past me?, and patently ridiculous, which leave little room for honest, productive discussion and make interaction with him exhausting (which was not the case with OceanHok in the thread, for example). Nardog (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Could be an honest mistake, so I'm going to assume that it is. Nardog (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some rule defining the limits within which editors may brandish their extreme sensitivities as cause for perceived offenses. Encyclopedias are written by grown-ups, preferably, with some minimalist ability to handle the give-and-take of strong disagreement. It's poor form for editors who can't get their way to engage in personal archaeology, seize on some datum that the opposing editor was once banned, and exploit that to cut the Gordian knot by using the tiff to reinstate the ban. Threads like the one cited are small change compared to most I have seen. I don't think anyone, certainly not the general reader, but an accomplished phonologist understands these transcriptions and pertinacious disagreement over such nugatory minima, to invent a pleonasm, is a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of "lookup word"s later, I believe I agree with the above take. At a skim of the discussion, I can't see gross incivility much less personal attacks, although I do mean skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the discussion at Talk:Ghost of Tsushima and there is nothing there that is a CIVIL problem. Please engage with issues raised or leave the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation here, and this is a run-of-the-mill content issue, and the discussion thus far on the talk page has been quite civil. This thread should be closed, and if the editors involved can't reach an agreed-upon consensus, please create an WP:RFC where people can !vote. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tvaughan1

Tvaughan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tvaughan1 registered in 2006 but has fewer than 600 edits. Over 50 of those are at talk:Hunter Biden, and combine the usual mess of "Russia hoax", unreliable sources, belligerence and a few copyright violations revdeleted by EvergreenFir.

Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise", I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked. There are a couple of others at that talk page who are also long on outrage and short on actionable proposals for content, but I expect that will die down in time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged in a good faith effort on the talk page to reach a consensus on WP:NPOV edits to Hunter Biden. Most of my efforts are from months ago and they've been archived. Quoting relevant passages of a newspaper article on a talk page, with attribution should not be considered a copyright violation.I'm not the only Wikipedia editor or person who has pointed out that Hunter Biden is far from WP:NPOV. It's embarrassingly obvious to all but the most partisan. In fact, describing the situation as "meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise"" proves my point. There is a social media and news blackout on that story, and that has become a story in and of itself. Does the laptop not exist? Is it not notable? Are there not reliable sources reporting the existence of the laptop, and corroborating the authenticity of the contents? These facts may be uncomfortable to partisans, but they're widely known and widely reported facts. To defend blocking mention of the laptop Wikipedia editors are citing debunked theories of a Russian disinformation campaign, with no proof whatsoever (at best citing opinions that it must be or could be Russian disinformation). An accurate summary of the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden would mention the concerns of a conflict of interest, at a minimum. Censoring speech isn't the way for Wikipedia to go. The main topic is and has been hotly debated in the US and worldwide, but the article presents only a 1 sided view. This article has been the subject of a number of news stories about Wikipedia's left leaning bias. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, oh do please let us know which reliable sources you think are complaining about our "left wing bias" on this. Breitbart? Redstate? Conservapedia? 4chan? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you're being argumentative. But surely you must have seen this blog post from the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that Tvaughan1 seems to ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy heavily. They have been making edits in the talk page that are up to the line, if not over the line, crossing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy to do so. At Talk:Hunter Biden#Chinese Communist Party they have made these edits by "sourcing" to multiple sites that are considered unreliable and marked in red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including RT (TV network), The Post Millennial, and Breitbart News which "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories" and "should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." I am also concerned about the potential connection to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NationalInterest16 but I had previously asked a different administrator for their advice before JzG posted this discussion here. The specific edit with the bad sourcing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=984976350&oldid=984975986 IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a point on the talk page that it has become an external news story that Wikipedia is biased - specifically because of Hunter Biden, and I linked to a set of articles to make that point to other editors, for their information, on a talk page. I wasn't attempting to cite those articles in a Wikipedia article itself. Accusing me of violating WP:RS for pointing that out is disingenuous. I have no connection to NationalInterest16.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, how can a non-governmental organization ever engage in "censorship"? Please explain your understanding of what constitutes "censorship." Please do not use epithets, perjorative adjectives, or other non-neutral language. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julietdeltalima According to Wikipedia, "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." I agree with that definition.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having standards for reliable sourcing is not censorship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julietdeltalima—you refer to "non-neutral language" but I think it is virtually axiomatic that any time there is a debate there will be some "non-neutral language". Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, Larry Sanger thinks we should be more complimentary towards creationism. He’s tried to replace Wikipedia with something better and failed. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I've been trying to figure this out. Larry Sanger believes that false balance and the use of dubious sources known to fabricate and violate basic journalistic ethical standards are necessary for a "neutral point of view"? He's angry because debunked nonsense and buzzwords for talk radio, like "Solyndra" or "Benghazi", aren't 99% of the coverage on Barack Obama? Who is this Larry Sanger, and why should we care what he rants about on his blog? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry is an important former employee of Wikipedia, who helped set it up, but then left Wikipedia. In recent years he has veered towards accusing Wikipedia of being biased, and going by his Twitter account, he appears to endorse the QAnon theory, the "Antifa is a real problem" theory and some other nutty theories (I think he even claimed that climate change is not caused by humans). 45.251.33.147 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 17:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be Larry Sanger. As 45.251 says, I think his own radicalization towards the right and acceptance of the right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories has led him to believe that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by the left and all of that nonsense. See for yourself, but brace yourself. He seems to think that because we call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories, and don't treat fringe theories the same as we do mainstream scientific opinion, the project is "badly biased". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare—couldn't "acceptance of the right-wing talking points" be restated as nonacceptance of left-wing talking points? Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm referring to things like his QAnon-esque claims around secret child sex trafficking rings etc., which is not "nonacceptance of left-wing talking points". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that he alleged that Wikipedia is a "secret child sex trafficking ring"? I might have missed some of the relevant material but I thought Sanger's objection was to images on this project of young girls in sexually suggestive and revealing poses. But maybe I got that wrong. Can you provide sources for "claims around secret child sex trafficking rings"? Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at Sanger's twitter if you want to wade through some right-wing conspiracy crap and stop trolling here please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He also thought Citizendium would work, so that should tell you what you need to know right there. His bio says he's 52 but if that's really true there's something seriously wrong . He looks like Methuselah [104]. E Eng 05:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sanger offers good constructive criticism of Wikipedia: "There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call 'false balance'. The notion that we should avoid 'false balance' is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.[105] Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Turns out Larry Sanger doesn't know what the word canard means. E Eng 06:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College's department of Philosophy has a lot of explaining to do. —valereee (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger wants people to buy a book called Essays on Free Knowledge? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

So... basically, Sanger is an Almond Joy and not a Mounds? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some kind of performance art. E Eng 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fully investigate this at the moment but can anyone suggest a reason why I should not topic ban Tvaughan1 from American politics for a month per the report above, under WP:ARBAP2? Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I've given Tvaughan1 some advice for how they can best move forward in their situation. Full disclaimer: I have no idea what is going on with this laptop thing or whatever. I think cocaine might have been involved? I'm not sure I want to know exactly. Either way, I have no idea if Tvaughan1 is advocating for something WP:FRINGE or just WP:POV, but I've assumed the latter given the discussion here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see how that works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bet the farm. E Eng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Tvaughan1 I thought I'd start a subsection on this topic. FWIW, the copyvios are because of the amount of copy-pasted text. One to three sentences would be okay. But in the second case you copy-pasted nearly 50% of the article's content. I understand why you did it, and you were right in providing the source and putting things in quotes. But WP:COPYVIO's instructions on fair use directs us to use as little as possible to convey our point. IMO, when you're using more than 10% of a source directly, you're veering into copyvio territory. In the future, please limit copy-paste and use your own summaries (which readers can verify with the linked source). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and I understand WP:COPYVIO but certainly a bit more leeway to quote articles should be given on a talk page, versus pasting quotes into the articles themselves. Given the defensive responses to every attempt I and others made to source facts, I doubted that a paraphrased summary would suffice. But I'll do as you suggest moving forward.Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the extra leeway. E Eng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng Thanks for the feedback. Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—I don't know how you are starting this out by saying "Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden 'October surprise', I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked." Has there been a "meltdown in the conservative media"? Has there been an "October surprise"? These are expressions of your political views. You are imposing your own lens on current events. Why would Tvaughan1 "end up blocked"? Certainly not as a consequence of the differing political views that you each have presented. I should think that they would be blocked only if they are found to be severely in violation of our policies. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has in fact been a meltdown in conservative media. And yes, there's an October Surprise. "The Times reported last January that Burisma had been hacked by the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html

I think the only way to describe your reply to JzG is "willfully obtuse." IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Reliable Source on this: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/24/trump-maga-hunter-biden-conspiracy-432046 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it does count as wilfully obtuse. It's pretty clear that the conservative media bubble is telling a very consistent, though largely counterfactual, story. It's like the "Russia hoax": a walled garden of sources discuss Russian interference in the 2016 election as if the problems with the Steele dossier somehow invalidate not only the entire Mueller report, but also the contemporaneous findings of intelligence agencies throughout the West, the subsequent bipartisan committee findings in both Senate and House, and the numerous convictions and indictments. There's a clear Trumpist narrative promoted by loyalists, and a separate factual narrative in the reality-based media. Reports this weekend show the hard news reporters at the WSJ, for example, contradicting the opinion writers, exactly as they do on climate change. If you get your news from the conservative bubble, you've been told that mainstream is the opposite of conservative, and that all mainstream sources are biased against Trump because they do not reflect the faux-reality you're being fed. Of course anyone who is not capable of understanding that has a serious problem here because we know that the opposite of conservative is liberal and the opposite of mainstream is fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Joe Biden would say, c'mon. You are expected to maintain at least a veneer of objectivity, JzG. Now you blithely refer to the "conservative media bubble". How is this unlike your reference below to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist".[106] If you are going to conduct yourself like this on a Talk page aren't also prone to creating articles that are skewed to your political interests? Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop we're also expected to understand the difference between objectivity and false balance. Reality is not the average of mainstream sources and media bubble bullshit. We don't split the difference between reality-based sources and left-wing anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda, and we don't split the difference between mainstream reporting and the Breitbart narrative on this either. Mainstream sources are very clear: nothing about "laptopgate" stacks up. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two most egregious quotes as I see them:

[23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [107]
[22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [108]

More is provided in the collapsebox below, which was the OP until User:Liz realerted me to the fact that the longer something here is, the less likely people are to read it. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed evidence with diffs

Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments (diffs posted for all).

My apologies that it is so long. There are just so many of them.

Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem.
- [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [109] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.)
Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus.
- See WT:ELEM#Noble metals for the objections I raised. In spite of this, and User:EdChem's offer I am wondering whether hatting this and starting a new thread on the content in the article, perhaps with a summary of the points made above, might be a good way to reboot this conversation [110], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS?
Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute:
- [20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [111]
- [19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [112]
Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after User:EdChem reminded us on 20 Oct that this is not appropriate in a content discussion. [113] This reminder was because I am not entirely blameless here, having been aggrieved by the comment immediately above and responded more harshly than I should have, but I accepted EdChem's statements after he told us to stop and have been trying to leave behavioural issues out of it there. In fact I think it got worse.
- [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [114] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.)
Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others:
- [23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [115]
  - (For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general. Now, I did make a mistake; the parentheses should have lasted until "in general", because Smokefoot's 2016 concerns were about the article Heavy metals – they may be read at Talk:Heavy_metals#Shakey_foundations – and it's me who sees them as applying to his approach in general rather than Smokefoot. This aside, which I have corrected, I fail to see what is "libellous" about this criticism of mine. However, if consensus here is that my statement has gone too far, then I am completely willing to refactor it; I want to follow WP norms.)

What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh.

Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Note that my qualms with his edits to Noble metal raised above were partly about whether the sources present really supported what they were citing; in this context I find something else problematic. I am unsure about whether this is the right place, but User:Games of the world mentioned it in the previous ANI thread, so I will work under the temporary assumption that it is pending anyone else who is well-versed in these areas of WP telling me that it isn't.

Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources.
- [22 Oct] @Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up. Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on. Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [116]
  - @Sandbh: And why should we consider what has not been publicly released when it is by definition not verifiable? Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [117]
    - @Double sharp:. Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY. How do you see that? Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [118]

I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread.

I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. My profound apologies to all the regulars here who suffered through the previous threads and who would most likely have preferred it if they heard nothing else from us again. I understand.

Almost everyone relevant to this who has participated previously in discussion of this matter has been pinged above, so I only have User:Softlavender left to ping. I can't thank her enough for pitching in in the previous incredibly long thread (and I am truly sorry that my opening statement is this long – that's why I restricted myself to one or at most two examples per bullet point), and I hope against hope that some way of solving this that does not involve sanctions is possible. Sandbh surely must have a vast library of sources, judging from his previous contributions, and his perspective would be very valuable if he was persuaded to respect policy. Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size concerns and shortening the OP

Below is a copy of the original report by User:Double sharp, reduced in size by me. I have removed quotes, details and longer decriptions (esp. in the examples). All diffs are kept. No text (but for ... ellipses) was added. I assume this is acceptible, but I can be teached. Double sharp. HTH -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original report, reduced size

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. User:Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments.

Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, WP:IAR [119] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.)

Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals. [120], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS?

Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [121][122]

[123] ... I am not entirely blameless here, ... [124] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.)

Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [125] (For reference, what I wrote was ... Now, I did make a mistake; ... This aside, which I have corrected, ...)

What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh.
Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions.

Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [126] [127][128]

I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI[129] even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here.
User:Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yeah, that's nice. I only kept the quotes in my OP because two of them seemed really egregious: the one saying "I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI" and the one mentioning Trump supporters. Maybe those two can be left, the others remaining as diffs only. Thanks for your help, BTW! Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to be complete, Double sharp, but the fact is that the longer your complaint is on a noticeboard, the less likely it is that uninvolved editors and admins will choose to read it. Can you summarize the problem you are having with the editor in two sentences? Two medium-long sentences? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Here's my try to summarise the thing in one sentence: despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. I hope that's better; sorry for making it so long at first. Double sharp (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That actually helps a lot, Double sharp, thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To hopefully draw more attention to this, I have copied this brief summary up to the top. Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the report

(ec) re Double sharp Ouch. My reply to the issue later.

Circumstances I want to note: being a long post is OK to me, bc it describes the complicated behaviour patterns that indeed might have an ANI angle. I note that EdChem, who contributed to the earlier ani-posts in this, has stepped in WT:ELEMENTS to contribute to content discussions and giving example of good talkhabits. Re my own contributions: I myself took a low profile (low activity) on the page. I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [130][131]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure suggestion, to simplify this thread: Double sharp (Ds) raises two problems: "behaviour" and "... behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources" (anchor). Make it 2 threads then? One on a "WP:ANI-for-source-handling" page? (Maybe EdChem can help in this). Anyway, let's not mix up these and give both due attention. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DePiep: I consider it to just be important that the issue is looked at; anything that will give it better attention I support. If you and uninvolved editors here think it's best to split the thread, possibly to a separate venue where source handling is supposed to be discussed, I have zero objections. Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - 100%. I only wanted to note that these are 1. different topics in the report, and 2. each need their own attention. (Misunderstanding might be from my question: is ani the right place to do GF BAD source handling issues, or is that a content/RS/some-otherANI/... thing?). Some split would also prevent getting things mixed up into confusion, here. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been at WP for several days and am disappointed to find this back at ANI.
I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be. Several posts at WT:ELEM feel to me more like analysis of RS to support / justify his view rather than summary of RS, and thus wander into OR territory. This diff where Sandbh refers to unpublished insider information is absolutely not a basis for encyclopaedic content based on RS. I am concerned that Sandbh is heading for a topic ban as some of his contributions belong in the primary literature; they are not summaries of it. There is a behavioural / conduct issue here and some advice to Sandbh would be welcome.
Double sharp notes Sandbh's not following my suggestion on the noble metals article. I was disappointed by his choice but also recognise that he was totally free to continue editing / pursue a different approach. He did restore material that Double sharp had removed but with changes meant to address concerns that Ds had raised – so this is a content dispute, IMO, at this time.
I share Double sharp's concerns that some of Sandbh's comments needlessly personalise disagreements / issues, such as by attributing motives to others' posts rather than dealing with their content, and are worded in ways that might give offense. Certainly I object to comparing a disagreement between science educated editors about a science topic to dealing with the rusted-on views of Trump supporters, but ANI's history of dealing with civility issues is not inspiring. So, there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue. I don't want to call for or support a topic ban as I hope that one will not be necessary, but I do fear that that's where Sandbh is heading. Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science.
Double sharp has been responding well to guidance and I am optimistic that ELEM can work cooperatively and collaboratively.
I share DePiep's concern about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, for which I also accept some of the blame.
I ask all contributors from ELEM to consider carefully whether any contribution to this thread is adding new material to help ANI-ites to understand the issues... and if it is not, to reflect on whether that contribution is needed. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to hopefully draw more attention to this, I have collapsed my OP and simply taken out the two quotes from it that I find by far the most egregious. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis of the report. (Had to be careful over being short; might contain repetition re original report). In section/subthread WT:ELEM#Noble metals (since 19 Oct, size 40k):

Sandbh about editors behaviour not content

[132] your "no category" agenda: having an "agenda"? Sandbh casting bad faith. [133][134] warnings by EdChem. [135] (1st paragraph) Sandbh not retracting, reconfirming instead.

[136] With my best German accent: ... verboten!: BF, attack, again.

[137] A little bit of homework would have ... I am not impressed snarky, talking down, cynical at best.

[138] You know nothing about ... (in an other subthread)

POLICY denouncing and ignoring

[139] edited the article under discussion, [140] "is disputed" says Ds, [141] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus.

[142] I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI: Rejects POLICY explicitly. (Fact: ANI is about behaviour, talkpages about content; Sandbh conflates these two and then claims this is a reason to ignore policies).

From subthread WT:ELEM#OR, SYNTH and DUE (18 Oct):

[143] I know more than I can disclose: ignores WP:V.

[144] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all.

[145] In writing all of this I realise the irony of myself quoting WP policy: not irony, but contradicting and cherrypicking.

[146] (17 July, Archive): rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR.

[147] WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies).

Responses

Responses by Double sharp (Ds) and EdChem, there are many, I mostly skipped here. Researching this, I do sense serious attitude and actions by Ds to correct the flow, also signs of desperation, resulting in this ANI report. There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [148][149] (is back now).

Conclusions

Sandbh behavioural issues are present. Attacking other editors, introducing bad faith.

Policy denials, present in writing and in edits, derail the discussion and so far resulted in unresolved editwarring (articles in bad state).

This behaviour is disruptive, attacking and editwarring editing. Maybe not worth ANI by itself, but in a broader sense it is spoiling productive discussion, preventing advancement of the project, at the cost of other editor's time, input and GF.

I therefor suggest Sandbh be topicbanned (WP:ELEMENTS) for one or two months, so that the discussions can be concluded in a sound way.

-DePiep (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support tban - I think EdChem has a good summation above - By my count this is ANI #3? I had a feeling by the end of ANI #1 that we'd end up here. My read of all three ANIs and the discussions linked therein (which is OMG like 75,000 words) is that while pretty much everyone involved has made some mistake somewhere, and thus no one is blameless and no one is solely responsible, everyone involved has made a real effort to (a) modify their own approach and (b) work towards a compromise with others, except, unfortunately, Sandbh, who, as can be seen in the two quotes at the top of this thread (which I will paraphrase as: "To hell with consensus, I will do what I want because I know what's best"), does not appear open to modifying their own approach or working towards a compromise with others. My read is that at this point, Sandbh's participation is getting in the way of all the other editors completing a resolution of this group of disputes. I think removing Sandbh from the topic area is what's best for all the other editors involved in the topic area. It's only fair that we give the other editors some help here, because the only thing more painful than reading 75,000 words of people arguing is writing it. I also think it'll be good for Sandbh to edit in another topic area, with different editors, long enough to forget all these conflicts, and then come back in the future and have a fresh start. Le v!v ich 01:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder by Sandbh I hadn't intended to comment. Since an uninvolved editor has indicated support for a sanction, I'll address the various concerns raised here as soon as I can, subject to RL obligations. I regret the need to do so as this will increase the current ~4,200 thread word count. That said, I expect it will be in my interests, and possibly benefit interested WP:ELEM regulars and semi-regulars, to seek to give a fair account of my perceptions of recent events. Sandbh (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I intend to start drafting my fair account now, subject to RL obligations. Thank you YBG and Double sharp, as colleagues, for your patience in waiting for me to do so. I don't know how long this will take; reading through the thread just now it appears to contain ~70 allegations concerning my conduct. Thank you Andrew for your RFC suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(minor TWIKITEXT fix: YBG = User:YBG, Andrew User:Andrew -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Preliminaries: Here are some contextual policies and statements I feel are relevant to the thread. I'll be referencing these in my fair account.

[C1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

"Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

[C2] From WP:NOR:

"This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."

[C3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:

"General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors."

[C4] Ditto:

"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."

[C5] From the WP:BOOMERANG essay:

"Responders: Investigate fully"

[C6] From Lev!vich on Oct 11 [150]:

"I was going to close this with the following closing statement: …this thread is over 27,000 words in 14 subheadings, making up about 1/3 of WP:ANI. If any admin or other uninvolved editor wants to read it and close this with action, please feel free to revert my close, but I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time… If there are conduct issues that repeat and help is sought from uninvolved editors (e.g. admin), perhaps consider requesting 20 minutes of help (e.g. by limiting yourself to ~1,000 words in the ANI report) instead of requesting many hours of help (27,000 words). Lev!vich 03:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

[C7] From WP:ASPERSIONS:

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Arbitration Committee principle: Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[C8] This post by DePiep, on Oct 10 [151], to a previous WP:ANI thread:

"You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."

[C9] This following statement by me addresses the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI:

DePiep has been blocked on 13–15 previous occasions, for incivility and disruptive conduct [152].

Euryalus indefinitely placed DePiep under several editing restrictions in May 2018 [153]; namely [154]:

DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

On Sep 27th I filed a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [155]. I summarised the behaviour and provided relevant w\links, dates and times, but no diffs as I didn't know I had to. After I was asked to provide diffs, I replied as follows: "Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs." [156] Subsequently the report was closed by Salvio on Sep 28th, on the grounds that, "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented."[157]

On Sep 29th, R8R lodged a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [158]. It was in this thread that DePiep posted the hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment [Item C8, above] aimed at R8R. The thread was closed on Oct 12th, by El_C with, "no action with some mild warnings." [159]

In the above context, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".

[C10] The following brief statement by me addresses my WP history and conduct:

editor for nine years and WP:ELEM member for eight years;
18,000+ edits: quality, not quantity;
never been blocked or formally sanctioned or received (AFAICR) a warning from an admin;
I behaved like a bull in a china shop wrt to my Sep 27 WP:ANI complaint alleging misconduct by DePiep;
I posted an apology about this conduct at WP:AN, on Sep 28 [160]
I have three FA/TFA: metalloid; heavy metals; astatine (with R8R);
Currently working on noble metal: before [161]; after.

[C11] From the closure report to ANI 2 [162]:

"…there has been some heated language and tone in this thread ("jerk" here, "fucking" there), but nothing that I would consider even coming close to being beyond the pale. This sort of thread, with its original post and following ever-compounding length shows the limitation of of this forum…Warnings: DePiep, don't warn other editors that you will block them (you can't, and even if you could, you would not be allowed to per INVOLVED). Don't even say that you will have them blocked. Say that you will report their edits to admins for review…Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting what I hope to be a fair account of my actions, in response to ~70+ allegations

Double sharp’s allegations and concerns

1. I am “still discussing editors rather than edits”

That's not right. I’m still discussing content. I've been discussing some editors, out of desperation, after citing innumerable reliable sources to no avail. I see my colleage R8R has likewise felt the need to discuss the conduct of another WP:ELEM member [163]. After four years of inaction on the part of the other editor concerned, that is reasonable, IMO, and I support R8R in making those comments.

2. (sometimes to my mind going way too far)

You’re entitled to your opinion. Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my item C9 above, I suggest the few comments you are referring to are relatively benign.

3. I “show…zero interest in following policy

I never said I had zero interest in “following” policy. Rather, I have zero interest in having a festival of policy-citing within our project. I note you are in breach of the ArbCom principle at item C7 above, re WP:ASPERSIONS.

4. I continue…to refer to unpublished sources.

So? Per item C2 above, from WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Yes, I do refer to some unpublished sources, within the WP:ELEM talk page, based on my contacts within the chemistry community.

As I said, I do this, “Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY.”[164]

There is also item C1 which I set out above, “From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page: "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

5. The 1st most egregious quote as DS saw it:

[23 Oct] "No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here."

I confirm what I said. I edit a lot, and generally provide citations from the literature, and I discuss a lot at WP:ELEM, frequently with accompanying citations from the literature. IMO, and experience, ANI is the Wild West of due process. That's presumably why item C3 above suggests not going to WP:ANI, and if you do, it will be like war. In my experience of WP:ANI there is no surety of due process, and there is no WP policy that I'm aware of that sets out what editors, who raise things at WP:ANI, can expect. WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.

6.The 2nd most egregious quote as DS saw it:

[22 Oct] "Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot.

Please Double Sharp, if you are going to cherry pick what I wrote, and join parts of two separate edits I made, then copy and paste the code, not the on-screen text. In this case the w/link to selective perception, behind "perceptual filtering" was left out. I put it their for a reason and have now reinstated it.

Briefly, the subject quote was a general comment about “not liking” scientific terminology used in the literature and deciding not to use any it on that basis, rather than, making a decision, within an encyclopaedia, based on scientific usage. The link to perceptual filtering explains the phenomenon. I made the comment after citing innumerable sources, without success.

As EdChem (whom DS likes to refer to) wisely counselled, "The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[165] Ditto, as I said, "…all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them."

6A. "I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread."

I addressed Games of the world allegations. [166]

Games of the world has their own block record to reflect upon.[167] They recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.[168]

In my view, comments by Games of the World, within WP:ANI, have no credibility. Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. “Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem.“

While I respect WP policy, understand it, and strive to uphold it, and occasionally fall short of it due to exasperation with the conduct of one or more WP:ELEM colleagues, I'm not interested in it. As far as IAR goes I fall back on item C1, as cited above, which asks WP: ELEM members to not adhere to WP rules and guidelines too strictly (linking to WP:IAR) in the interests of building a better encyclopaedia.

8. “Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus.”

Per item C4—"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."—this was a content issue; as such, it merits no further comment. In any event, EdChem made a suggestion which he acknowledged I was under no obligation nor expectation to act on [169].

9. “Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute:

[20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [170]

[19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [171]“

No evidence has been provided for “non-stop” attributions, in breach of the ArbCom principle at item C7 above.

The 20 Oct comment was made out of exasperation with the conduct of R8R after I cited innumerable sources. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”

The 19 Oct comment was a courtesy post to Double sharp, as a fellow project member, rather than a revert without warning. He had a choice to add a citation needed tag to the article in question. He chose to instead delete the content involved and made no attempt to improve the article. His "no category" agenda is something DS has been pursuing within WP:ELEM.

10. “Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others:

[23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [172]

(For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general.”

Yes, I regard Double sharp’s allegations to my approach of article writing “in general” to be unfounded, having zero evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, and effectively trashing my reputation. Double Sharp's concerns with my approach of article writing in general are inconsistent with my WP history, as set out in item C10, above, including three FAs.

11 “ Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources.”

Per item C2 above, taken from WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." In this context, I have nothing to account for wrt Double sharp's concern.

I believe this essentially concludes my attempted fair account of my actions in response to Double sharp’s concerns.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep’s concerns
Aa a general observation, I regard DePiep's selective contributions as an example of sour grapes and cherry-picking, following the ANI I filed against him, which was followed by R8R's ANI against him.

Other readers can, and will no doubt, make up their own minds.

1. "I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [144][145]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus."

Yes, we talk about a lot of things on the WP:ELEM talk page. So what? I can keep track of the discussions. Double sharp does too. I suggest you are spreading yourself across too many projects to be able to focus on any one of them with sufficient depth.

2. "I also have issues with his use of sources"

You have provided no specific information.

3. "[173] “You know nothing about ...” (in an other subthread)"

Let me add the context to this extract:

"@Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up."

Yes, in my opinion, judging by what I know of DS’s RL background, and other posts at WP:ELEM, DS has shown zero awareness of the organisation politics that go on in large entities like IUPAC. I was speaking from decades of experience in working in such organisations, and my contacts within the chemistry community.

4. "[174] edited the article under discussion, [175] "is disputed" says Ds, [176] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus."

That’s right, I edited the article as any editor is entitled to do so. As a courtesy I alerted DS that I reserved my right to revert one or more of his edits. Only after I did my research, and found citations in the literature, did I revert. There was no consensus needing to be established in the first place. DePiep likes to cite no-consensus in response to edits he does not like, when there was never a need to establish consensus in the first place.

I further note what EdChem had to say, which you chose to ignore, and as I quoted elsewhere in this thread:

"Double sharp notes Sandbh's not following my suggestion on the noble metals article. I was disappointed by his choice but also recognise that he was totally free to continue editing / pursue a different approach. He did restore material that Double sharp had removed but with changes meant to address concerns that Ds had raised – so this is a content dispute, IMO, at this time."

5. "[177] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all."

This selective extract has no basis in fact. Here’s some more of what I wrote:

"I’m more interested in WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia. The quality of an encyclopedia doesn't rest on quoting WP policy to one another. Much more relevant is Wikipedia has no firm rules:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles…"."

"This is particularly relevant, I feel, in chemistry, where there is much fuzziness not helped by the disinterest of the IUPAC, when it comes to terminology. Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy."

I further point to item C1, above:

From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

"Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

6. [178] (17 July, Archive): “rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives”. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR."

Your conclusion has no basis in fact. I made no claim to authority. Rather I set out what I can bring to the project. And, yes, the realities of operating within a project invariable involve dealing with person opions, and their associated perspectives. but that’s life.

On "skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR" you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

7. "[179] “WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace” ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies)."

That is another selective, out of context, quote. Here’s some more of what I said in that post:

"Thanks for your interest. Anybody can improve an article anytime they like. As you can see YBG has already taken a keen interest in my efforts to do so. I'm not doing anything different to the approach I took to metalloid and heavy metals. There is no controversy of any significance as I have improved the article consistent with the approach I took to the PTM article, the metal article, and the nonmetal article."

"I don't understand your reference to rolling out "sweeping" change into the mainspace. WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace. The first improvement I made was to restore (and improve, with citations) the electrode potential table that you deleted. The second improvement was to restore (and improve, with citations) the colour coded periodic table that you deleted. As you said on the talk page, "…I remove the text pending actual citations that use this as a benchmark. For similar reasons I also remove the periodic table." I have now addressed your "pending actual citations" suggestion."

8. "There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [180][181] (is back now)."

As I recall, DS temporarily left the project due to, among other things, his failed ANI notification; and failed RFC re the composition of group 3; and his failure at the WP:ELEM talk page to convince me to support his perspective on group 3. I recall he said our philosophical differences, which arose in the WP:ELEM talk page, were causing him undue stress.

9. "I therefor suggest Sandbh be topicbanned (WP:ELEMENTS) for one or two months, so that the discussions can be concluded in a sound way. -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)"

A TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem’s concerns

1. "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"

EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my item C2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however.

2. "I share Double sharp's concerns that some of Sandbh's comments needlessly personalise disagreements / issues, such as by attributing motives to others' posts rather than dealing with their content, and are worded in ways that might give offense."

Yes, I can get snarky at times, as I’m sure other editors can, after providing innumerable citations from the literature, and then running into the "I don’t like it" phenomenon, which arises from the subconscious auto-pilot of perceptual filters. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”

Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my item C9 above, I suggest the few comments EdChem is referring to are relatively benign.

3. "Certainly I object to comparing a disagreement between science educated editors about a science topic to dealing with the rusted-on views of Trump supporters, but ANI's history of dealing with civility issues is not inspiring."

Omitted by EdChem is the "(no offence intended)" caveat I included with my original comment [182]. We have it here in Oz, with rusted on supporters of the Coalition, and rusted on supporters of the Labor party. Everyone knows that politics hinges upon speaking to the swinging voters and parties in the middle. I note EdChem’s comment about ANI’s record of dealing with incivility.

I used to do this too, i.e. basing some of my decisions within WP:CHEM on what I did or did not like, rather than accepting that science sometimes produces ugly outcomes, and reporting that.

As EdChem commented, ""The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[183] Bravo!

4. "…there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"

Per my item C2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

5. "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."

No evidence has been provided for these implied observations about my conduct, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I have noted repeatedly, per WP:OR, the policy of no OR does not apply to talk pages.

6. "I share DePiep's concern about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, for which I also accept some of the blame."

I have no concerns about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, given the nature of some of the topics we discuss there, including the fuzzy nature of chemistry.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lev!vich's concerns

1. "I think EdChem has a good summation above."

You’re entitled to your opinion, and to express it.

More relevant factors to consider are that core members of WP:ELEM have been such members for nearly ten years, whereas EdChem, who is not a member of the project, has been participating for a number of weeks. I regard his perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial.

You may wish to consider my response to EdChem’s summation.

2. "By my count this is ANI #3?"

So? I filed the first ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. R8R raised the second ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. Double sharp filed the third ANI re my alleged conduct.

3. "My read of all three ANIs and the discussions linked therein (which is OMG like 75,000 words) is that while pretty much everyone involved has made some mistake somewhere, and thus no one is blameless and no one is solely responsible, everyone involved has made a real effort to (a) modify their own approach and (b) work towards a compromise with others, except, unfortunately, Sandbh, who, as can be seen in the two quotes at the top of this thread (which I will paraphrase as: "To hell with consensus, I will do what I want because I know what's best"), does not appear open to modifying their own approach or working towards a compromise with others."

That is an unfounded and sweeping generalisation. The first two ANI’s were about DePiep, not me. The third, which is unconnected to the first two, is about me. Ditto your paraphrase, which unjustifiably misrepresents what I said. What I have said is that I have no interest in WP policy, nor in having a festival of WP policy citing within WP:ELEM. As is said, I respect WP policy.

4. "My read is that at this point, Sandbh's participation is getting in the way of all the other editors completing a resolution of this group of disputes."

There is no "group of disputes". ANI 1 was closed, with no action. ANI 2 was closed with some mild warnings. ANI 3 is unrelated to ANI 3.

5. "I think removing Sandbh from the topic area is what's best for all the other editors involved in the topic area."

In my view, including in the context of item [Cll] above, I suggest such a removal is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender's concerns

1. "It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [184] [185] (and also from one in August [186]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch."

You're entitled to your opinion, and to express it.

It's easy to throw mud; some of it well stick, never mind its veracity.

The 4 August 2014 ANI "Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh" was lodged by Double sharp [187]. Among other things it included allegations of WP:OR on the WP:ELEM talk page. As noted by me, WP:OR does not apply to a talk page. Since Double sharp’s concerns were deemed to be content related [188], Double sharp advised he had withdrawn the report[189]. The WP:ANI was closed on the same day [190].

Note Double sharp's "obsession" with my use of sources.

The context for DS's 4 Aug ANI filing was an 8,000 word RFC initiated by him 20 Jul 2020, re matters we had been discussing at WP:ELEM. [191] I objected to way this RFC had been put, including, "…other unacceptable behaviour alluded to on his part, including his hack work on our periodic table article; removing some of my citation supported content; slandering me; swearing; and effectively demanding I provide a falsifiable hypothesis when I was under no obligation to do so."[192]

The RFC came to nothing after another editor from WP:CHEMISTRY posted:

Extremely strong oppose (I have to make this prominent to balance and counteract the supports above) Just about all the arguments are irelevant and we should just use the traditional form eith La and Ac under Y. If needed we can use the place holder * or **." [the caps and bolding are from the comment as posted] [193]

DS subsequently posted, to me, "Now I have stepped back and thought about it. I have gone overboard, and I apologise for it."[194]

The RFC was closed with this comment, "Per consensus to abandon this trainwreck of a thread as-is. (non-admin closure)" [195]

As for allegedly being "by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch" [italics added], I'm not the editor in the bunch who has 13 to 15 previous blocks and who is under threat of an indefinite ban, for the slightest transgression.

Nothing came out of the last two recent ANI filings Softlavender referred to, in respect of me.

2. "He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines."

For my cooperative behaviour, I've been discussing matters of mutual interest with fellow WP:ELEM members, Double sharp and YBG [196], and with EdChem [197]. WP:ELEM member DePiep recently asked me for some advice concerning another matter of mutual interest to WP:ELEM members and I said I would try and put something together for him [198]. I’ve been working on the noble metal article. WP:CHEMISTRY member Smokefoot, a chemist who works with noble metals, provided some helpful commentary [199] and I incorporated and responded to, his concerns[200].

In terms of progressing some of the content issues at WP:ELEM, there is a kernel of agreement amongst different combinations of us [201], but not agreement to proceed. I put forward a compromise solution in one matter [202]. Neither of the other parties were prepared to move a little bit. On another matter I have put forward about 28 alternatives [no diffs here; anybody from WP:ELEM can shoot or salute me on this one]. Nobody will move. For R8R I attempted to reach a win-win solution with him [203]; he was not interested, and remains so. On Double sharp's no category agenda, I put forward a hybrid solution to him, here. While nobody else in WP:ELEM expressed an intersted in DS' agenda, DS did recently express a passing interest in my proposal [no diff as I've forgotten where DS posted this comment].

As for your allegation concerning my dishonesty, you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. I object in the strongest possible terms to your unfounded allegation that I am not honest. Where is your evidence?

On taking guidance or instruction, and following policy or guidelines, I learnt many lessons after my ANI re DePiep, and I apologised for my bull in a china shop conduct, that I showed at that time. While I have no interest in policy, or unasked for guidance from people who assume they know better than me, I follow it, according to the advice given at WP:ELEM, per item C1 above, namely:

"*Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

Yes, I have many good days, and a few bad days now and then, especially after repeatedly banging my head against the wall within WP:ELEM no matter how many citations I provide, and despite the advice of Ed:Chem to focus on what the science is telling us. But that's life, and I have to navigate my way through the nature of politics within a WP project like WP:ELEM. At least I know the nature of the WP:ELEM landscape, and the views of members. And this will guide me in putting forward at least one RFC to the wider WP community. WP:ELEM is a very small project, and I feel an RFC will be appropriate in the case I have in mind, following extensive discussion within the project, and over ten years of WP:ELEM history behind it.

On taking advice, I will be following your good advice regarding how to start an RFC. [204]

3. "In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop"."

You’ve inappropriately chosen to take what I said out of context. I object to your WP:INCIVIL behaviour in this regard. Here is the full post of mine, as posted to WP:AN, concerning my behaviour in ANI 1 [205]:

"I apologise for acting like a bull in a china shop

with respect to my allegations of incivil behaviour by User:DePiep. I'll discuss my remaining concerns with the individual editors involved. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I reject your assertion. I may get snarky from time to time with WP:ELEM colleagues, after beating my head against a wall, never mind how many citations from the literature I provide. I suggest this is a far away from being a bull in a china shop. Per my item C8 above, and DePiep's hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment addressed at R8R, namely, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R.", which result in nothing other than a mild warning to DePiep, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".

4. "Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked)"

In my view, including in the context of item [Cll] above, a TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread;, and is inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME; and your reputation, from what I recall reading, as a respected editor [206].

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew’s comment
Oppose sanction – suggest RfC

1. "The issue seems to be a detail of the layout and colour scheme for the periodic table."

Yes, that is essentially the content issue, in varying aspects. I’ve expressed my views about these at the WP:ELEM talk page, including some instances of snarkiness. The main contention, according to Double sharp is that I should not be allowed to discuss OR on a talk page, when in fact WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Any of the content issues of contention within WP:ELEM could be put to an RFC at any time.

--- Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YBG's concerns

1. "I will reiterate what I said in a previous round, that at ELEM, DePiep, whose past behavior has been highly objectionable, has significantly improved of late, save for one or two unfortunate outbursts."

"Sandbh's recent behavior, in contrast, is worse than in the past."

Outside of WP:ELEM, my editing speaks for itself. Inside WP:ELEM I rarely become snarky, as a proportion of my contributions. I don’t know what YBG is referring to as he has never, AFAICR, raised any concerns within WP:ELEM. If I ever become something more than snarky, then you will know about it as I will post something along the lines of DePiep's foul-mouthed attack against R8R, in this very forum. I've never done so during my time as an editor, and never intend to.

2. "But a tban is not my desired outcome."

"What I hope to see is Sandbh's recognition of a need to change his editing and discussion behavior, and a commitment to do so."

If he responds defensively without recognizing a need to change, particularly if it entails a huge volume of text, then I will sadly have to recognize that my preferred outcome is unlikely to occur."

I was dismayed that YBG appeared to to judge me before I had an opportunity to give a fair account of my actions. Further, that there seems to be some kind of limit in his view as to what length I can go to defend myself. It is easy for others to raise 70+ allegations, a significant number without evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. It is quite another thing to attempt to address such allegations.

I believe my behaviour falls within the bounds of rhetoric, which deals with the need to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences—a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics, as our article puts it. While mine and Double sharp's philosophies may differ, I have never attacked DS the person, nor has he me, although we have attacked one another's philosophies, which is an aspect of rhetoric. Indeed, while we have our differences we agree in other matters.

That said, I regret any offence unintentionally given to WP:ELEM colleagues.

I’m happy to consider a request to change my behaviours at any time in response to specific, justified, reasonable concerns. I’d expect the same courtesy to be extended to me, if I have concerns about the conduct of colleagues.

At the same time I don’t expect to be an angel 100% of the time nor do I expect colleagues to be paradigms of conduct at all times. I have a reasonable tolerance for snarkiness. In nine years of editing I’ve experienced intolerable behaviour from just two editors, one who has retired; the other was DePiep, on three occasions, the second of which resulted in my first ever WP:ANI report, and the follow on report by R8R.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh's conclusions

1. Item C11, from the closure report to ANI 2, speaks to a lot of my conclusions:

"Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on"

2. Among WRP:ELEM members, Double sharp is not looking for a sanction (from what I can see), neither is YBG. I'm ignoring DePiep 's selective contribution on the grounds of sour grapes, cherry-picking, and bias, following the ANI I filed against him, which was followed by R8R's ANI against him. R8R seems to be staying out of it.

3. Many of Double sharp's concerns arise from his allegations of OR on my part. As noted, WP:OR does not apply to discussions on talk pages.

4. As to my conduct, I defer to item 1 above. Harden up people.

5. Per Andrew, the RFC option is available to all.

6. My responses to Lev!vich and Softlavender speak for themselves.

--- to be continued Sandbh (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN of Sandbh. It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [207] [208] (and also from one in August [209]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch. He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines. In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop" [210]. Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked). Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by another ELEM editor I will reiterate what I said in a previous round, that at ELEM, DePiep, whose past behavior has been highly objectionable, has significantly improved of late, save for one or two unfortunate outbursts. Sandbh's recent behavior, in contrast, is worse than in the past. But a tban is not my desired outcome. What I hope to see is Sandbh's recognition of a need to change his editing and discussion behavior, and a commitment to do so. If he responds defensively without recognizing a need to change, particularly if it entails a huge volume of text, then I will sadly have to recognize that my preferred outcome is unlikely to occur. I am waiting to see how he fills out his placeholder above. YBG (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sanction – suggest RfC I have read through the discussion. The issue seems to be a detail of the layout and colour scheme for the periodic table. This is naturally of great interest to chemists – an issue comparable with the IAU definition of planet which caused Pluto to lose its former status. The trouble seems to be that IUPAC has not come to a conclusion and so the matter is not settled. As and when IUPAC does so, the issue will presumably then be settled here too. In the meantime, some provisional version is required. The discussion about this seems to be reasonably civil and Sandbh's part in it seems acceptable. The main thing that seems to be missing is a mechanism for arriving at a conclusion. We have such a process – WP:RFC – in which specific questions are put, discussed and then a formal close is made so that everyone can move on, There has been some talk of an RFC and Sandbh has indicated that they would accept the outcome. A particular obstacle seems to be that Double Sharp is too busy in RL, "I have drafted a second RFC on the group 3 dispute. I may still post it for the others who have talked about this, because after over seven months of arguing, they deserve an RFC. ... Since the RL time and situation-inflaming issues apply even to starting an RFC: I will not start one." We should encourage someone else to step up and start the RfC. In getting this done, the parties should please consider the following good example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Off-topic. Whatever this is and whoever posted it, it's not helping. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.
— Richard Feynman, "Los Alamos From Below", Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)

Re-revert by Softlavender. I reverted [211] the above hatnote by Softlavender, adding the following reason:

"This post formed a part of Andrew's contribution. As he said, it's an example of a decision-making process, not too dissimilar from a RFC. As such, it is on-topic."

Softlavender has now reverted my revert. Seemingly this is in breach of WP:BRD:

"These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block."

I intend to discuss this matter with Softlavender at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: In fact, that information about my level of busyness IRL is not currently true (it was then, but not now): as you can see, I am currently active on the project matters, and I have already started such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#The actual formal group 3 proposal. Others outside the project have also commented. It is true that I did not formally file it as an RFC; if the general consensus here is that that I should have done so, I can change that. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP. I agree with the assessment of User:YBG and likewise await User:Sandbh's filling out of his placeholder. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen the start of Sandbh's long comment; since there is still a TBC at the end of it, I will wait until he is finished to comment. Double sharp (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by respondent: I thank my colleagues @Double sharp: and @YBG: for their patience as I complete my fair account of my actions. Progress has been good today; the end is in sight. Sandbh (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep interfering with my fair account. DePiep took it upon himself to replace the horizontal rules in my attempted fair account, with breaks [212]. @DePiep: Stay out of my comments. Do not interfere with them. That is a courtesy I extended to you, following your request, in ANI 2. It seems you are unable to follow the standards of civility you expect of other editors. Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, personal attacks and severe battleground behavior by user

Blocked 24 hours for TBAN violation. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The User:Mehtar10 has only been editing for sometime but has racked up multiple warnings on their Talk page, engaged in edit wars with different users and even used WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. But looks like the user wouldn't care either way because they show a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I am surprised no action or block was initiated against this user. Gotitbro (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Gotitbro: Per the policies written up at the top of this page and in the notice when creating this section, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now topic banned from all pages relating to India or Pakistan, which includes talk pages, noticeboards, etc - all pages. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already violated the topic ban here. I've blocked for 24 hours. That's very short for a tban violation, but I'm assuming they didn't understand it. A short ban may be informative. Bishonen | tålk 12:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange editing pattern from 172.74.95.x addresses

Apologies if this is the wrong board, I'm not sure what is the most appropriate forum.

Several IP addresses in the same range are making repeated, high-volume (see their contribs), mostly-useless (see below) edits. Most of the edits aren't tagged, a small proportion are "visual editor". They appear to be interested in ethnic/racial groups and in video games.

Users noticed so far: 174.47.95.98 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.107 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.103 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.99 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.102 (talk · contribs)

Examples: Mixed-race Brazilian (from 10 consecutive edits, one VE); Multiracial people 11 edits from 2 IPs, includes 2VEdits; Adriana Lima (re-ordering of ethnic groups in heritage), Afro-Asians 2, Afro-Asians 1.

Edit types: inconsistent toggling of upper-lower case on qualifiers like native/Native, white/White; swapping order of asian and african; upper/lower-casing of page names in piped links; changing links-to-redirects into piped links; moving label suffixes in/out of piped links, [[page|label]]s; uppercasing template names; adding (useful) or removing (not) spaces between template parameters; changing spaces before/after equals signs in headings; swapping order of section hatnotes and images; removing Oxford commas, changing color ↔ colour; not understanding how parenthetical commas work; some grammatical errors, some grammatical improvements. The source-code changes don't appear to be VE artifacts.

I thought they might have been using volume changes to hide some racial POV, but haven't found anything egregious.

Is this worth more eyes, or just ignore it? —Pelagic ( messages ) – (18:16 Sun 25, AEST) 08:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comments Taking a look at Special:Contributions/174.47.95.0/24 finds some very interesting behavior. These minor edits have been going on for at least a month now. When the edit spree begins, each of them are only a few minutes apart from each other. Almost all of the time you see the IP address change in-between these editing sprees. Few times it occurs during the spree. The behavior is also not 24/7, suggesting against the possibility of being some type of bot. In all, the edits appear in good faith and there doesn't seem to be any ulterior motive. Only egregious edit I've found so far was from Special:Contributions/174.47.95.80, but they appear to be blocked for editing behavior not consistent with the editing in question. Transcendental (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations and personal attacks

See my report at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2020 October 25.

Phule lulu is violating WP:COPYVIO even after multiple warnings,[213][214] and now accusing me of vandalism.[215][216]

At least 3 editors have reverted him but he is not getting the point. This is definitely a competence issue. Wareon (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon is using the pretext of Copyright violation (referring to an extract from archive.org which originally got added to this article back in August 2016 by a different editor, not me[217]), to remove most of the cited references on the page, so as to paint a majoritarian perspective on the topic while misportraying the plight of the oppressed. While I defer to the admins to decide whether the content originally quoted from archive.org by a different editor is Copyright violation or not, I'd request the admins to go through the recent edits on Shambuka page by Wareon in their full form, along with quality of references, so as to take an informed decision. --Phule lulu (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phule lulu: The whole point of listing it on the copyright violation page is to enable other editors (not necessarily admins) to check and see if there are problems. Until someone has confirmed there are no problems, you shouldn't be reverting to content that may violate someone's copyright. You've presented zero evidence that it's a "pretext" so that could be consider a personal attack.

Your comment on the copyvio page just adds to the concerns since as mentioned there, it doesn't matter how old a work is if the content copied is not the original work but some creative variant of that work like a human translation of that work. In that case, the copyright status of the variant matters. Also "it is possible" is not how we deal with copyright. You need strong enough evidence it's not. For a 1957 work, the lack of a copyright notice could be relevant at least with regards to copyright protection in the US which is probably all that matters on en.wikipedia. But this is something some more knowledgeable will need to check and your comments suggest this doesn't apply to you.

And removing copyright violations or (sufficiently) suspected copyright violations is fully justified by policy and without exception. It generally does not matter when the copyright violation was added. It does not generally matter where the copyrighted content came from. The only only times those points matter is if it suggests there's no copyright violation e.g. the text is in the public domain or released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 compatible licence, or it came from Wikipedia in the first place. (Also finding out when the copyright violation was added may enable the article to be reverted to the version before it was added rather than blanked.)

~~From a quick check, what I saw was a 1957 book on archive.org so frankly archive.org and "centuries old" seems irrelevant.~~ If you are the one who added the copyright violation, boasting that it was added in 2016 isn't helping your case. You need to stop adding copyright violations right now and help us clear up all your copyright violations which given the length of time since you added them is unfortunately likely to be messy. Where you don't understand copyright, you need to listen to what people are telling you. If you don't stop, you will be blocked.

If you want the article to reflect the "plight of the oppressed", what you need to do is write decent content yourself rather than simply copying what someone else has written. The more time of other editors you waste fixing up problems you create, the less likely anyone will have time to write such content.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I misread who commented on the copyvio page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-instate range block 2605:A601:AD87:300

Range block granted multiple times. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300

User talk:2605:A601:AD87:300:4510:C510:1E10:45C7

User talk:2605:A601:AD87:300:35C5:69C7:3C13:BC20

Vandalism resumes soon after block expires. User has been warned numerous times. May seem minor but it is disruptive. Editors are spending a lot of time trying to clean up the damage. Long-term or permanent block would be appreciated.—JlACEer (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JlACEer: A look at Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AD87:300::/64 shows no useful edits. This range has been blocked twice in the recent past and the user immediately returns to disruptive behavior when the block expires. Last block was for 1 month. I have reblocked this range for 1 year. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 05:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you.—JlACEer (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA at multiple Asian tourism articles

Multiple accounts messing with data over a period of months, looking like a sock farm of Bryandotr (talk · contribs). Current incarnation is 124.107.252.162 (talk · contribs). Blocks and page protection requested. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked for 3 days, Bryandotr appears to have been abandoned after the last block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grudge editing by Benc0lins on Caster Semenya

Caster Semenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benc0lins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Benc0lins is edit warring against multiple other editors (including myself) to insert the unsupported and defamatory description "hermaphodite" into a BLP about a woman and also to speculate about her sexual organs. This user has ignored all warnings except to make minor changes to their edit which amount to wikilawering without any attempt to address the fundamental issue of why such content is unacceptable. This user is pretty much an SPA existing solely to pursue a defamatory grudge against Caster Semenya. The user has also engaged in dishonest/deceptive tactics such as marking substantial edits as minor and blatantly misrepresenting the contents of sources (e.g. on my own User Talk page). I believe that there is a clear pattern of malice and intentional dishonesty here. I believe that this user has been given more than enough rope and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Also, it might be advisable to look into revdelling some or all of their edits and maybe even some of their edit summaries.

Note: I originally reported this to AIV and was advised to bring it here instead. Another user has separately reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Caster_Semenya. Additional info, including diffs, can be found there. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benc0lins I am the editor that DanielRigal is referring to. I ask that you please read all of my edits and citations as well as my messages to Daniel. Also read his messages to me. I believe that you will find that I have refrained from being abusive at any point. And that all attempts to engage with Daniel on a comradery level have been rebuffed in no uncertain terms.

I'm also not being abusive or derogatory towards Caster Semenya or anyone else. I've shown Daniel that Hermaphrodite is a medical term that is used today, and that it isn't necessarily pejorative - via citation. However, in an effort to compromise, I've changed my edit to use the word "Intersex", and merely now refer to the term "46 XY hermaphroditism" as a category clarification, so as to be clear that it is meant as a medical condition and not as a label or slur. I've

Sadly, despite me repeatedly asking, Daniel has made no effort to discuss or compromise to this point. Please read his messages to me to see how he has conducted himself, as validation of what I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benc0lins (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from WP:BLPN)

Note that I've reverted one edit yesterday for egregious WP:BLP vio. I've now sysop-protected for 24 hours, and have left a message on the talk page to get editors to the table to discuss. I've also rev-del'd some of the more egregious violations related to the subject's genitalia. That kind of unsourced, deeply personal commentary is never okay. Leaving any 3RR sanctions to another admin - Alison ^❤ 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Should we apply a longer-lasting protection do you think? Maybe PC for a while, or even indefinitely? A lot of the new / IP edits to that page seem to be at best unhelpful and often downright unpleasant. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea!

Done - Alison ^❤ 23:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism and DE from 208.175.138.101

Blocked for one month. The length was chosen at my discretion as it appears that the same IP user has inhabited that IP address for the past month. Please re-report or ping me should it resume post-block. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

208.175.138.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Vandalism:

Replacement of content contrary to existing citations[218], [219], [220], [221]

Disruptive editing:

Removal of cited content, notes, and table keys [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]

Continuation of same after warnings on User talk:208.175.138.101

Final Template:Uw-vandalism4im warning on Talk[228] and then continuation of the above behaviors[229], [230] UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive plot descriptions from Pennsylvania IP6s

I've been trying to talk to a Pennsylvania user but this person does not communicate at all. They keep adding too much film plot detail in violation of the guideline WP:FILMPLOT, making the plot section far too large. They have been repeatedly warned about adding too much detail to Bohemian Rhapsody (film), for instance, but they keep coming back. There's apparently zero interest in making an edit summary or a talk page entry. The current ranges are Special:Contributions/2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64, active for 14 and 13 months, respectively. Before that, the range was Special:Contributions/2601:543:4400:87:0:0:0:0/64, active from Jan 2018 to Sep 2019, also without an edit summary or talk page entry. And before that, I think there were some IP4s involved, starting in 2015: 24.154.239.241, 24.154.232.211, 24.154.232.234 and 71.185.171.23. Many thousands of edits in all. Can we get two rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା

As per Special:Contributions/ତୁମ୍ଭର_ପିତା_ଓ_ରାଜା it makes us suspicious to be a WP:SPA. The editor only edits on Dilip Ghosh (politician) and leading to content dispute with fellow editors. Please have a look. 42.110.204.193 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This section was opened at the same time, by the same editor, as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dilip Ghosh (politician). See also prior discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#User:Amkgp is falsely accusing me of vandalism threatens block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous legal threat

See edit summary. Am on my phone and will shortly be unavailable for a few hours. DuncanHill (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdoesitgo1's edits on Jim Rash

Howdoesitgo1 (talk · contribs)
Jim Rash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Numerous editors have repeatedly tried to (re)insert the actor Jim Rash's Instagram post in the article, which ~~consensus agreed~~ at Talk:Jim Rash not to use. One of those editors, the user Howdoesitgo1, has repeatedly reverted my removals of Rash's Instagram post recently:

20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC): reverted my removal, which I made based on ~~consensus~~ at Talk:Jim Rash
02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC): reverted another editor's removal
03:01, 27 October 2020‎ (UTC): reverted my re-removal after the conclusion at WP:DRN#Jim Rash (diff) was made
06:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC): reverted my re-re-removal without leaving an edit summary

I told the user to revert his undoings to my removal(s) and adhere to consensus, but the user's comment suggests otherwise. Then I warned him about edit warring, but then he told me to "stuff it", making remarks about me, which I found them untrue. I adhere to policies about living persons and am very cautious and wary about using self-published sources about oneself when there are no reliable secondary sources. Not only that comment, Howdoesitgo1 also made other comments to another editor at the thread that Howdoesitgo1 started.

I was this close to reporting him at WP:3RRN, but then his remarks show that issues are beyond edit warring. I can alternatively ask about the Instagram post at WP:RSN, but I bet they would have the same conclusions as other editors. George Ho (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC); edited, 19:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, on the Jim Rash talk page, there were two editors for inclusion of that Instagram post (or the use of OTRS to verify it) and two editors against its use. I don't think that fits the meaning of consensus.

I don't think https://hollywoodmask.com/ is a reliable source but I think an individual's statement about themselves on a verified Instagram account would be acceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there were consensus in past discussions about the Instagram post. Maybe not. I thought there was a consensus until you convinced me otherwise. If that's the case, I can either go to WP:RSN to discuss the Instagram post or start an RFC at the article talk page. BTW, if my complaints are invalid, must I withdraw the complaints about the user? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this complaint, you don't need to withdraw it, you can just archive it with {{atop}} and {{abot}} or just let the bot move it to the archive page. Once a complaint has been posted on this page, it shouldn't be removed if anyone has responded to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Haye

I know this isn't the best place, but could someone semi-protect David Haye and block some IP addresses? It's getting boring over there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2a00:23c5:30a2:8a01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) rangeblocked for a week, that covers all the recent vandalism to that article. If they or someone else come back from another address, it can be semi protected! ~ mazca ^talk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism from one IP range at Delta Zeta

Blocks and page protection have been applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting both page protection and, if practical, a rang block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hounding by user Binksternet

User Binksternet seems to be engaging in actions that violate wikipedia's policies regarding harassment, in particular Hounding. He has followed me across multiple articles, sometimes undoing almost all of my edits. He has followed me onto the articles for integralism, Christian views on suicide, and Consistent Life Ethic. Following me around like this is very disturbing and discouraging.

When he has gotten to these articles he has engaged in policies that constitute edit warring and has been asked to stop doing such activities. He also has even gone to accusing me of creating multiple accounts to attack him, which is simply not true. He also usually deletes constructive criticism on his actions: such as here, and here.

When he does not get his way he engages in actions that could constitute wikilawyering and just throwing the book at editors in general that would not constitute good faith editing. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have followed the edits of LongIslandThomist914, for the purpose of removing violations of WP:No original research. My explanation to him is on his talk page here. He needs to stop relying on primary sources to expand articles, which he has been doing for the past year. He has never indicated any wish to stop these violations of policy. Rather, he was blocked yesterday for edit warring to keep his preferred version.

LongIslandThomist914 misrepresents me in his above post. I hatted the comments[231] of FBPlunger who is blocked for violations of WP:MULTIPLE, but LongIslandThomist914 accuses me of accusing him of the same violation. A simple mistake on his part. The removals he complains about were me removing FBPlunger's contributions per WP:EVADE, which is allowed.

The only thing I want to see from LongIslandThomist914 is him summarizing third party sources rather than pasting primary sources such as the Catechism into articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Dif's of problematic/policy violating edits would be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some diffs at his talk page, which is where I thought the matter should be discussed. The first place I saw a problem was this talk page complaint by Chiswick Chap who was pointing out the problem with LongIslandThomist914's lengthy quotes. Diannaa agreed there were too many quotes. This diff shows the first such "lengthy" addition by LongIslandThomist914, followed by more. The diff shows LongIslandThomist914 interpreting and indeed extrapolating from a primary source quote: a letter from Tolkien to his son. After I proposed removing these quotes (and their violations of WP:NOR), I was encouraged to do so by Chiswick Chap and PaleCloudedWhite, as you can see at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Heading in the wrong direction.
- More problematic diffs from LongIslandThomist914 include this interpretation and expansion using primary source text from the Catholic Catechism, this expansion using only the Catechism, and this example of edit warring with El C to restore primary source interpretation of the Catechism. LongIslandThomist914 has never expressed regret for relying too much on primary sources; instead, he proposed a whole article containing only Tolkien quotes, which would allow him to continue in his preferred style. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I find deeply disturbing is that you tracked me for months before deciding to offer any corrections. You followed me across this site and then only decided to act now by tearing apart all my edits. You couldn't have spoken up sooner if this concerned you so much? The only people who have issues with my edits are you and one other person on the Tolkien article, while it seems a great many people have issues with the way you conduct yourself on this website.

I do not see the issues with my citations of the Catechism: I did not add any of my own interpretation but simply put up what it says, and allow people to draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongIslandThomist914 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not track you "for months". I saw your overreliance on direct quotes at the Tolkien biography in August, including your violations of WP:NOR, but the only thing I did about it was to remove them from the article, supported by other participants there. That removal was on Sept 1,[232] after we some time spent talking about it in August. But you showed up on my radar again a week ago with this addition to an article on my watchlist, which made me remember your previous problematic style. That's when I realized there was a bigger mess. That's when I started working to stop your problematic edits across multiple articles. So it's one week that I have been rolling back the dozen or so problematic edits you made, leaving alone all the good ones. I haven't touched your many additions to the List of converts to Catholicism or your big expansion at 2018 New York State Senate election because those are fine. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LongIslandThomist914, Wikipedia makes it easy to see a user's contributions. In the "skin" I use it's a button on the lefthand side of the userpage and user talkpage. There's a reason we can follow a user's edits; it's a very convenient feature for admins and experienced editors. If we should see somebody making a dubious edit, we pretty much automatically take a look at their other edits — I know I do. That is not hounding. And it's not hounding for Binksternet to follow your edits, once he has noticed your tendency to engage in original research based on primary sources. He explains the problem clearly and in detail here on your page. Binksternet is highly experienced, he knows Wikipedia policy well, and you would do far better to listen to his advice, rather than complain about him on this noticeboard. Please stop violating the No original research policy, or you are likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

LongIslandThomist914, please accept the comments made here about original research. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55

Emigré55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I closed an RfC on the use of a specific self-published source as a speculative identification of the subject of this painting: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314 § Marc Couwenbergh. Emigré55 did not accept this close and edit-warred to include the text based on the self-published source, leading to the article being protected. Protection expired and Emigré55 has just done exactly the same again, reverted by The Banner, who was also involved in the original discussion. The article is now protected again (by Deepfriedokra). Talk page discussion is circular, with repetition of the same claims of reliability that were unsuccessfully advanced in the RSN discussion. It looks as if The Banner was correct in their original prediction that the RSN result would simply be rejected. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @JzG: in case you weren't aware, there's a potentially related dustup involving these two editors in a thread near the top of this page ('Request for Boomerang Site Ban'). It appears that Emigre55 inserted themselves into a separate dispute involving The Banner in an attempt to get the latter sanctioned, possibly because of their otherwise unrelated differences with the editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is certainly related as Eissink did not like the fact that I kept asking for proof. Proof of Marc Couwenbergh being an art historian of note and proof of the blog posts being peer-reviewed reliable sources. Here, the talk page of Hoary, he was fishing for support for his stance that WP:RS/SPS was satisfied with claiming that Couwenbergh is a notable expert on his filed (no proof delivered). And here he started digging in my past to get info on a block I don't know how many years ago. This looks more like an attempt to get rid of someone instead of delivering requested proof. The Banner talk 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the temptation to just block Emigré55 for disruption was great. Don't like blocking people, but see no other option if the previous WP:BRD has been fruitless. The purpose of FP is to get users to discuss, so. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, The RfC was about the reliability of Couwenbergh, as judged by consensus. And you are right, consensus on that point was against me. However, the RfC was not about RKD, and there was never any discussion about RKD as a source, and of course its reliability. RKD had not published anything about the hypothesis I mentioned in this article before the RfC.
Now RKD did, only a few days ago, here, writing, “it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren."
The argument I am making now is hence dramatically different from the argument disputed in the RfC. I am just claiming to cite RKD and what they write. That is to write a fact, and evidence it by a most reliable source. No more, but no less.
And I believe I comply with all rules of Wikipedia in so doing.
I did not revert based on an alleged refusal of the result of the RfC. I just reverted on the basis of RKD new statement, as stated in the header, referring also to the talk page where I had previously explained the reasons why.
Nor did I "edit warred", as there was only one overall change on my part to restore the article and this useful information as a whole. The edit war started when The Banner promptly reverted my changes, based on his old and unchanged arguments, which do not apply anymore. I did not go further than my first changes, so, if there must be an edit war, it is coming from him, not me.
Moreover, please kindly note that I did not mean to be disruptive in doing that, but to add information, and properly sourced, to this article, as opposed to delete only, as The Banner did. My overall contribution to this article can be judged here, as well as his and others’ contributions, and usefully compared to The Banner's.
My overall contribution to the article about Anna van Buren, which is related to this one, can also be judged here.--Emigré55 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's exactly the same argument: that the occasional mention of this self-published speculation thus justifies its inclusion as fact in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My addition was the referral to the Reliable sources noticeboard. That you do not like the outcome is not something can blame on anyone. And that the RKD uses that same sources shot down at RSN does make that source sudden useful. The Banner talk 18:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, well, you can see it this way, but this is definitely not how I saw the point and the situation, when I learned about RKD recent publication. All the more since it is legitimate to think that RKD operates here a peer validation of what you call a speculation, but what is in fact an hypothesis, which is quite current in art history as to sitters or painters of a particular painting.

Anyhow, if you have read my personal page, you know that I do not wish to further contribute to Wikipedia, mainly due to The Banner harassment, which I suffered since this summer. (and of course which I can document if I am asked to). With this important hypothesis/info for the history,I just wanted to finish 2 articles I have spent a lot of time on. Now, I do not not have either the courage anymore, or the motivation, to bring to Wikipedia the other biographies of painters/old masters I have worked on all my life, and which are poorly or even not at all represented in Wikipedia....

The Banner has properly killed my earlier enthusiasm (he will he happy to learn that, I am sure....)--Emigré55 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: you blame me for the fact that you were unable to provide proof of Marc Couwenbergh being an art historian of note and proof of the blog posts being peer-reviewed reliable sources? The Banner talk 03:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people who decide to stop contributing would just stop contributing. E Eng 09:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He still seems to think that I am fabricating rules, while he is ignoring a community decision. This is going nowhere. The Banner talk 09:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it goes on and on. This discussion is nor funny nor useful: Talk:Anna van Egmont#His publications pertinent to the article. I dislike it to ask for it, but a block or topic ban might be needed. The Banner talk 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Boomerang topic ban

If this is "going nowhere", as claimed by The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here above, it is because :

of The Banner constant and immediate opposition to ANY change I have brought to this page, and not let alone this one, but on other subjects too.(I can of course document this point if I am asked)
the fact that he only deleted information, and NEVER contributed positively in this article, not a single byte, as shown here.
the fact that he never accepts any compromise in the wording I proposed. On this precise issue, I proposed a different and compromised version today for the third time.

I, on the contrary, have a history on this article of long and positive contribution, which can be assessed here, having brought 17,845 bytes(76.7% of the added text to the initial article).
Taking into consideration such a constant opposition, sometimes even based on lies (which I can also document if asked), in my humble opinion, he is the one who should be topic banned.
--Emigré55 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you are the one that deserves a block. You keep ignoring the decision taken on the Reliable sources noticeboard. And you seem to think I am evil, because you fail to prove that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian of note. And you fail to prove that the blog post of Couwenergh are relevant, peer reviewed sources. But no, time and time again you come with the same stories. Unfortunately, in all your walls of text there is still no proof. And you start more and more shouting about personal attacks from my hand. The Banner talk 16:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55, are you proposing a site ban or topic ban for The Banner? The section title is for a site ban, but you end your proposal with he is the one who should be topic banned. Can you clarify whether you want a topic ban or a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon what? The same lack of evidence that was (not) provided in the previous thread? Could an admin please just close this? Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, My apologies, my mistake. I am just asking a topic ban, and just corrected the title. Contrary to The Banner, I am not looking into goading and escalating, and I leave it to the admins to decide if his overall behaviour deserves more. My aim is just to finish quietly this article in which I have invested a lot of time and efforts. I am totally discouraged by his continuous harassment, as I wrote it on my personal page, and have stopped writing other articles on other topics. Getting old and suffering from heart disease, I also cannot afford coping with so aggressive people, for the sake of my own health.--Emigré55 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, Should I give diffs for the points I have offered to document? --Emigré55 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to support any accusations / points you make at ANI with diffs to show it. If you could add a few diffs which directly support the points you present that would be useful. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, Thank you for your answer. I will work on these points in the coming hours, and come back at the latest tomorrow morning. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain this edit? Since the timestamps are forty minutes apart, it's not clear to me that it was the product of an edit conflict. Grandpallama (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you'll be hearing back, or hearing back anything creditable. We've now got two editors, Emigre and Eissink, caught in a sort of folie à deux. It's long past time for an admin to end our hopeless attempts to cast clues before the unclueable^[1] by closing this thread, and #Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition, with appropriate action. E Eng 03:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat?

User:Scainder indeffed per WP:NLT. Chilling edit summary revdel'd --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Scainder did this revert[233] with the edit summary "That was a Twitter banter. A notice can be issued in the name of Wikipedia and the moderator reverting the edits by Mumbai Police. It goes against Twitter guidelines to bring the banter on Wikipedia which will ultimately result in arrest of the moderator reverting the edits." I shall probably rev/del the edit summary as purely disruptive, but it clearly is meant to have a chilling effect as much as does a threat to sue. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening arrest? That's definitely as chilling of an effect as it can get. User indef'd for the edit and thanks for the revdel Doug. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verbal attack and deliberate re-introduction of unreliable sources by multi-time blocked user

(non-admin closure) Blocked. Dark knight 2149 07:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a WP:POINT edit, 151.228.141.110 deliberately reintroducted unreliable sources that I had removed, while directing a verbal attack toward myself.[234] This user, who edits professional wrestling articles via the Sky ISP – with his "work" typically revolving around what wrestling writer Vince Russo said or did – has twice left similar insults on my talk page, along with abusing several other editors (calling people "pathetic" and "trolls" is his MO, as with tonight).[235][236] Both of those IPs were blocked (as was his sock account, R.Gadona), and I request that 151.228.141.110 be also. Thanks. Dory Funk (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breaching various policies

Hello - User:Heiko Gerber has breached multiple policies:

Adding unreferenced content, see [237]
Civility, see [238]
3RR, see [239]
Engaging in an edit war, see [240] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see [241], [242], [243] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove discussions that are put on their talk page, unless it's a declined unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RickinBaltimore - I recognise that, however I am noting the actions not as breach of policy but as record of possible attempts to hide that others have tried to engage constructively. Update: User:Heiko Gerber has removed a message from an admin, see [244] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Came here on the way to deciding if I should block Heiko Gerber for unsourced edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

": Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

Please review [245] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a source now so we can get this over with and this dude is happy Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of sourcing is that the albums themselves and their liner notes are the implicit sources in a discography, just like the films and their credits are implicit sources for filmographies. Of course, that bit doesn't take into account the vicious edit war going on between these two, for which there is no exemption from WP:3RR. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, other than reverting, am i supposed to do if this guy keeps on blanking the section? (for the record, i have added a source now which is completely redundant) Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me. This is not about you. It is about following Wikipedia policies. Also, your recent edit to the article included both referenced and unreferenced content; the latter has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful editing. :) Please blank the discography on Michael Jackson next, cause that doesnt have sources either Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such crude sarcasm and flippancy does not merit a response. However, in the spirt of being constructive for Wikipedia: in addition to the various policies which you have previoulsy been suggested to review it is also suggested that you consider the reasons you are editing. This because it seems you are more focused on 'winning arguments' rather than improving articles. This, along with the petulant behaviour you continue to exhibit, is indicative of immaturity. If you are a child then hopefully this tendency will lessen with age, however if you are an adult then therapy is likely to be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So each of you made 14 (fourteen) reverts at Richard Kruspe today. Why do you think both you should not be blocked per WP:3RR?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because i've reverted the vandalism of the IP? Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just move on, not every report here has to end in a block Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heiko Gerber - Reverting content that is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism: however this attacking of others with false allegations is consistent with your abusive and unconstructive behaviour.

Hello Ymblanter - a block of both is warranted. A block of a single user would be unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just told me to get therapy. Now please stop wasting my time will you? Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not tell you. That you struggle to understand English, and your use of 'literally', is further support of your immaturity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've checkuser blocked Heiko Gerber as a Confirmed sock of Urgal. @El C:, I'm not sure how this effects your AE block of Urgal? Will also need a Steward to lock globally to match the master's block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Confirmed, Kemba Chucker.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, I blocked the user for one year because that is the lengthiest duration AE allows for. An indef, providing that it is longer than that one year, seems perfectly intuitive for me. Once that one year block expires, they will remain technically blocked by virtue of being indef globally locked (such is my understanding, at least). El_C 23:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and both confirmed accounts are now globally locked as well. I think we're done here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being stalked by User:Koncorde

Matter handled. User:Maxim blocked indefinitely for impersonation, threats, bombing things, and typing in a small font. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Maxim.il89 blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've noticed it a while ago, whenever I create an article or edit it a lot... Koncorde appears there, reverting and edit warring, and I'm getting sick of it.

I think it's a result of a disagreement we had months ago... but it's not normal. No, it can't be a coincidence that he's on every edit I make.

Innovations in the piano, Concrete piano, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Mifal HaPayis, Cadenza, Cadenza Piano, Sunderland A.F.C. supporters are just a few examples of articles he had never touched before I appeared there, and then suddenly automatically appearing and harassing me.

This is not a coincidence. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I have already blocked you from one article for edit-warring, and Dreamy Jazz has blocked you from another. I've never interacted with Koncorde ever, and I don't think DJ has either. I think you're pretty much a hair's breadth away from somebody thinking "is there any part of the project he's not disruptive on" and applying a side-wide block. You should take that warning with the seriousness it deserves. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, I don't think I've ever interacted with Koncorde before. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm, never heard of yourself or Ritchie before today. Koncorde (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick suggestion, when bringing these kinds of accusations, you should always supply the diffs that substantiate your claims. Not to do so will immediately render your claims invalid, and possibly worse, bring your own actions under scrutiny. I would think twice before following this course of action. It's very fortunate that after you were found to breach WP:3RR that you were allowed to continue to edit because of Ritchie333's generous interpretation of the edit-warring guidelines. That you then went on to continue to fight with other editors is not a good sign. I would suggest that unless you change your approach here pretty quickly, you'll be banned. Just based on my experience (and not on the very lightweight approach meted out by Ritchie earlier). Your disruption appears to be getting worse. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Is there a reason you've posted to both here and WP:AN? Just one should suffice. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the forum-shopping thread at WP:AN has now been closed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the Original Poster was move-warring over Cadenza Piano, which has now been create-protected in article space. Koncorde wasn't doing the move-warring. Also, the Original Poster filed a frivolous Request for Arbitration which was closed very quickly. (I will note that ArbCom is now being much quicker than in the past to close frivolous requests. Some of you might not have seen the request if you didn't view the history.) In conclusion, this isn't about User:Koncorde. It appears to be about the Original Poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have site-blocked Maxim for 31 hours. I now have a sore head from having banged it against a wall. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone you have to notify when you block an arbcrat? Natureium (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what is one of them? Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim is a wikipedian who is both an arb and a crat. Both are high-status positions around here, and when you combine the two, you get... idk, there's probably a good nerd metaphor for that that I can't think of. Natureium (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim is a WP:Bureaucrat and WP:ARBCOM member. Maxim.il89 is none of those. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. I thought I was missing something for a moment. Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow Wikipedians, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've finalized a motion that will outlaw questioning me forever. We begin banning in five minutes. Maxim_(talk) 00:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit warring and apparent white washing at Canada Christian College

Over the past few days, 2 ips and a user: 76.10.169.60, 2607:FEA8:31C0:3520:2833:B935:EF57:8EE1, and User:Quartzgoldbling, have been involved in a lengthy dispute over Canada Christian College, which has been involved in some sort of controversy that somehow involves us. It seems like the user account and one of the ips are trying to do a little pr, while the other ip is trying to prevent this. I'm a bit at a loss to do, on whether I should block, protect the page, or do nothing, so I'm bringing this here so others can weigh in and more eyes will be on the dispute. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 00:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moneytrees🏝️ for drawing attention to this, but I dispute your characterization about my intent, so I want to be clear. This is not an attempt at PR (at least, speaking of my edits), but rather, an attempt to offer an objective view of an existing institution and preventing overt and excessive negative spin. Canada Christian College is currently under political attack due to having pending legislation for university status under review in the Ontario legislature. 76.10.169.60 has made edits on pages speaking about the Liberal Party of Ontario, and thus, is likely favorable toward expanding this controversy on Wikipedia. All observers can note that I have not touched past controversies (except moving information 76.10.169.60 placed in history under the Jewish Studies Department controversy) nor made any significant edits to the present university status controversy other than offering additional statements made by the college's President, which 76.10.169.60 explicitly chose not to include.

However, 76.10.169.60 is continuing to fill the section on the history of the school (the most visible part of the page, as it is at the top) with an excessive amount of material from Toronto Star articles from the 1970s to create an unfair portrayal of the school. Moreover, 76.10.169.60 insists on including tangential information within the article, such as a college that was "affiliated" with Canada Christian College as well as the academic status of a defunct institution that Canada Christian College (*in the 1970s*) purchased curriculum from). Additionally, 76.10.169.60 continues to move the Academic Programs below the controversies in an attempt to foreground present and past controversies. I have moved them up, without altering any other content to offer a window into the current programs the institution before readers engage with controversies.

Close to 500 students -- 80% visible minorities, 60% black -- currently attend the school and have their degree credibility at-risk by dredging up an unnecessary amount of hit-pieces from 45 years ago as "implied proof" that Canada Christian College as it exists in 2020 is somehow deficient in its academic offerings. There is no attempt at PR, but rather, a recognition that an overreliance on clearly biased articles primarily dating to the 1970s should not be given undue weight in an article about a college that currently exists and has numerous academic offerings, ALL OF WHICH have not been seriously questioned since 1999 (the most recent time full-degree granting ability for theological degrees was granted by the Ontario Parliament). As observers will note, only two or three sentences of the history even reference 1999 and beyond -- 21 years of the most important, current information about the institution missing -- while entire paragraphs are devoted to events 30-40 years ago.

One additional note: Moneytrees🏝️, I apologize for inadvertently breaking the Wikipedia copyright rules. 76.10.169.60 created a section on the school's code of conduct which quoted a single line from an article. I included the full student code of conduct from the Canada Christian College website so that readers could see the entirety. The code of conduct goes well-beyond "hot topic" issues and incorporates numerous smaller, more interesting items that deserve space in the article. If I need to paraphrase it I will, but I thought that citing its webpage would suffice. Again, I apologize and can move forward according to your recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting there's absolutely nothing on the article talk page. Recommend some level of protection (maybe pending changes). Also worth pointing out that Wikipedia prefers independent sources for all but the most basic uncontroversial facts. We cover aspects of a subject in proportion to how much coverage those aspects have in the body of sources about that subject (not including the subject's own website). Whether something should be included or how much space a particular topic should occupy is a discussions that needs to take place on the article's talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Rhododendrites. Concerning the aspects of a subject in proportion to the body of sources about that subject, the crucial issue is this -- for an existing institution that presently affects the lives of hundreds of marginalized individuals *presently*, is it defensible to place undue emphasis on sources 35+ years old centered on degree-granting issues when there have been 21 years of no similar controversies? Again, I am not arguing ALL history should be removed; its a matter of balance, not whitewashing. For living individuals, Wikipedia gives guidance for undue emphasis/negative spin (not only attack pages, which are usually instant removals). Why should such protection vastly differ when you're dealing with issues that impact hundreds of individuals as opposed to a single individual?

Again, I have not substantively altered any controversies from the page (which would be textbook "whitewashing"). Indeed, all past institutional controversies (very hot topics!) have remained. The present controversy about gaining university status that is creating a media frenzy has also remained in an unaltered state.

In the history section, I have continued to remove references to "affiliate institutions" whose controversies should not be brought into play within an article focused on a particular college. Two companies get founded by the same person; fair game to cross-reference them *on that person's Wiki,* but strikingly immaterial on each institution's page unless an explicit rationale is given (them being "affiliates" should hardly count, especially in an academic setting where schools have cooperative agreements and intiatives with one another all the time). Any school page with a reasonable history will have interacted in some way with other institutions. Should Harvard admissions scandals be added to the University of Chicago's page because they share faculty? How about MIT and Yale if they have a joint degree? I would contend, only if the FACULTY (Harvard, UChicago) or JOINT DEGREE (MIT/Yale) are in question. Simply having some affiliation does not mean that the controversies from one institution are suddenly bestowed upon the other.

Lastly, I believe I have provided the "most uncontroversial facts" as a balance to the excessively negative spin being offered -- again, from sources over 35 years old, predating the current degree-granting regime. Specifically, the *current* degree programs offered by the college is hardly controversial; the current *actual* code of conduct [as opposed to snippets from a newspaper article] is hardly controversial). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The president of the college is quoted in the press criticising wikipedia. "It is sad that the NDP and MPP Kathleen Wynne would recklessly damage the lives of hundreds of students and thousands of graduates with mindless, hateful name calling, all while reading directly from a disreputable source, Wikipedia.”[246] I'm wondering if User:Quartzgoldbling or anyone else editing the article is a member of the management, faculty, or staff of the college or otherwise affiliated? Some of the edits suggest personal knowledge . 199.7.156.249 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzgoldbling FYI I took the liberty of formatting your comments above. Feel free to change if you don't like it. It's rare to create separate subsections for each response. We indicate we're responding to one another by indenting (increasing the number of colons before each comment indents by one more) and the signature takes the place of a name in a heading (remember to end each post you make with four tildes ~~~~, which automatically adds your username and a timestamp to the end ... otherwise you get those "preceding unsigned comment..." templates added by bots). As for the content of this response...

is it defensible to place undue emphasis on sources 35+ years old centered on degree-granting issues when there have been 21 years of no similar controversies - what is considered undue emphasis is based on the proportion of coverage. we do tend to prefer more recent sources where they conflict with the past, but how much space to devote to various historical events is a ubiquitous question on Wikipedia. It sounds like you may have some valid concerns. I'd advise opening one or more discussions on the talk page proposing changes based on reliable sourcing or arguments based on WP:WEIGHT. Again, this page isn't going to result in any changes to that article, though -- this is just where people go when there are behavioral concerns that merit wider attention. It has done that job, but it's unclear that any actual intervention is needed other than perhaps protection (as I mentioned above). (Protection restricts editing of a page to experienced editors to reduce disruption, regardless of who's right). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I genuinely appreciate the formatting assist and expanded response addressing my concerns. I will take your advice and move my discussion (which will pertain to WP:WEIGHT more than reliable sourcing) to the Canada Christian College talk page hereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: just added concern to talk page and made an edit based on that concern. I look forward to fruitful discussion on all of these matters, and on my part, will aim for independent sources covering more recent news about the college. Cheers, Rhododendrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

176.27.143.183

176.27.143.183 openly admits on User talk:Nathan2055, while trying to manipulate Nathan2205 into an ally, that he is the same user who was blocked yesterday. Block evasion, personal attacks and WP:POINTY troll edits dating back at least 18 months. Requesting block, thanks. Dory Funk (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I’m contacting you due to being both repeatedly targeted and falsely banned by a factual troll who’s been endlessly vandalizing, reverting and deleting literally anything positive to do with a figure named Vince Russo on any page. As you just saw on the “Retribution” article, there was literally nothing worthy of being deleted in that quote by Vince Russo from a cited source, which is why you logically added it back from the pathetic troll “Dory Funk”, who’s been repeatedly deleting all positive sourced quotes made by Russo for months now. I even just looked at the “WWF Brawl for All” article which had a series of positive Russo quotes that were added all the way back in April, and yet they were all just deleted by this “Dory Funk” loser without logical reason a few weeks ago, all despite the fact that these quotes were worthy of being there without ever being deleted by anyone else for 6 entire months. This ridiculous troll has an incredibly pathetic, biased agenda against anything Vince Russo related, as well as me personally. If the only issue with me being repeatedly and falsely banned by this trolls reporting was me needing a “confirmed” Wikipedia account then I would have created one months ago, but this spiteful m0r0n is so embarrassingly obsessed with trolling anything Vince Russo related that i’m sure he would use his nonsense “sock-puppet” excuse against me even with a fully confirmed account. The fact that i’ve done nothing but make factually helpful ANTI-TROLL edits the entire time and yet this idi0t continues to stalk, target, and get my factually helpful edits reverted and my I.P. address falsely banned without valid reason is all proof that his trolling needs to be put to a permanent end. So to quickly sum up, can you possibly help with this long-term issue of repeated trolling? Or could you direct me to the page of a Wikipedia moderator who isn’t a pathetic, biased, trolling man-child like “Dory Funk” and any of these other equally pathetic, abusive figures who keep reverting factually constructive/factually sourced edits and ridiculously banning actual normal people like myself? ([diff) Aspersions? Check. Personal attacks? Check. Sock puppetry? Check. Dark knight 2149 07:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) A knitted foot covering - 94.2.82.73. "This piece of shit troll freakshow has even followed me here now, proving my point yet again. I'll go to another mod on a different I.P. address have this basement-dweller dealt with.". Narky Blert (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH

Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miki Filigranski replaced the map, that was in the article before, with the new one: [247]. Here is a page from the article of Mate Božić that the old map was based on: [248]. It can be seen that the new map seriously contradicts the source referred to (broadly speaking, a quarter of Poland with Kraków in the 10th century suddenly became Croatian, which is not at all considered the generally accepted view). I checked the other sources on Commons and couldn't find a reputable source that would confirm the new map (I cannot check the Croatian books, but I've seen the Russian ones).

During the discussions, Miki refused to provide a prototype of the map or in any other understandable way to explain its origin, instead making personal attacks: I am not wasting any more time with someone who has personal agenda stalking editors, blatantly lying there are no reliable sources and interpretation of the policy. Enjoy your block

He also violated the WP:3RR instead of providing the source:

Please explain to Miki Filigranski that while working on Wikipedia, he is obliged to back up his statements with sources instead of personal attacks and edit warring. I also ask permission to return the old map or delete both until the content issue is finally resolved.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR acronyms... Whoa, that's bad. --Jayron 32 11:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what should be the title in your opinion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a smartass. Ignore me. This is what I do from time to time. You'll get used to it after a while. --Jayron 32 11:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're required to notify him that you brought him up at ANI. I've taken the liberty to do so. I'll note this is the third time his behavior has been discussed here in about a week, sooo..... --Jayron 32 11:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forgot again that ping is not enough.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: these two cases are unrelated, as well the previous one was an inflated misunderstanding that was resolved through emails. However, it doesn't change the fact the previous one was brought up after a content dispute where the editor who reported me didn't listen to me and other editors that the scientific content was fringe and cited from unreliable sources ([249]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is editing in areas covered by WP:ARBEE, is he not? Do we need to impose some restrictions here? Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this report needs short context. The editor Nicoljaus is making WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:WALLS commentary on the article and talk page of White Croats for over a year and even after failed and poorly-formed RfC, making a same baseless issue with VERIFY, SYNTH and which closure made them even more furious ([250]). Afterwards the editor was blocked for many months and after block expiration ([251]), they immediately returned edit warring at the same article of White Croats and in the process violating 1RR restriction of arbitration enforcement on Eastern Europe for which received another block for two weeks. And here are we again, immediately after another block expiration the editor still doesn't leave in peace the article's content and those who made edits ([252]). I violated the 3RR on their 1RR after they got blocked ([253]) for a few minutes because wasn't careful enough on the clock for which forgive me, but again, should the disruptive edit been kept at the article for hours and days? Does 1RR restriction has some advantage over 3RR? Regarding the content, the editor is still pushing their extremely biased POV by refusing to get the point about the topic, accept the editor's consensus and move on. I am really sorry to say it, but the editor is not telling the truth about the sources and synthesis. Their behavior on the article and misunderstanding of the topic as well as what's written in the sources got to the point where there's no denying. All the sources on which the map was based were reliable and reputable. This map is more extensive and neutral according to the available reliable sources, while the one made by Nicoljaus is based on a single reliable source which makes it biased and limited in information. As such, and a fact we are dealing more or less with scientific approximation on the location, in the creation of the map were used several reliable sources to make a more accurate map. Besides the map made by 1) M. Božić 2019 were used 2) H. Łowmiański 1964-2004, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and in conclusion locating them in Poland 3) V.V. Sedov 1979, which content and map on pg. 138-139 ([254]) is dedicated on the location and migration of the Croatian tribes and a variation of the map can be seen on Commons here 3) V.V. Sedov 1995, content and maps (1, 2, 3 of which the third can be found at Commons here) 4) IEA 1997, content and map 5) С.С. Михайлович 2010, content and map for Western Ukraine (for which could cite other as well) 6) A.V. Majorov 2012, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and Croatia 7) N. Budak 2018, which 10th-century map at the end of the book was used to make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, one author writes about Croats in the 6th century in one place, another about Croats in the 8th century in another, and Miki transfers all these places to the map and calls it "Croats in the 10th century". This is WP:SYNTH. Let's go through the sources:

M. Božić directly contadicts the new map (no huge Croatian area around Krakow): [255]
Henryk Łowmiański was born in 1898 and died in 1984, twenty years before 2004. His work Początki Polski was published in 1964. I would prefer a more modern author. Besides that, does he really give such a map? As far as I know from Mayorov's book, he believed that White Croatia was the name of the ancient Bohemian state at the time of Boleslaus I.
Sedov's 1979 book is also somewhat outdated (in later works he revised his views). But the main thing is that the map in his book does not depict "Croats in the 10th century". It depicts suggested migration routes several centuries before. And if you read the description to the map on the previous page, it says: "All known ethnonyms of Croats are within the area of Slavic ceramics of the second group", i.e. inside the red colored area on this redraw: [256] And on Miki's map, they spread far to the north.
Sedov's 1995 book is very revealing. Although he earlier assumed migration of Croats through Southern Poland, he admits that no trace has been found and questions this location: [257]
Old map from Russian textbooks. There are also no Croats in Poland in the 10th century [258]
Well, this map, at last, really serves as a prototype for Miki's ideas. It is absolutely fantastic, and its author is not "С.С. Михайлович", but Semenyuk S. M. As I wrote on the map deletion page: "Mentioned Semenyuk is a complete freak. See his article in Ukrainian Wikipedia [259]. There is no education, he writes books that Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Saxony, etc. are Ukrainian ethnic lands." [260]
Majorov book says (p.51-52 of original Russian edition of 2006): "However, the "Lesser Poland theory" also finds a considerable number of opponents, who point out that the Croats in ancient times could not occupy such a vast territory. At least, there is no evidence of their stay in the upper reaches of the Vistula and on the lands of historical Lesser Poland: according to various sources, Polish tribes have lived here since ancient times." There are no maps in the book with such a huge area of settlement of Croats in Poland.
N. Budak 2018 - I don't have access to this book, but Miki said that it was used only to "make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans." But we need source for Croats, occupying the quarter of Poland in the 10th century.

I apologize for such a lengthy discussion of the content related issue. But it was needed to show - Miki cites 8 sources for the new version of the map, but only one of them - the fringe book of Semenyuk - somehow supports his views. I think this is something like WP:BOMBARDMENT. In any case, this discussion should have been conducted on the talk page - as you can see, it is rather difficult to understand what the map is based on. Instead, there was a war of edits and insults like " blatantly lying" and so on.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in edit summary

This edit appears to exist only to promote a porn website in the edit summary. Is this the best place/way to report it? Thanks, --NapoliRoma (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary revdel'd. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP has also been blocked. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JIMBOB8 and BRD

JIMBOB8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jamie Vardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multiple users have opposed an edit to the Jamie Vardy page made by JIMBOB8 that changes how information is presented. While the user makes his argument in edit summaries, he simply refuses to discuss on the Talk page, even after an attempt I made to start such a discussion per WP:BRD. Note as well that this user has had edit warring issues in the past, and rarely uses a Talk page even to discuss controversial changes. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping aside and retirement are completely different, he is still currently an active member of the national team until he announces retirement, he is still available for a call-up in the case of an injury crisis so he is therefore still playing for them. JIMBOB8 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the talk page discussion @JIMBOB8:. You can discuss the content dispute there. Tiderolls 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hijack this venue to mention that I've noticed JIMBOB8 engage in disruptive editing for a while now. This is, by my count, the third time he has been reported here (once was by me). Here and here are two previous reports. In addition he's been engaged in a slow motion edit war misgendering Sam Smith, despite being told several times our policy on this. [261][262][263][264] That was a while ago, but he's recently started up again. [265].

When can we safely conclude that JIMBOB8 is not here to build an encyclopedia? — Czello

JM199723

JM199723 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single-purpose account, WP:MEAT. This user always add negative content to articles about China, make many POV edits. According to the news of Epoch Times, this user has set up an organization to vandalise Wikipedia, and he maybe the Internet Water Army of Falungong. [266][267]. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 23:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please remember to notify the user in question on their talk page as is policy here at the top of the page and the edit notice when you started this thread. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody provide a translation of the key points of those articles? Google translate doesn't give me something intelligble enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious, Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I would especially not trust anything they have to say about Falun Gong, aka their overlords. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with undiscussed mass-mergers of articles?

Ordinarilly we use {{Merge|OtherPage |date=October 2020}} and {{Merge to|OtherPage |date=October 2020 }} to suggest that two articles be merged, and to open up a discussion. However, an editor, Reywas92, earlier today mass-merged some 60 pages in a little less than 4 hours, between 03:23, 28 October 2020 and 07:11, 28 October 2020 (can be seen here), the bulk of them were articles about Puerto Rico government/politics.

A single potentially controversial merge can be disruptive if not discussed first. However, in this case there are some 60 merges, many of them articles that had been stable for years. While merges can be a good thing if the edits follow WP:PG, the reality "in the field", "in the trenches", is that much of it can be downright disruptive politically-motivated POV, especually during these days of prime-time US and PR elections. For example, here the editor performed a merged admitting in his summary edit that "May largely duplicate bullet point list but I'm not going to go through that yet, just getting rid of duplicate article". I don't about everyone else in this ANI forum, but my MO is that I first clean up my own mess in our article before I proceed to the next. In addition these weren't "duplicate article"s.

Is there enough here to admonish/block/mass-revert the editor/his edits to reign undiscussed mass-mergers like these. I couldn't find any invitation to discuss any of those mergers. Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Merely mass merging is no crime. The real question is: were the merges good? If they were generally good, then I see no issue. If there are some bad ones, open a discussion and they can be undone. I see no evidence to indicate that they were all or mostly bad though. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Questions: A few opening observations:

Disclaimer: I generally feel good merges are a very positive way to improve the encyclopedia.
Editors are allowed to merge boldly if they believe the edits will not be controversial. IMO however, articles that have existed for a while (~2yrs) or articles likely to be expanded in the future generally deserve a discussion.
"A single potentially controversial merge can be disruptive if not discussed first." Merges can be undone easily. Unless there is a broad and consistent pattern of bad merges it is not DE.
Merges should be done thoughtfully, with the resulting article being improved rather than just added to and cluttered up. Merges should not be done haphazardly or in a way that creates work for others. 60 merges in 4 hours is a lot to think about, perform the merge to the chosen page, and ce the result, even if you're merging stubs. Reywas92, can you describe the process you use to decide on and then perform a merge?
Mercy11, you provided no article names for the merges that you feel are problematic. Can you please provide them. You also state "downright disruptive politically-motivated POV", can you provide diff supporting "politically-motivated POV" in the merges in question.

I have not looked into the details because I would like to hear from the principles before looking at specifics. // Timothy :: talk 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:One problem is that they are all copyvio's as best practices regarding edit summary wording weren't followed (Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia).

Second, I picked one of the merged product pages at random, Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. This is the before of the FROM-Page and this is the before of the TO-Page of two articles that were merged. Neither of the two had any errors in the Refereces section. Now, this is the after of their merge. The AFTER product has errors in the Reference section. The failure here is clear WP:PG wasn't adhered to, specifically here WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does a simple merge violate Verifiability? Also, the copyvio thing can be fixed with a dummy edit providing attribution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: One of the beautiful things about editing at WP is that, as volunteers, we each choose the type of work we want to do. Mine is perhaps best described as creating quality articles. I am sure someone will come along whose love is to go thru all those merges and seek-and-destroy all the bad stuff. This could also be termed doing the janitorial work after what I perceive as risky merging at best and just downright sloopy merging at worse. Mercy11 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about a specific merge I performed, please say which one directly to me or on its talk page, rather then broadly complaining here. These pages have low readership and no recent edits, so it was reasonable to assume there would be no response to a {merge} tag, as I have encountered before, with WP:BOLD perfectly acceptable per the bolded first line of WP:MERGEINIT. In every one of these cases, the merged-from page was duplicative of, very similar to, or closely related to the page merged to, with no need for a separate page, and I see no controversy about the content of any of them. It should be uncontroversial that the list of secretaries of state should be in the same article describing the role of secretary of state. If your concern is that I accidentally missed the {notelist} template on a single one of these pages, as I have now fixed, you can alert me directly rather than whining to administrators. Double-checking my edits, I merged 30 Puerto Rico articles into others, not "60 merges", and I am confident that every one of them should have their content on the merged-to page: all were redundant, very similar in topic, or lacked notability for the need for a separate article. The most blatantly obvious were Article Four of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, Bill of Rights of Puerto Rico, and Article Three of the Constitution of Puerto Rico into Constitution of Puerto Rico – should I have waited a week to do that? With respect to merging the duplicative List of cays and islets of Puerto Rico to List of islands of Puerto Rico, do you really think these should have remained separate pages? I have now consolidated the table and bulleted list. Was worth whining to administrators about the very next day, before saying something on the page itself or directly to me? I have never been to Puerto Rico nor have a formed opinion of its local politics – just that there shouldn't be duplicative stubs – and your assuming bad faith and POV is rude and unfounded. Your implicatation that these are full of "bad stuff" and "risky" from one missing note list template, and that I am incapable of creating quality articles, is likewise rude and unfounded. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Made-up word.

[1] Made-up word.

[1]

@@ Line 909: / Line 909: @@
 *'''Placeholder by Sandbh''' I hadn't intended to comment. Since an uninvolved editor has indicated support for a sanction, I'll address the various concerns raised here as soon as I can, subject to RL obligations. I regret the need to do so as this will increase the current ~4,200 thread word count. That said, I expect it will be in my interests, and possibly benefit interested WP:ELEM regulars and semi-regulars, to seek to give a fair account of my perceptions of recent events. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 04:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::'''Update:''' I intend to start drafting my fair account now, subject to RL obligations. Thank you [[User|YBG]] and [[Double sharp]], as colleagues, for your patience in waiting for me to do so. I don't know how long this will take; reading through the thread just now it appears to contain ~70 allegations concerning my conduct. Thank you [[User|Andrew]] for your RFC suggestion. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
+::(minor TWIKITEXT fix: [[User|YBG]] = [[User:YBG]], [[User|Andrew]] [[User:Andrew]]  -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC))
 ----
 ::'''Preliminaries:''' Here are some contextual policies and statements I feel are relevant to the thread. I'll be referencing these in my fair account.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards