Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

Knights of Columbus

• Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278 § Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material

My reading of the RSN discussion was that the use of ABOUTSELF material is excessive and that the article is bloated with self-sourced promotional and trivial content.

Slugger O'Toole has been around since 2006 and has around 20,000 edits. He has been mainly active since 2018. His top edited articles are connected the Knights of Columbus: 636 edits to the KofC article (highest of any editor by a large margin), 525 to Catholic Church and homosexuality (second highest), 349 to Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (highest, again by a large margin). He refuses to state whether or not he is a member or affiliate of the KofC, but asserts that according to his own reading of COI, he has no conflict. However, according to his own reading of WP:ABOUTSELF there is no limit on the amount or type of self-sourced material that can be included in an article, so I take that with a pinch of salt.

The article is, in part thanks to his reversion of any removal, extensively sourced from KofC and affiliated websites, including much promotional material such as claims of membership numbers, revenues, charitable giving etc. When I first checked, around half the inline citations were to KofC and affiliated websites or obvious press releases, and most fo the rest from a handful of books including at least one commissioned by KofC.

This looks very much like promotional editing. I am concerned by his refusal to acknowledge whether he has any connection with the subject and much more concerned by his bloating of the article with trivia, asserting that WP:ABOUTSELF provides effectively carte blanche to include as much detail as cannot be sourced independently, from affiliated sources, and his reversion of attempts to remove excessive self-sourcing. Guy (help!) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that this has reached the stage of ANI. I've encountered Slugger O'Toole's work in the past and he seems like a solid content creator. I don't know if he has a genuine COI with the Knights or if he is just an ardent fan, but the state of that article is unconscionable. If he doesn't want to disclose his relationship with the group, that's fine, but his editing behavior is not justifiable. The Knights are a fairly high profile organization; there are reliable third-party sources out there, and there's no excuse for so much of the sourcing to be taken directly from the organization's own website. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, normally I'd support anyone on Wikipedia not wanting to reveal personal information, however, when it conflicts with that person writing an article, especially if they're connected to it, yeah, that have to disclose it. Slugger O'Toole's responses smack of literally not answering the question at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't agree. Our policy explicitly does not require people must disclose (have to) a COI unless it's WP:PAID territory. People are strongly encourage to disclose, but if they do not do so, we have to consider whether their editing is causing problems. If it is, it may very well be appropriate to block or topic ban them, but this will be based on the problems their editing is cause, not the fact they may have an undisclosed COI. Editors should be aware that failing to disclose a COI means others may be reluctant to help them with any edit suggestions, and they will be given short shrift in any discussion, but still it's not a requirement. Personally I find an editor who refuses to comment on a COI slightly better than an editor who comments but misleads, although the former doesn't seem to apply here since as I understand it, the editor has refused to comment on any connection, but says they have no COI. Whether the latter applies, I have no i dea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne actually, WP:COI actually requires those with a COI to disclose it. Up near the top it states:

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Even non-paid editors with a COI need to disclose it. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: Did you read what you quoted? It says "Expected". It does not say you are required or must do so. And later it says "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles" (emphasis mine). Notice these words. They were chosen carefully. The only parts were it says "must" is in relation to paid editing. In that case, it is indeed required, and an editor can be blocked simply for failing to disclose their paid editing. It doesn't matter if their paid editing is stellar and no one can find any problem with it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, and refusal to either confirm or deny is as good as a confirmation, as we all know. But that's not the main issue. The main problem here is a terrible article that makes a notable subject look like some crappy little group because it is mostly promotional text taken from the group's own sites and press releases. Guy (help!) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know if I'd necessarily agree on that, and I'd argue your post demonstrates why. Someone may consistently refuse to confirm or deny precisely because if they start to deny, then they also have to confirm even if they don't want to. If you ask me whether I live in Wellington, and I refuse to confirm or deny, it may be because I live in Wellington. It may be because I live in Auckland and don't want to reveal that, and so don't want to go down a path which may eventually require me to either confirm I live in Auckland, lie about it, or basically tell people I do by the one time a question which I cannot truthfully deny is asked, I have to refuse to confirm or deny thereby confirming it anyway, or point blank refusing to answer which again if I normally reply will be taken as confirm it.

Likewise if you ask me if I am a member of Knights of Columbus, maybe the reason I may refuse to confirm or deny is because I am a member of Knights of St Columba and don't want to have to effectively reveal that when I feel there is no valid reason. I'm fairly sure some politicians have such a policy of refusing to confirm or deny a lot of rumours precisely for this reason.

Undoubtedly an editor should not be allowing their COI to cause problems, and the best way they can avoid having to disclose a COI is by steering well away from any area where they have a COI. But I'm also completely sympathetic to people who want to keep their private lives private despite editing here. And so fully endorse our current policy which IMO is clear that we cannot force people to declare an ordinary COI. Only when it comes to paid editing are editors required to disclose with no ifs or butts about it and their failure to do so is completely blockable.

Hence why as I said, we need to concentrate on problems this editor may be causing, putting aside whether they may or may not have a COI, rather than making misleading claims that a COI must be disclosed (which would imply it's ultimately a blockable offence to consistently fail to do so).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, when someone is engaged in promotional editing, it's legitimate to ask if they have a conflict of interest. If they refuse to answer, then it's equally legitimate to restrict them to the talk page as if they did, because the problem is promotional editing more than it is a conflict of interest. That's what I mean here: Undisclosed COI versus non-COI promotion is a distinction without a difference as far as the content goes. Guy (help!) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne Yes, I read what I wrote. I guess it comes down to how we interpret "expected to ". We're expected to stop at red lights, but it doesn't mean it's voluntary.

I read the COI statement the same way. NO, I won't get into a discussion about semantics, I totally see how you read "expected", you read it as something voluntary, and I don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if it means "required", they need not disclose anything other than the fact that they have COI. It's usual for editors in this situation to explain what the COI consists of (a member, and officer of the association, a close friend of a member, etc. ) but this is not required. We assume good faith, and recognize that the need to disclose further may be in some way identifying DGG ( talk ) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two issues here. The first is the amount of WP:SELFSOURCE material that is appropriate and for which facts it is appropriate. The second is when a COI needs to be disclosed. I was of the opinion that a primary source was acceptable for things like membership numbers. Due to the longstanding stable nature of the article, I believe there was a consensus for it. Others have come in and started removing that material, claiming it to be promotional and not appropriate for a primary source, without changing the consensus first. I think this is inappropriate, but as a gesture of good faith have endeavored to find additional sources. I haven't seen that reciprocated on the other side, sadly, and in fact have found the tone of some other editors to be downright hostile. If the consensus changes on this, I would be happy to abide by it.

As to whether or not membership requires disclosure, this issue has arisen before on this article. Two admins, @TonyBallioni: and @SarekOfVulcan:, have both declared that we "have never interpreted the COI guideline to require disclosure for things such as" membership in a fraternal organization. I think this is a wise move for those who are not in the upper ranks or paid employees. As I said on the talk page, declaring membership in an organization like the Knights would reveal several pieces of personal information, including age, gender, and religion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my impression as well. The general rule seems to be that you don't have to declare whether you are or ever were a Boy Scout to edit articles about Boy Scouts, but you do have to declare your association if you're paid for your involvement (either on staff for the organization [at least above a trivial level; mail room staff need not bother] or it's your job to promote the org [whether for pay or as a volunteer]). The same rules that apply to members of the scouting movement ought to apply to members of other large organizations. (For the smallest clubs, the situation is more complicated, because it's less likely that someone would technically be a member but not be involved in promoting the group or its aims in some way.)

As noted above, and according to the lead of that article, it appears that for this org "please disclose that you're a member" means "please disclose your religion on wiki". I can understand someone being reluctant to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

I'm less concerned about what might constitute COI than I am about his repeated insertion of UNDUE, promotional, and weakly sourced content in the article. The article is written in a tone and with a level of detail, jargon, and admiring excess that comes off downright bizarre to an uninterested arm's-length reader. This issue has been patiently explained to him, and I am not optimistic that he will be able to collaborate constructively on this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the COI is less important than the article content and how editor Slugger O'Toole does his best to own the article. Every time any other editor changes/removes content, he quickly reinserts it, and with his promotional spin. See this example of his whitewashing. [1]

He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article, (note his comments above) and he seems to be repeatedly either failing to comprehend or INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the repeated comments by other editors to point out that unless some piece of trivia or other material is sourced in an INDEPENDENT source, than it doesn't deserve to be in the article (it is not important enough to be in Wikipedia).---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• O'Toole has made a baffling 60% of the edits to that page (75% by text), which is unacceptable for an editor who has both clear WP:DUCK WP:COI issues they've refused to clarify and who and has, more importantly, constantly refused to listen to people saying that the article has clear problems. Wikipedia has around six million articles, and this one as a reasonably high amount of attention now, so I think O'Toole ought to spend some time editing on a different subject and leave the Knights in the care of other editors for a few years. (I also think the fixation on "this is how it has always been", in the face of so many people pointing out so many problems, smacks of WP:OWN given that much of the current text was written by O'Toole with relatively minimal input from others.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have stated on multiple occasions that I think the article can use work and that I am willing to work with anyone who wants to try and improve it. My main complaint is that, instead of editing text to improve the prose, some think the best course of action is to simply delete huge sections of text. My requests to work on this collaboratively with others have largely been ignored. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Much of the content does not belong in an encyclopedia article, for reasons many several editors have explained. Much of the article is paraphrased from a few closely affiliated sources. That kind of content simply needs to be removed. It can't be "improved" by compromise or collaboration. It just doesn't belong in the article. Your talk page statements, and now this one here, just ignore that the content can't be "improved". New content from more neutral sources, some critical and others contextualizing the KofC, could be added from independent RS references. But you've shown no inclination to work on that kind of improvement. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I dispute this characterization, both of the content and my efforts. I added plenty of new sources. I could also point to a few places where you deleted content that is critical of the Knights. I haven't removed any critical content. I also haven't seen you add any neutral, critical, or contextualizing sources. Neither has anyone else, for that matter. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Q.E.D. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I have not added any--yet--is that I have been focused on finding better sources for what is already there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:OWN - proposal

This situation is becoming impossible. There's a strong consensus on the article's Talk page and in other venues where this has been discussed that the article relies too heavily on affiliated sources and contains excessive trivia, much of it serving to promote the organisation. Every time anyone tries to fix this with an edit, Slugger O'Toole piecewise reverts pretty much all of the change, restoring the text with the same or only marginally better sources. The page stats speak for themselves. Slugger O'Toole has made 795 edits, which is 62% of all the edits ever made to the article and 3/4 of all the text added.

Slugger O'Toole has stated in the past that he is a member of the organisation. He has made numerous idiosyncratic arguments in favour of his excessive self-sourcing, he does not accept that there is any problem with the content (obviously, he wrote it) and it's virtually impossible to make any progress because, as I say, virtually every removal ends up being fully or partially reverted. The current focus seems to be to replace the KofC website as source with references to a book by Kaufmann which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, and now represents fully 30% of the inline citations.

I think this is well into WP:OWN territory now. 154 of the last 200 edits are by Slugger O'Toole, often a dozen or more edits in succession. I would like to ask that, at least for a short while, he is required to gain consensus prior to any edit tot he article itself, that would make it a great deal easier for the handful of us who are trying to tone the article down. Guy (help!) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Any reason no-one's proposed a Tban...? ——SN54129 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct response: I think nobody proposed a TBAN simply because this thread hasn't gotten much participation. Of course, if it's proposed the thread might get more editors to participate and reach the right conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I don't want to be overly harsh on him. I'd be happy with a talk page restriction, I don't want him removed altogether because he is genuinely trying to help and has many other edits to other articles that are not a problem. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite a lot of his other editing is in sub-articles or other related topics. A TBAN on pages related to KofC would not unduly limit his work on unrelated topics. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation this is. Others have identified issues with the article. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. I then made efforts to correct those areas identified as needing improvement. Now I am being criticized for doing so. While I have attributed a few statements to Kauffman, there have been far more pointing to new, independent, reliable citations. With one small exception, I don't see anyone else trying to find new sources. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, no, it's a damned if you do, damned if you keep on doing despite numerous editors having obvious issues with it. Turns out most of the replaced citations are still to publications affiliated with the KofC. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Again, I dispute this. As the article stands right now, there are probably 30-40 new sources in there, all, or almost all, of which are independent of the Knights. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, except that I keep looking into them and finding they aren't, and nearly a third of all cites are to one author whose writing absolutely is affiliated. But that misses the point. The issue with your editing is your attempts to WP:OWN the article. Guy (help!) 18:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, As I mentioned in another thread, there are fewer citations to Kauffman today than there were a month ago. The reason the percentage is going up is because other content and their sources are being deleted. I am not trying to own anything. If someone would like to help find independent sources I would be not only welcome it, I would be grateful. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strikes me as odd that our article seems completely silent on the Knights' paedophile problems.[2] Probably the article needs a tap with a NPOV hammer. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also the allegations of insurance fraud and other matters. There actually is a lot of RS coverage of KofC but much of it doesn't fit the current structure of the article's admiring narrative, and it will take a lot of work over time to write a richer account of the organizations history. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You will please note that there was a paragraph arising from the insurance fraud lawsuit previously, but JzG removed it. I've been hesitant to add anything new since you are so fond of cutting "undue detail." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

But you were happy to reword someone else's addition critical of the Knights to something praising them: (which could also be called whitewashing) [3] ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, you're welcome to try but current experience indicates that Slugger will revert. Guy (help!) 23:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: SPA and OWN, here's another bizarre thread: [4]. Is all this OK with the community, or can some resolution be found? SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

TBAN for Slugger O'Toole

This thread has been up for a while now, so I think we need to resolve the matter one way or the other. There's not going to be any improvement of the many promotional articles concerning Knights of Columbus with Slugger O'Toole monitoring them virtually 24/7 to reinstate unencyclopedic, cherrypicked, and poorly-sourced content and to remove broader mainstream discussion of the organization. Either the community is OK with this situation -- and OK with WP hosting these promotional and unsourced narratives -- or else I think we need to TBAN this editor. Let's resolve the issue. If there's no appetite for a TBAN, I think the rest of us will just move on to edit in other areas and grant Slugger O'Toole complete ownership of these articles. So I propose a TBAN for Slugger O'Toole from the Knights of Columbus article and related content in other articles. @Avatar317, JzG, Alexbrn, Serial Number 54129, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, DGG, Nil Einne, Wekeepwhatwekill, Michepman, and Slugger O'Toole: SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as proposer per comments above. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, as nominee. If you read the talk pages, you will see that I have made multiple good faith efforts to work with other editors. There are multiple times when I have asked for help, but then the conversation runs dry. I have offered to work on text together on talk before moving it to the main, and no one takes me up on the offer. It is true that we have differing opinions on several issues, but I have always tried to remain civil and collaborative. I don't want SPECIFICO, or anyone else, to move on to other articles. I think sometimes he goes too far, but some of his edits are very helpful. The public thank log shows I have thanked him several times recently 1) because I appreciate his efforts and 2) in an effort to calm tensions. There is no reason we can't work on these collaboratively together. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm surprised it's taken this long, but it's time for Slugger to step away from this. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. I hate to see someone get a topic ban, but looking at the talk page, it's pretty much due at this time. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wekeepwhatwekill, Yes, let's look at it. Look at my comment of 1:39 pm, 27 November 2019 when I started a discussion about all the tags that were placed on the artle when the tagger did not. At 1:35 pm, 30 November 2019 when I asked for help understanding the concerns, but didn't get a response. At 10:01 pm, 4 December 2019 when I asked for clarification, and got nothing. Again, same thing at 8:52 pm, 9 December 2019. Again at 3:44 pm, 11 December 2019.

  See the comment of 9:35 am, Yesterday when I tried to avert an edit war, but didn't get a response, and then did so again at 10:33 am. Then I explained my edits at 11:35 am, but SPECIFICO didn't read them and started a new talk page section at 6:49 pm. At 2:33 pm, 11 December 2019 and 10:25 am, Yesterday I asked a question. The first time I got a response that didn't answer the question, and the second time was ignored. Look at the History of the Knights of Columbus talk age where I have created several sections to discuss issues but haven't gotten any responses. I have truly made an effort. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support for their own good. So'T does not seem to be taking concerns on board. ——SN54129 16:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, In response to other's concerns, I have added dozens of new sources. The article has been trimmed by more than 20% and I did not contest the vast majority of it. I even trimmed some myself. I have absolutely heard the concerns of others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, a lot of whihc are equally crappy. Your problem is simple: you are looking for sources to support The Truth™ rather than writing what the best sources actually say. Guy (help!) 19:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, They include trade publications, academic journals, major regional newspapers, regional and global Catholic publications, and more. I was not looking to support a narrative so much as I was looking to find RS to replace the primary sources previously included in the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, and affiliated sources and press releases (i.e. trade journals, I have written copy for them myself). But once again you miss the point. The issue is that you are mining the internet for sources to support what you want to say, then trying to conjure up arguments as to why they are reliable, rather than reading genuinely reliable sources and reflecting them in the article. Guy (help!) 23:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. It feels like this is fundamentally a content dispute. When the fundamental problem is "unencyclopedic, cherrypicked, and poorly-sourced content", we should be reaching for RFCs on content, not trying to get the main editor of the article out of the way. The insurance fraud lawsuit (mentioned above) is a good example: if it's WP:DUE, then there should be plenty of sources that aren't a press release from their vendor. These search results don't suggest that it's DUE at this time. (Once the lawsuit is finished, it might be a different story, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, kind of: it's a content dispute between one editor and pretty much everybody else who's looked at the article over a period of several years. Guy (help!) 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly disagreeing with your view, but content disputes get solved with RFCs. I see, for example, that the OP has posted a source on the talk page about the ongoing fraud lawsuit. But I don't see anyone else replying to it (where are those "everybody elses"?), and I don't see any further efforts from the OP to demonstrate that there is a consensus for including it. The WP:ONUS for demonstrating that there's a consensus for mentioning that lawsuit is on the editor who wants to include it, not on the one who reverts it, and that hasn't happened. It looks to me that the primary effort towards getting that information included in the article is proposing this TBAN. I think an RFC would be a more appropriate way to determine whether people want this lawsuit mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Nobody's suggested that the insurance fraud allegation is a significant matter of dispute or that it raised a significant behavioral issue. It was only raised here at ANI by Slugger as a straw man to deflect from the serious longstanding misconduct. If you want a single example to look at, consider Slugger's repeated reverts on the political activities or his repeated insistence that sources related to or published by KofC are independent RS that can be used to determine DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Before this discussion, the last time an RFC was opened on that talk page was almost two years ago. That does not sound like a bunch of editors agreeing that there are problems with the content of the article.

  (Due weight is determined by all the reliable sources, not just the independent reliable sources. The word independent does not appear in DUE at all – and with good reason, because "Alice accused Bob" should normally be followed by some indication of Bob response. We might give non-independent sources less weight, but they actually should be considered.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I fundamentally disagree with the rationale for removing sourced facts from the article, and Slugger is doing useful collaborative work. He has repeatedly expressed his willingness to collaborate if the other editors are willing. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23 per your user page are you sure you should be commenting on this issue ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what are you attempting to insinuate here? Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23 You are affiliated with the Knights of Columbus. You have a WP:COI

Actually I do not; but we are commenting about a user and not an article, in case you haven't noticed. This is AN/I. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23 I'm not aware of where it states WP:COI is restricted to just articles. Per WP:COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." - contributing to Wikipedia - ANI is a part of Wikipedia. Your comment "in case you haven't noticed." is unnecessary and hostile.   // Timothy::talk  21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already been over this. I don't have a COI with Knights of Columbus and so I am not sure why you want to accuse me of having a COI with Slugger O'Toole? Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23 We can agree to disagree and let others judge whether you have a COI based on WP:COI and your membership in the Knights.   // Timothy::talk  21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You can debate that all you want (I guess you don't want to anymore) but I do not have a COI with Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs) (I have no idea who he is) and I will not "agree to disagree" on something that is patently false and a bad-faith accusation from you in an effort to stack the deck against Slugger. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, For the record, I don't have an off-wiki relationship with Elizium23. I also don't think Timothy's comment was made in bad faith. I don't think he is correct, but I believe his comments were made in good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I really want to see some attempt at formal dispute resolution over tbe content issues be worked out first. This editor is generally productive, engaged friendly, and while i strongly disapprove of what he did to that article I am reluctant to support a ban on him from editing that topic area unless there is proof that the dispute resolution and escalation approaches have been tried and failed. IF that does happen and the problem persists then I would change my mind but before I think we should use a topic ban as a last resort. Michepman (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Editor has known about issue with sourcing for years, doesn't seem to take advice of other editor's concerns with this ongoing issue, or we wouldn't be here at ANI today with this proposal - Too reliant on the organisation's own website...and the Kaufmann book (July 2013) - Excessive primary sourcing (January 2018) - Excessive reliance on Kauffman (December 2019). Also agree with tag on article This article contains content that is written like an advertisement - Slugger is responsible for 94.8% of major edits to the article KofC. This diff here from November 2019 shows his reliance on too many sources affiliated with KofC, and not acknowledging other editor's concerns (since at least July 2013) about independent third-party sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Isaidnoway, As pointed out on the article's talk page, there are only two sources today that point to the Knight's. Additionally, as pointed out there, the reliance on Kauffman is due in part to the massive cuts that have taken place. There are actually fewer references to him today than there were a month ago, but the percentage has gone up because the denominator has gone down. Your comment ignores the dozens of new sources I have added in the last few weeks after hearing the comments and concerns of others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, that's missing the point (again). There were always too many references to Kaufmann, a work commissioned by the KofC. It's more obvious now that more of the cruft is being removed. And you've increased the number of references to Kaufmann. I would say it could be in a "further reading" section but should not be used for more than a minimal amount of content due to lack of independence. Guy (help!) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be significant WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE / WP:UNDUE issues in these articles that have been introduced by the editor, there is no attempt at WP:IMPARTIAL. The WP:OWN issues have become WP:DE due to a lack of WP:LISTEN in any meaningful attempt to reach WP:CON. It is an entirely one-sided article and the sources used in the article are overwhelmingly biased and self-promoting. WP:BIASED states bias sources should be evaluated by issues such as "such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" The vast majority of the sources fail all these tests and should not be used. I believe the sources also fail WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SPONSORED. If the author was interested in a neutrally balanced article, they would have a balance with material from opposing viewpoints but I see no attempt at doing so, but rather the opposite - an active attempt (and at this point successful) attempt to remove opposing viewpoints. All combined I see a significant WP:COI here. I think anyone voicing an opinion on this should state if they have a WP:COI especially if they are a member of the organization (some 'oppose' votes disclose membership in KofC on their talk page, but not here).   // Timothy::talk  18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• TimothyBlue, I respectfully disagree. I think difs like these show that I have tried to work with others to gain consensus to changes. [5]. [6]. [7]. [8]. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Look to see in how many instances someone took me up on the offer to edit collaboratively. I'm not sure what more I could do in those instances. As to attempting to remove opposing viewpoints, I point you towards this dif where I inserted information critical of the Knights. I was hesitant to do it since it was previously removed as being undue, but I thought it important enough to include. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole The above examples are few compared to your massive output and insignificant attempts at WP:CON. The single "critical" sentence you added was barely critical. Can you honestly defend the sources you use in respect to WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SPONSORED? Can you honestly say you have a WP:NPOV and have no WP:COI regarding the Knights? With the overwhelming amount of content you have contributed to these articles do you not see an WP:OWN issue?

I think your comments here reflect an over-investment and possessiveness on this topic. I don't believe you can evaluate your own edits on these articles objectively. That's not intended to be an insult in any way. There are topics all of us cannot approach objectively and can become too attached to/invested in. It just mean you need to back away from articles about the Knights and find another place to make a positive contribution in another area.   // Timothy::talk  20:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Like when Slugger repeatedly removed text summarizing one aspect of the Knights' civic engagement, text that reflects statements in the cited sources, [9] and then began claiming his edits were based on a non-existent talk page consensus. [10]. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, First of all, that line did not summarize 130 years of activity. Second of all, you have been pointed to the consensus on multiple occasions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, You make some fair points, Timothy. I can't help, however, if other editors have not taken the same level of interest that I have. Before I began actively editing this article it was a featured article. Someone put a lot of work into it before me. Before the recent flurry of activity, I hadn't made a substantive edit to it in months. To your other point, yes, I will stand behind most of the sources I used. I don't see a problem with the Hartford Courant, the Journal of American Ethnic History, CNN, Pensions & Investments, Connecticut Public Broadcasting Network, etc. Finally, take a look at how much content has been cut in the last month. It's much more than 20% of the article (those doing the cutting didn't remove unused citations, or it would be even more). Look at how much of it I have contested. It's only a fraction of that, and only when I felt strongly that it was important enough to keep. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole You're a good writer and experienced editor. You will find other areas to make a valuable contribution, including areas on Catholic history and culture. The Knights are not the only Catholic organization with articles on Wikipedia. There is no harm in stepping away from a particular topic your over-invested in. Don't let all this muck and mire spoil the enjoyment you find here. I could see how this could be discouraging, but think of it as an opportunity to develop other articles.   // Timothy::talk  21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole I understand your statement "I can't help, however, if other editors have not taken the same level of interest that I have." This seems like a no-win situation you're in. I think thats all the more reason to back away and make a positive contributor in other areas of Catholic history / culture / orgs.   // Timothy::talk  21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, It sure does. People criticize me for working on it. Then they criticize they state of the article. Then they criticize my attempts to rectify the issues they identified by saying I am trying to own it. Talk about a no-win situation. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, maybe you could sort out your citation arithmetic for us? You state here [11] that you added loads of "good" new sources but that the proportion of good-ones-to-Kauffman didn't go up because "the denominator has gone down" -- ??. Wouldn't that make your ratio go up? But anyway: Then directly above you say that other editors "doing the cutting didn't remove unused citations". What? I'm only asking you this because it's an example of how much work is required of other editors to figure out your contributions. If it's even possible to figure them out. Editor time is our scarce resource around here. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Sure thing. Yesterday, there were no citation errors at the History article. Today, after you have made large cuts, there are more than 20. You deleted the text, but not the references. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That does not respond to what I wrote about the inconsistency of your statements above. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, at least until the articles can be stabilised in a non-promotional form. It's impossible right now. Guy (help!) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment In place of a ban, I would be more than glad to invite some outside voices to discuss specific areas of disagreement. I have a long history of abiding by the consensus, even when I disagree with it. To cite one recent example, when Aquillion brought a specific source to RSN, I disagreed with what the majority of outside editors said but, respecting the consensus, have not sought to reinsert it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So to paraphrase that gladness, Slugger: You would like to continue in the same manner you've established over the past dozen years as a single purpose account here. But now, you would like to assign additional work to other editors: You want them to take the time and trouble to monitor all your edits and decode the misrepresentations, omissions, and curvaceous language in hundreds of future edits. Then, when they write up the problems, you will back off and conform to policy -- but only with respect to the problems they explain to you. That's basically not how this community works. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, That's not an accurate representation of either my contributions to the project or of my comments. Like almost everyone else here, I edit where my interest lie. The Knights of Columbus happens to be one. So too is Colonial American history, to cite one example. I've made a large number of contributions there, especially recently. I have created over 300 articles and dramatically expanded even more. I edit far beyond the Knights. And, when I disagree with someone, I take the time to make my case. If the consensus moves against me, I respect it. I do expect that of others as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – No comment on the underlying sourcing debates as I haven't looked into them, but the following sentences above left this passing onlooker curious: "Before I began actively editing this article it was a featured article. Someone put a lot of work into it before me." This puzzled me at first, because I didn't remember the Knights of Columbus article ever being featured. Upon a quick check, it turns out that it did reach FA status in July 2006, so it was before I started editing on here. However, it looks like the statement that Slugger started regularly editing the article after it got the star may not be fully accurate. A look at the revision history shows that Slugger made more than 50 edits between March 2006 (before their first edit the page had reached GA despite having no inline cites at the time (!)) and June 2006. The article was subsequently delisted in 2009, and an attempt to bring it through FAC again in 2013 was unsuccessful. I don't recall either of those reviews, and certainly don't remember details from my editing a decade ago, but I'd say Slugger qualified as a regular editor at the time, especially considering their edits included major additions like this and this. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN. I'm looking at a couple of these articles (a few of the flowers in this walled garden) and I'm just baffled. Whatever the characteristics of their COI are, the editor simply should not be involved in these articles. I could list why, but I think that's already been touched upon, and really, I'm baffled. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support and hope This includes the talk pages too Not sure if non-admins get a say in such matters... and I have participated a little in editing and watched the discussion on the talk page. Slugger is wikilawyering left and right. I invite anyone who thinks a TBAN is not a good idea to go to the talk page and read over some of the dialogue, Sethie (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor incommunicado (for 7 years)

• Joloimpat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am a little reluctant to take this to ANI right now, feeling like a pre-emptive strike, or is it? The above editor has hundreds of edits over 7 years, pretty constructive and positive contributor. But he has never once communicated in any language. He has zero talk page postings. He has zero edit summaries. His user page was a bio for a dead man, so I guess not an autobio? He edits on zero other langauge Wikis, although he appears to be Filipino from his chosen topic areas. So today I am raising a minor dispute with him and it's the umpteenth time I've revered him on List of people beatified by Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but revert and protest is all I can do, because he won't speak and won't act on our notices. He was blocked about five years ago by ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs), and I raise the question here whether a second short block may be in order, with an "or-else". It's a shame to throw away a positive contributor, but editors who won't communicate are flirting with WP:CIR. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t see the required ANI notice on his page (my apologies if you posted one and I missed it) so I have posted one on his talk page as a courtesy just in case he does opt to participate here. Michepman (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I posted it to the bottom two minutes after yours was posted... to the top for some reason. Fat lot of good it'll do, anyway? Elizium23 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC

Hey, he may eventually break his vow of silence. Some monastic orders allow that under certain circumstances. Michepman (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

He would need to petition Abbot Jimmy for permission. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The edits are tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit". How do notifications appear in that case? What if they are using an old version of the app? It might not be easy for such a user to find their talk. Even if my speculation is correct, a non-collaborative editor is a net drain on the community and a block might be required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If the 2015 block didn't have any effect, why would we think that doing it again would have a different result?

Let's try having an administrator email them. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn’t rush to a block. We don’t want to bite an otherwise constructive user unless that’s the only alternative to halt ongoing disruption. Michepman (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, email away. The mobile edit tags began consistently in February 2017. When was the edit filter established? Is it possible he was using the mobile app in 2015 during the first block? What about 2013 when he began editing oblivious to such things as ClueBot? Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Very little is more frustrating, then an editor who refuses to communicate with other editors. It smacks of arrogance. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(I think it's more WP:CIR, per Hanlon's Razor.) I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joloimpat, sock's IP address is blocked for disruptive editing, so he's committing block evasion. Let's rush to a block. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My 14 years on 'pedia, tells me this isn't an CIR issue. It's a "I'll do whatever I want" issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See my comment on that SPI. Any block here should come from ANI, not an SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that a currently-blocked editor is allowed to continue. What happened to WP:Block evasion?? Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor likely just forgot to log into their account because the mobile interface sucks and it's extremely easy to edit logged out. Editing in mainspace as an IP isn't socking unless there is intentional deception.

I get the block evasion concern, but I don't think you'll find many admins who are active in the SPI space who want to block an account with 4,000 edits based on a disruptive editing block from an IP that may be them. Most admins are block happy on IPs, and are significantly less likely to block accounts at all for stuff they would give lengthy blocks to IPs for. If there are issues, deal with it on the account that has a 4,000 edit record. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

To put his 4,000 edit record in perspective, he has thirty-eight unresponded warnings or errors listed on his page (I counted BracketBot). That's a rate of approximately 1% disruptive edits. Also his edit count is inflated due to his neglect of any "Preview" function that may or may not be available and multiple minor trivial edits each time he puts something in. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So you want to block an account with 99% good edits is what you're saying? I like the email idea better. – Levivich 03:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems ridiculous on its face. For perspective, if I had the same disruption rate, I'd have 400 warnings on my page (that's 100x what it takes for a block; Joloimpat already has been warned plenty of times over before a block would normally be imposed). Some years ago Shawn Nelson (American rampager) stole a tank and drove it through the streets of San Diego. I am not sure that the police would have stopped to consider if he only destroyed 1 in 100 cars he passed. The point was that a man in a tank is nigh unstoppable by civilian forces, and he's making his way through the city... Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with the analogy, but I think it is also crucial to look at what the warnings are for. Some of the early warnings (in 2013) are indeed serious such as copyright violation but many of the later ones are not really that big of a deal and could easily be honest mistakes (formatting issues, typos, mistakes with markup). It may end up being a competence issue, but I wouldn’t look at the sheer number of warnings (incl. minor automated notices) and compare that to the wiki-equivalent a maniac plowing through Main Street in a tank. Michepman (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As a member of the maniacs who plow through Main Street in a tank community (one of the most misunderstood groups in existence) I take offense to your analogy. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then, you can fully appreciate an unstoppable force that can't be signaled and doesn't talk back, and does what it wants to do while plowing through/over/around obstacles. Elizium23 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So, who emailed him? How is that going? Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

He just made another pointless edit. How's that email going?

I have a feeling that many of the edits he's made are being ignored because they're pointless and/or completely minor. It seems all he does all day is changing numbers of the SEA games page or some political chart. Like has he ever made an edit of consequence? Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit seemed constructive. At least, it is actually improving the article and it appears to be sourced adequately. Michepman (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess if you say it is sourced, but Joloimpat himself did not actually add a source, which is something I have never seen him to do. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Three more objectionable edits: 1, 2, 3. How much longer do I put up with this before just going back to WP:AIV where he was blocked in the first place? Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Remind me what's objectionable about those? The IP

• added a section heading that will presumably become relevant in a few weeks;
• linked the name of a notable person; and
• piped the "formal" name to that link.

What exactly is the problem with adding a section heading and a link? Sure, the section heading won't be needed for a few more weeks, and the new link is a red link, but the odds of a person being on this list and not meeting WP:GNG is basically zero. The list could just as accurately be titled "List of dead people that Pope Francis guaranteed that multiple reliable sources would write stories about". WP:Red link begins by telling us "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Why are you complaining here about these good-faith and apparently competent edits? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: in December 2014: Elizium23, BoBoMisiu, John Carter, let me know if Joloimpat starts edit warring again. I'm leaving him one last warning about not communicating with others and I've told him that if he does any of this again without actually participating in a discussion, he will receive a temporary block. The only thing I can figure (out of good faith) is that he may not be proficient enough in English to converse with others on talk pages. The other option is that he does not want to discuss anything, which can make his edits disruptive by large since he doesn't seem to want to discuss anything with anyone. I can understand not being a big fan of talking on Wikipedia, but at some point you have to do it or it's seen as disruptive. For five more years Joloimpat has run roughshod over other editors attempting to communicate with him. It makes no difference now if some of his edits are superficially not disruptive, he is not communicating and we are unable to reach him with talk page messages and he is out of control. That is not Wikipedia. We are not a solo project. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's your claim that he's "out of control" that I'm not buying. It was appropriate to add that link. It is not proof of any kind of bad behavior. It looks like you've reverted that same link three times, in noticeably less than 24 hours, and in contravention of the guideline on red links. Maybe you should stop edit warring? Or at least go to the article talk page and explain why you think that this link should be removed even though the guideline says not to do that normally? You're here complaining that the other guy isn't talking, after all, so it's kind of noticeable that you seem to be guilty of the exact failing that you accuse him of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I have ceased attempting to communicate with him because it doesn't make any impression or change anything he's doing. I have ceased considering his edits constructive - the ones I cited have no purpose and he's often adding stuff in contravention of WP:CRYSTAL. Why should I use the talk page and attempt to contact him if he won't listen? It's a waste of time. Nobody else is involved. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:REDLINK, the link you've been reverting do have a purpose. I think you should leave them alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Article clean up requests

Hi: It has come to my attention that there are a lot of articles on places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which use very informal and offensive language. To elaborate. This type of language includes from previously edited articles the following text which I have had to either clean up or remove as I find it offensive as a white british citizen.

Extended content

The following historical sentences are for use in my evidence: Rugeley ===Demography=== Before: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes, but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town. After: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes. Worcestershire ===Ethnicity=== Before: Though the total number of people in every ethnic group increased between 2001-11, the White British share of Worcestershire's population decreased from 95.5% to 92.4%, as did the share of White ethnic groups as whole, which went from 97.5% to 95.7%. While this change is in line with the nationwide trend of the White British share of the population shrinking, Worcestershire is still much more ethnically homogeneous than the national average. In 2011, 79.8% of the population of England identified as White British; much lower than Worcestershire's figure of 92.4%. After: Removed the entire sentence. It came over as really offensive slang and hatred towards white people. Uttoxeter Before: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with just 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> After: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with around 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> County Durham Before: County Durham has very low rates of ethnic and religious diversity. 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. After: County Durham has 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. These are examples which I have had to change as it sounds like one too many white people. There was also one on Telford too. Before: Telford's population is predominantly White, comprising 93.8% of the population as of the 2001 census. The next largest ethnic group is those of Asian descent, comprising 3.3% of the population, which is again less than the West Midlands at 8.0%, and England at 5.3%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276831&c=Telford+and+Wrekin&d=13&e=13&g=396941&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184339923&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – Telford & Wrekin|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> However, the town and borough remains comparatively more ethnically diverse than the ceremonial county, with South Shropshire for example being 97.8% white.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=277096&c=South+Shropshire&d=13&e=13&g=482771&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184344829&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – South Shropshire|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> After: Removed. As it was a brag for too many white people and not enough ethnicity. My complaint is if Wikipedia is about being formative and connecting. These types of sentences are examples of being White british is a sin and having less ethnicity is wrong. Please could some admin I request look for other pages or keep an eye of the aforementioned pages for further white hatred language. Just because somewhere has low demographic ethnicity doesnt make it a bad thing. Leicester and Slough are prodminently becoming asian but nobody has put anything negative towards the ethnicity makeup. I hope my points are taken seriously. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 23:05, 08 December 2019.

This actually does seem relevant for WP:ANI, but not in the way JoshuaIsTheFalco would've intended. The edits he mentions he has done above all seem quite disruptive and something that should he stop making - he seems to consider any sentence on the share of white people in a place to be possibly racist against white people, including perfectly factual clauses like "but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town". I also wonder if his behavior in other areas has improved since the last ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive311#User:JoshuaIsTheFalco - @Redrose64 and Nthep: on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I hadn't noticed that he'd already made some edits like this, so I've re-opened this report to consider his editing. If I have time later I may look at reverting some of it - although ironically in some cases he's removed text which is actually unsourced anyway, if for completely the wrong reason. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So his edits had already been reverted by others (although at Worcestershire he'd changed it again, leading to a sentence that made little sense). I have reverted that again, and have sourced the sections to census data both there and at Rugeley. Effectively, the answer here is that JoshuaIsTheFalco needs to stop messing about with statements of fact just because he has the bizarre idea that they are somehow offensive, and I will place a notice to that effect on their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Very strange. Your notice was promptly and angrily removed, with a note to self that they'll "stop contributing to this disease riddle site of falsehood". Well, OK. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

A threatened flounce is a fairly common reaction but as before JISF is back after a short while. Since my last interaction with him regarding the existence of a village and on this issue there has been discussion at his talk page which he seems to have taken to heart so at the moment I don't think any action is required. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Andy Dingley

I would like to request that several personal comments by Andy Dingley be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass):

- [12] - Dingley accuses me of making a "bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" and mentions a potential ANI post.

- After I politely ask Dingley to remove the comment and focus on content, not contributors, he accuses me of disruptive editing and again mentions ANI. Within minutes, two more comments appear at AfD [13][14] that focus entirely on my actions and fail to assume good faith.

I'm concerned that these remarks are derailing discussion of the actual sources and content at AfD. It seems that Dingley would prefer to discuss the situation at ANI instead of user talk, so here we are. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• You stripped most of the content of an article, and all of its sourcing, then AfDed it as "unsourced". No. We do not abuse AfD like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should sources be stripped simply for having been added by their authors? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley’s view is opposed to that of Dlthewave, and his comments are directed at Dlthewave’s actions, but I disagree with the suggestion that Dingley’s edits constitute a personal attack. Personal attack is very different. Dolphin (t) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks bad to strip sources and then AFD an article. A better option is to explain the problems with the sources in your AFD. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda - to be fair, it looks like Dlthewave removed the sources nearly a year before making the AFD nomination (the sources were removed in January 2019 as far as I can tell). The sources themselves appear to be garbage (non reliable sources) so even if they had remained then it would have been an issue. I don’t take any position as to the AFD but I’m not sure that it is fair to accuse Dlthewave of gaming the system. For the sake of putting this argfument to bed, I would encourage Andy Dingley to strike through the accusations and move on from them. They might not count as personal attacks under a legalistic definition but I think they are not really helping the discussion either. Michepman (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman: OK, yeah, I misread the history. The sources were stripped early, but the content was all deleted just before the AFD. Different details, same problem. Guettarda (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• The source stripping was done just hours after their first AfD of this article, a year ago, closed as Keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable sources nearly a year ago and explained my reasoning in the AfD after no usable replacement sources were found. In any case, AfD is not the place for comments about another editor's actions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just before the AFD you removed the entire article other than one sentence. [15] then nominated it for deletion, even taking off the categories. You previously removed a chunk of it after everyone else said KEEP the first time you sent it to AFD. Anyway, deleting an article is done by AFD not you just erasing 99% of it. Dream Focus 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have sometimes stripped the cruft out of an article and having done so, realised the topic is not notable and the article (what remains of it, anyway) should go to AfD. If this happens, my advice is to explain this in the nomination with a link to the pre-stripped version of the article, precisely to head-off this kind of drama. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, that's sound advice. "Having removed a number of sources that fail WP:RS, I was unable to replace them and find that there is in fact a lack of acceptable sources to substantiate notability" or words to that effect. Guy (help!) 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• There's an article at AfD that you'd prefer to see kept and early on the only !votes are to keep. What do you do?
  • Good idea: leave well enough alone.
  • Bad idea: Antagonise the nominator so much that they go to ANI to get you off their back, thereby bringing the AfD to the attention of people other than hyper-inclusionist AfD haunters and cryptozoology enthusiasts.
• But, but, but hurling angry mendacities at AfD nominators is fun. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't just one AfD - look at [16] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I see this editor removing trashy self-promotional sources from bad articles; and in one case has found that this leaves nothing in the article, which they therefore sent to AfD. Although I can appreciate arguments that dlthewave could have waited a week or two before pushing the AfD button, I'm not really seeing that they've done anything wrong. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"trashy sources" Which you haven't read. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AFAICS, all of the sources are cryptozoology sites or books written by cryptozoologists, and all they do is repeat the finder's claims - which, after all, since there was no physical evidence, is all they can do. As the article originally stated, some sources doubt whether it ever existed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean – it's not a notable globster after all? Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

cough non-notable partly decayed whale carcasses cough. Reyk _YO! 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's notable or not depending on whether it gets written about. It has. Now there is a broader question here, whether we cover folklore or not at all, because it is fundamentally all fantasy. But the claim being made, "There can be no reliable study made of a non-reliable topic" isn't any part of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic for this noticeboard but of course you know it's more complicated than simply whether something "gets written about". I have just reluctantly had to vote delete at WP:Articles for deletion/BEMER therapy because although this fascinating fringe topic is "written about", the sources simply aren't good enough. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

We cover notable folklore. Anyone who looks at those sources and doesn’t recognize they’re fringe has CIR concerns in my book. We should not be protesting the removal of fringe sources or hoax material, which is what this article was. – Levivich 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder, it is possible for scholarly works and reliable sources to cover mythology, folklore, pseudoscience, and even fiction. The issue here is wherher the sources in question are reliable and whether the nominator violated the rules by removing them. from my standpoint, the nominator did nothing wrong since he explained his action in the discussion. The aspersions cast on him by others should be voluntarily retracted to preserve civility. That does not mean that the article should or should not be deleted, just that the nomination was done properly and in good faith. Michepman (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it does not pass the smell test for an AfD nominator to delete the majority of the article and then nominate it for deletion. The AfD participants should be the ones to evaluate the article; if a nominator turns the article into a one sentence stub it is bad form. I have been involved in AfDs when a nominator did this and it always looks bad. The fact that numerous ANI participants have now gone from here to there to !vote delete is sad but predictable, but I digress. Can we please not do this? Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. It's not that uncommon - often an editor will find an article with few sources, or mostly unusable sources, and start removing stuff in an effort to fix it only to realize afterwards that what's left isn't really viable as an article. If you look at the recent removals, they were almost all unsourced (the one source didn't support the statement it was citing) and reasonably WP:EXCEPTIONAL material. The WP:AFD is tending overwhelmingly towards deletion even now that these objections have been raised, and anyone who wanted to try and salvage the article before it was deleted could restore the deleted material, either with or without sources, especially now that attention has been called to the removals. The fact that no one has been willing to restore the deleted material suggests that its removal was appropriate and, therefore, that it improved the article, ie. it's hard to see how having a wall of unsourced text would be helping it right now. And, I mean, in terms of people going from WP:ANI to weigh in on the WP:AFD... on the whole, heavy WP:ANI readers tend to be both a wider audience and some of the wiki's most experienced editors. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• There was nothing wrong with this edit, of course: the content was trash, and it was rightly removed. That the next step was AfD is also correct. I do not agree that Andy Dingley's following comments were personal attacks--"sheer bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" isn't much of a personal attack. It's a complete exaggeration, of course, and a meager attempt to save...a carcass? but bringing that here, meh. No one is going to block over it, and that AfD should just languish on the shore line until someone closes it. We could close it per SNOW, of course, but who wants to be yelled at? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive and bad-faith WP:POINT edits

• So do this, this, and this violate WP:NPA? Insulting me with idle threats, calling my edits "bullshit", and reverting good-faith additions constitute WP:NPA? I find it extremely fishy that Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) stepped out of retirement just to come and attack me for no reason. The user has also in bad faith restored a huge crapton of WP:OR to Love & Gravity (most of which was just citations to lyric databases that have long since been taken down) which seems to be an attempt to "get back" at me for edits made years before. This all smacks of WP:NPA given that the user in question ended a nearly six-year editing hiatus just to snipe me. Call it WP:POINT or what have you, but it's clear that they're just being petty over shit from six years-plus prior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  A very immature response from LF. Upon seeing their article delisted, they should have helped to improve it, and get it back to GA status. But instead they focused on attacking TPH, for really no good reason. LF: if you're reading this, I ask that you make no further attacks, remain civil, and help to fix the article. If you cannot stay civil, you may find yourself blocked and you'll have no chance to improve the article. But if you take a moment to reflect, I hope you will find it in you to work with the good editors here and bring Roger Miller back to Good article class, or heck, even the coveted Featured article class! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for some time and I come back and find that TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has added useless trivia and unsourced content to Roger Miller and then nominated it to be delisted as a GA article last month without even notifying me on my talk page or by email. I'm not going to speculate about his motives but a reasonable person can see this action as harmful to the Wikipedia. I looked back to see what else he had done concerning articles I previously edited and discovered that in 2016 he removed sourced information we previously discussed and came to a consensus on on the talk page of Love & Gravity from years ago and called it "crap." He also delisted 2 other articles I helped to elevate to GA status: Eddie Rabbitt and Ace in the Hole Band. As a consequence of these actions, I took the reasonable step to recall the Barnstar I awarded him in 2011. I no longer believe he deserves the Barnstar and ask that he remove it from his page. I've only seen the harm TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has done to the articles I edited previously which makes me wonder how many other articles he has harmed. I do not plan to investigate further. Now that I'm back I am excited to contribute and have started research on expanding the article for the 2008 Rodney Crowell album Sex & Gasoline, which I started in 2009.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha did TenPoundHammer really add this content[17] to a GA you had worked on and then nominate it to be delisted as a GA? Diabolical, if true. Cjhard (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And he just added it again. Perhaps he just doesn't like other people editing country music articles.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

All he did was add maintenance tags.[18] Cjhard (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I see that now but in his latest edit he added back all the unsourced content and trivia, which to me means he endorses it. If he would have just removed the bad content rather than delisting and/or notified me about the delisting, the article might still be GA. I still believe his actions were harmful to Wikipedia and so I stand by my decision to re-call the 2011 Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer reverted you because they felt you made your changes to make a point, rather than to improve wikipedia. I don't know if I'll really agree but in any case, TenPoundHammer is not the reason the info was there in the first place. The fact that you're incorrectly accusing them of doing do, helps no one. And frankly the only thing withdrawing in 2019 a barnstar you gave in 2011, does is reflect very poorly on you. Except maybe in extremely exception circumstances like Edgar181 perhaps. Definitely arguing over the withdraw barnstar with dumb comments like "fraud" does not reflect well on you. I suggest you both work on improving the article and stop with this nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Also looking more carefully at some of the removals, and the edit summary, I can understand why there were concerns. For example with this edit [19], you said "remove unsourced bullshit". Yet "A main street in Erick, Oklahoma, was named Roger Miller Boulevard in his memory" and "He was posthumously inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1995" are the sort of stuff which would likely belong in a comprehensive article. The fact it's unsourced is not good, still just reading these and it sounds like the sort of thing which should be easy to source so removing it is probably not the best solution. You may next point out the info is already in the article, in a better location and sourced and you'll be right. But why then didn't you say this when removing the content? I don't see how anyone reading your edit summary is supposed to know this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Since this post was made, Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) has once again restored unsourced content and WP:TRIVIA, most of which is not reputably sourced or sourced at all. The edit summary of "unsourced BS" is misleading and WP:POINTy, as it's clear that they are the ones adding unsourced content, not removing or fixing it like I was. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ETA: @Lost Fugitive: Really? You think I'm adding trivia? I knocked out the ENTIRE "Trivia" section. You're the one putting it back in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You just did it again and then called my removal and addition of sources as vandalism. Look at the article as it stands right now. You are adding the trivia "In popular culture." You are removing sources (published Johnny Cash autobiography) and replacing them with unsourced tags. You are adding unsourced information. This is harmful to Wikipedia. You do not deserve a Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I'm very confused what you're talking about since Lost Fugitive seems to be right. They removed a trivia section. You added it back. The only thing their edit seems to have added to the article is the discography section, but I wouldn't call it a trivia section and even if it potentially could be parred down, I'm not sure if it should be removed whole sale. It seems to me you're also as guilty as what I complained about above. Using edit summaries that don't provide a real understanding of why you're doing what you're doing and that are even more perplexing when taken together with your comments above. Anyway, I've opened a discussion on the talk page which hopefully you can join and better explain what you're trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll chalk that up to editing way too early in the morning and not properly processing what I was doing. My point still stands: it's blatantly clear that LF just came out of retirement to bitch at me over stuff that happened ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: See here where LF has the audacity to call me "mentally impaired". If that's not an WP:NPA I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Well at a minimum it's uncivil language and I would suggest Lost Fugitive stop if they don't want to get themselves block. OTOH, you twice reinstated a change based on the mistaken believe you were actually undoing what you were re-doing, and then came to ANI to complain about it and when the editor pointed out that they were the one who removed trivia you still insisted you were the one who did so. So some annoyance from the editor is understandable. And User:Lost Fugitive, before you get so high and mighty about TenPoundHammer's mistake, remember what I said above. You came to ANI and falsely accused them of adding the trivia in the first place and before that withdrew a 2011 barnstar and got into a dumb argument about fraud. So I'd again suggest you both just drop this and work on improving the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors

Hello, I would like to request Administrators review the conduct of Dilidor toward myself and other editors. I believe Dilidor has a long history of disruptive editing and abusive behavior towards editors (including myself) and is not making an attempt to follow Wikipedia policies despite a number of warnings from other editors and administrators. The policies I believe Dilidor regularly disregards and has demonstrated towards me are WP:CIV / WP:UNCIVIL, WP:PA, WP:EP, WP:CON, WP:LISTEN and WP:DE. He also has a history of WP:EW.

The example of their behavior towards me are:

1. Start of discussion [20]
2. Continuation of discussion: [21], [22], [23]

I believe Dilidor’s statements speak for themselves, so I will not repeat them here. If desired I can expand on this.

The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation, Oldperson is a recent example [24], [25].

I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here. [26]

I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such as Cúchullain [27], [28], Favonian [29], and RexxS [30], [31]). I think the content on User talk:Dilidor page such as [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], and their history in WP:ANI such as [42] and [43],demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.

I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to [44] [45] which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.

Please let me know if I can provide any other information. I am relatively new, so if I have made a mistake, again please let me know. Thank you.   // Timothy::talk 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur fully with TimothyBlue's complaint over Dilidor's behaviour. My own unfortunate interaction with them occurred when they made multiple changes to an article on my watchlist, where several of those changes breached our Manual of Style.

I reverted the changes with what I thought was a neutral edit summary, too many mistakes, run on sentences, breaches of MOS:NUMNOTES, which was promptly re-reverted by Dilidor with what I consider an aggressive edit summary you probably should learn what "run-on sentences" are before accusing someone of creating them; and what "mistakes" have I introduced? take this to the talk page---because my edits are a DISTINCT improvement. The "discuss" part of WP:BRD should have happened before any re-reverting by Dilidor.

I explained my revert on the article talk page at Talk:Momsen lung #Problems with recent edits, where I explained that Dilidor had created a run-on sentence (a comma splice to be precise) and had breached MOS:NUMNOTES by starting a sentence with numerals and using a mixture of numerals and words when enumerating the same quantities.

Dilidor's response was to ask me to explain which was the "run-on" sentence, and what errors they had made, completely ignoring my previous explanation, which I believe was already clear enough. I now know that this is simply part of Dilidor's style of debate, to frustrate other editors by repeatedly requesting more explanation.

The debate continued with me attempting to explain to Dilidor what a run-on sentence is, thinking that they were not understanding. Of course, I now know that they simply "know better" and disagree with our Manual of Style, which does not accept a comma as appropriate punctuation to join together multiple independent clauses. That may be usable by James Joyce as a stream-of-consciousness device in Ulysses, but not in an encyclopedia article.

Eventually the exchange climaxed with Dilidor writing "your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance." Judging by the stream of complaints voiced at User talk:TimothyBlue #Advice / Guidance needed, that appears to be typical of the way Dilidor treats other editors.

I believe that Wikipedia would be better off without Dilidor's contributions, if they cannot learn how to edit collaboratively and respect the project-wide consensus contained in our Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I've interacted with Dilidor and he certainly has a recurring problem with incivility and edit warring, as well as ignoring consensus, eg here and here. He's been warned about this various times by various editors and admins, but he falls back on the same behaviors time and again. He certainly deserves admonishment as it's high time he shaped up - or else found another hobby.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor persistently, and sometimes disingenuously, removed parenthetical commas per MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA at Plymouth Rock; see discussion here [46]. A few weeks later, the same thing over at American Revolution and American Revolutionary War; discussed here [47]. I expect to find myself having the same argument with Dilidor again, at some other page. I have not been very friendly with Dilidor, I suppose, but I think it's fair to say I have been patient. Regulov (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being late here. Dealing with a broken leg yesterday p.m. and today. Been away from the Internet.

I have found Dilidor to be immediately abusive, arrogant, disingenuous, and even outright dishonest. I have provided links to corroboration for all of this here, and made previous appeals for administrator intervention to put a stop to it both there and at TimothyBlue’s talk page.

Being peremptorily aggressive and reflexively dismissive is his standard MO, as other users have given multiple examples of here and at TimothyBlue’s talk page. An example of his being disingenuous is his repeatedly accusing me of, for example calling him a “jerk“ at the TimothyBlue talk page discussion, when that was clearly a paraphrase used in context to characterize the consensus held by the group.

Here is the passage at issue:

What is the point of these good faith efforts by User:TimothyBlue if he is going to be ignored by administrators and just told by other editors, “Sure, Dilidor’s a jerk, and absolutely knows better. Just put up with it and everyone will get along.“ This is going to keep good editors at the encyclopedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An example of his outright dishonesty is at the above cited link at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, where he attempted to pretend he had not twice been previously been cited for edit warring at that page on his own talk page (here and here) by me regarding his peremptory, uncivil, and disruptive behavior there. Then tried to play the victim at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, and act as though I had all along refused his entreaties to meet in there on neutral ground. All of which is transparent nonsense, and easily exposed as such.

Enough is enough. User Dilidor has behaved this way chronically towards both new and clearly conscientious users, and veteran users with hundreds of thousands of total edits over decades of work here in aggregate at this encyclopedia. He needs to be sorted out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've only rarely interacted with Dilidor and it was never a particularly positive experience. On one occasion [48] he simply removed my message from his talk page without saying a word because "it was not signed" (yes, I forgot to sign it, but it was by no means an anonymous message). His copy-editing work does have some merit, but that is nullified by the amount of grief and disruption that he causes to the community. Dilidor is the typical competent but difficult character that in the end is more of a hindrance than a help to the project. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. I first interacted with him at New London Union Station, where he removed massive amounts of well-cited text from the (GA status) article. Those edits introduced multiple factual errors and non-existent infobox parameters, and his reaction to my reversion was hostile; only the intervention of an admin stopped him from edit warring. A month later, he came back and repeated several of the disputed changes - once again refusing to use the talk page when asked to. Given that the diffs given in this section indicate that his behavior has not changed, I believe that action (likely a block) is needed to stop his toxic and confrontational attitude. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it may be time to consider placing a one revert restriction considering the level and lengthiness of the problem here. In the very least he needs a direct final warning that he needs to shape up now or he's going to face restrictions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage bullying

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

---

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has been engaging in some disturbing behavior at Talk:Aegean dispute of late. Specifically, he made the demand that SilentResident (talk · contribs) not edit her own posts to the talkpage I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. SilentResident has a disability (OCD, which she reveals on her userpage, and is furthermore not a native speaker of English, so she has to edit talkpage posts to fix grammatical and spelling mistakes that make her look incompetent. Future Perfect has been interacting with SilentResident for quite some time now and surely knows this (he uses the word "obsessive" repeatedly). Incredibly, Future Perfect carries out his threat and actually reverts one of SilentResident's talkpage posts, in the process reinstating grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and typos, with a condescending edit-summary on top of that [49]. This alone constitutes bullying. When SilentResident seeks advice from another administrator [50], Future Perfect escalates further by throwing the standard Balkan topics DS warning template at her [51]. In 12 years of editing wikipedia, I have seen bullying and absurd demands, but I have never seen something like this, from an administrator no less. The demand that SilentResident not correct her own posts to a talkpage is simply ludicrous. There is nothing in WP:TALK that limits users to how many talkpage edits they can make. None of SilentResidents copyedits to her talkpage posts (the so-called "obsessive fiddling" so contemptuously described by Future Perfect) occur after Future Perfect has responded, thus they are in line with WP:REDACT. Furthermore, Future Perfect's behavior is clearly in breach of WP:TPO. Future Perfect's tone is moreover consistently condescending and derogatory, his posts and edit summaries laced throughout with hostility and derision. This user has a history of incivil, abrasive behavior and has to my knowledge been desysopped at least once, and warned several times, for precisely such behavior. This is textbook bullying and needs to stop. And then, we beat ourselves over the head and deplore the fact that we don't have enough female wikipedians. Khirurg (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about "correcting" errors in their posts, it's about their persistent habit of tinkering, rewriting, expanding and rewording the content of their postings, often in half a dozen edits in a row, every single time they post anything anywhere. This is disruptive, it messes up talkpage histories, makes it difficult to follow what was said, and makes it difficult to respond. I don't care if this behaviour is caused by some disability (they never told me about any such); the disruptive behaviour needs to stop, and if this person is too imbalanced to stop it, they should not be on Wiipedia. WP:NOTTHERAPY. I would be more patient with that user if their behaviour was otherwise okay, but it's part of a more general pattern of disruption, so well, my patience has run thin. The DS warning was for their blatant POV-pushing on Aegean dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, Khirug, you forgot to notify SR of this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tough. If you are unable to deal with it, go edit another article. The Wiki software is not the most accessible in the first place. If you continue to bully a disabled person like this I will just go straight to the WMF with a complaint you are engaging in disability discrimination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with OID, dealing with harmless habits that you find annoying is part of working in Wikipedia's editing environment. Your watchlist has an option to hide all but the latest revision if you really can't handle seeing multiple entries for the same talk page (which in this case is nothing compared to some of the heated debates I've seen). –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have in the past advised @SilentResident: to write her comments in a Word document, correct any mistake and make any other modification she thinks necessary, and when sure nothing else should be modified, post it on Wikipedia. While discussing with SilentResident in the past, it happened in some cases that I could not post my responses because of edit conflicts caused by her continuous modification of comments. It is, frankly, annoying and makes the discussion difficult. If SilentResident uses Word or Notepad or another similar software, and the editors around are patient, all of the problem can easily be solved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment People, I am very sorry my disorder is causing all this :( It is not my intention to annoy others. I am really really sorry. Yes, it is two editors who were kind enough to advice me through my issue: Tu-Nor and Ktrimi, for which I am grateful. As you probably noticed, my constant editing is limited (almost successfully overcomen) on main Articles thanks to their advices (what I do is first edit in Microsoft Word, then put it to Google Translator (english), then re-edit it back in Word, and then copy-paste it to Web Browser for use on the main Article), while I am more direct in Talk Pages due to them being a place for discussions. Again very sorry :(

Edit: I am abit confused, my Wikipedia's Notification Bell icon tells me there is someone with the IP address 86.146.197.61 who participated in this discussion and they mentioned my name repeatedly [52] Apparently they got reverted as I don't see their messages anymore, but I can't access their diffs in the History Log either. Why are their diffs unaccessible in History? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, the edits in question have been revision deleted by an admin. This means they were considered offensive or abusive, most likely. I saw the edits before they were reverted, and it was largely a personal attack on Future Perfect At Sunrise Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it was WP:LTA/VXFC, who takes every available to do so. ——SN54129 13:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the problem is. Is Future Perfect at Sunrise getting frustrated by repeated edit conflicts on talk pages after SilentResident has done some copyediting? That's about the best explanation I can think of. Would they have also complained about the large number of edits I make when adding content gradually to an article (to avoid losing it accidentally in one hit) and then fixing mistakes / typos in it (example here)? In any case, "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row." is not policy; indeed, we have a policy explicitly contradicting it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Nothing wrong with making a single edit...[53], [54], [55]...particularly [56] while up for deletion at the time...  :) ——SN54129 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the issue with someone refactoring comments frequently and creating edit conflicts to people trying to response, it’s important to remember that Wikipedia is not urgent. You don’t need to respond the very second that someone says something on a talk page — if you take a few minutes or even an hour or so to respond, that cuts down on the potential for edit conflicts. Talk pages don’t have to be treated like phone calls or instant messaging apps where you have to respond in real time. The user’s desire to update and refactor her messages should not be a problem if people would just be more patient and less amped up in discussions per WP:COOL. That’s something I myself struggle with so I’m sympathetic but the bullying behavior on the talk page is completely inappropriate and should stop. Michepman (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I understand what the problem is. The problem is the nightmare of every editor on Wikipedia. Imagine someone who reverts your talkpage post removing added thoughts and restoring typos and grammatical mistakes which you tried to remove so that you could communicate more effectively on Wikipedia and, at the same time, look more professional and organised. Also imagine that someone also told you: I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row. while also obliquely referring to your OCD: I warned you before: stop your obsessive fiddling with your own postings.. Also imagine the bullying remarks were added at the edit-summary, so that the bullying gets permanently etched at the talkpage history of the article and cannot be removed. For any other normal editor that I can imagine, such blatant bullying of a disadvantaged female editor would constitute a blockable offence. Now imagine that the bully is also an admin, who, despite being involved with you in the discussion, immediately after the bullying, comes and templates you on ARBMAC at your talkpage. Also imagine that, in addition to every injury and insult I enumerated above, you are a timid female with OCD on the receiving end of this bullying. Dr. K. 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The bullying continues. A few days ago I added a map to Turkey [57]. Today Future Perfect reverted it [58] on the grounds that the caption is WP:SYNTH. He could have edited the caption, but chose to remove the map wholesale. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the difference between bullying and a content dispute and be careful not to conflate the one with the other; one of them is far more serious than the other. ——SN54129 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not bullying. Fish+Karate 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly retaliatory [59]. I added the map days ago but he reverted it only after I reported him. Khirurg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I happened to look at your contribs history after I saw your posting here. I do look at contribs histories from time to time. There's a reason they exist, you know? I wasn't too suprised I found you editing disruptively once again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. You have the article watchlisted. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do I? You must know more about my watchlist than I do. No, I happened to see your lastest article edit in your history while I was looking it up to check whether you notified SR, which you hadn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. It's a high visibility article you've edited before. Clearly retaliatory. Khirurg (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I cant give the sufficient time to this discussion rn. But one question. @Khirurg, some days ago, minutes after an editor filed a report on you, you rv one of his edits made somewhere else [60].Was your action too "retaliatory"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider Anadolu News Agency to be a reliable source? I wasn't aware he had added btw, the article has had hundred of edits in the last few days. Khirurg (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [61], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts. The other user opposed the caption, which has since been amended, not the addition of the map. And I did not rv "several times". Now stop disrupting this thread with irrelevant stuff. Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note Khirurg added a map to Turkey some days ago, but that addition has been opposed by more than one editor. Instead of discussing on the talk page, Khirurg is reverting and reverting, and making such edit summaries as you could have just edited the caption; classic case of retaliatory behavior, WP:HOUND) [62]. I would advise editors involved calm down, apply good faith and reflect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts and stop making false statements. No other users opposed the map, and I opened a talkpage thread. Or are you considering Anadolu News Agency a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I do not know what dispute are you talking about, but everyone should be aware that Anadolu sources need to be removed. They used to meet some WP:RS criteria in the past, but not anymore due to the media situation in Turkey. In case someone has doubts, they better take the matter to WP:RSN. Now lets stick to the subject pls. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [63], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here twice? Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. I remember this clearly, and I would like to remind them to do the same here. I thought this discussion was about editing talk page comments? No? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As for SR editing comments, oddly enough I totally agree with Khirurg -- she has the absolute right to as long as semantics aren't changed after someone has replied (if so, strike deletion and underline insertions or say "EDIT"). I often have to fix my own posts, maybe I should be using nano or vim or Microsoft Office if it would ever load on my laptoposaurus, but ain't nobody got time for that shite, it's post and go before "oops, I made a typo". But to resolve that issue, this conversation should have stayed between the two parties involved. What is Khirurg doing then? Can I really believe he is that passionate about ensuring civility? Witness Exhibit B, one of the diplomatic masterpieces by Khirurg where he uses WP:CIR as a mace to bludgeon perfectly competent colleagues (the linked case is an unrelated Cyprus with Cinadon, another Greek editor). Khirurg as the defender of civility, I can't even fit that pill in my throat. Future Perfect at Sunrise, yeah, in my personal experience, patience with SR is worth it in the long run, but really, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to this headache.--Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. A CIR reference from another conversation is not equivalent in any way with the bullying Silent Resident endured. As far as calling Fut. Perf's brazen admin bullying of a disadvantaged female editor a "headache", I think you need sensitivity training. Dr. K. 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Or, maybe it's because I probably have nothing to be thankful for in life anyways. Yeah, don't buy it. If the issue is SR editing her posts and FPAS not liking that... that is between them; SR is a capable adult, what, do you think she is some frail princess needing rescue? Coming from someone also on the receiving end of Khirurg's behavior, yes, it's a headache.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well look who showed up to derail the thread. It's guy who said | Really, if there's one thing that's clear here, it is the Greek ingenuity in inventing concepts whose utility in timeless, in this case exemplified by the Greek invented concept of hypocrisy. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, like the right triangle, another useful and timeless concept, and formal debate, drama, hypothesis testing... Anyone who wants a lesson in Khirurgian diplomacy could perhaps consult [[64]] this treasure trove of a discussion where we do discuss that retort by me which, yes, came after over a year of frustration with Khirurg, the one person on Wikipedia I get along the absolute least with. That is why I am saying this should be between FPAS and SR. I respect both, and think they can better learn to get along as two adults.--Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a beef with Khirurg. But this thread is about bullying, not Khirurg. When bullying happens, we have a responsibility, as a community, to address it. Proposing that the bully and the victim talk it out actually validates the bullying because it tries to make it an issue between the perpetrator and the victim. This is not how this works. Vulnerable people, people with disabilities, must be supported by the community if it is to become thriving and healthy. Otherwise others will come and do it for us. Khirurg actually did this community a favour by bringing this sad incident to our attention. Dr. K. 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While SR may (or may not) appreciate him starting this thread, did he even ask her consent? If the motive is to help her, perhaps one should have asked. Actually, if someone is self-conscious about the fact that they often feel they need to edit their posts for typos... he just thrust that issue right into the spotlight on the dramaboards where a huge part of the editing community will see it, and that is their first acquaintance with her. There are a multitude of possible venues; ANI is known to be one for disputes where one side seeks sanctions for the other, and it also gets a lot of views; some other venues have neither characteristic. SR did not choose to take it here, Khirurg did, and he is an editor with his own conflicts with FPAS, so yes, I take issue with his behavior here, even if we ignore my own issues with Khirurg, which yes, exist.--19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calthinus (talk • contribs)

The report was not nade to help SR. It was made to alert the community about petty bullying behaviour by an admin. Base bullying has to be exposed, especially in relations of very unequal power status and involving people with disabilities. Please do not try to belittle this report further. Dr. K. 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• SR notes above that some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. This is correct. It is also correct that filers at AN/I must, whether they wish or expect it, to have their own bahviour fully investigated. This what Khirurg is expeiencing, unfortunately. In his particular case, I would recommend withdrawing from the discussion at this point, as they seem to be respnoding a trifle emotionally and this could skew their judgement. Basically: Keep Cool, Cooler Minds Prevail. ——SN54129 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Looking through the talk page history, this doesn't appear to be a rapidfire back-and-forth discussion, and SilentResident's edits don't appear to be causing edit conflicts, deceiving changes in meaning, mass confusion or any other bona fide problem. The sole issue here seems to be that Future Perfect finds it annoying (due to multiple watchlist entries, I assume) which is not a reason to compel Silent Resident to change her habits. Even if it were causing genuine problems, the correct solution would be to bring it to a noticeboard; policing another editor's talkpage edits, especially when they're not actually breaking any rule except the one that you've made up, is not okay.

Lately it seems that a lot of ANI discussions immediately devolve into who is right and who was wrong while ignoring the actual bullying or personal attacks presented in the initial complaint. It is imperative that Future Perfect's bullying be addressed, since "I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row" is utterly unacceptable and needs to be nipped in the bud immediately. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This type of bullying has to stop. We also have to demonstrate that we are capable of handling it on Wikipedia by ourselves. Dr. K. 17:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: OK, I found some courage to speak about my problem, so forgive me if it is a lengthy post, this one. I really hope it is understood by everyone that behaviors affected by disabilities and disorders, aren't made on purpose. Who we are born and what disabilities we have in this life, is not something you can go choose/remove/cure on the fly. But you can live with it and try to constraint it for the sake of improving the quality of life. I envy everyone here for not suffering from the same OCD as I do. However that doesn't mean I am not trying my best. Everyone can check my edit history and see that all of my edits are 1) grammar fixes. 2) typo fixes. 3) code fixes. 4) additional thoughts. Edits which I dont feel it is worth a separate timestamp, since my comment is the most recent/latest one in that discussion anyways. For me it is important that my comments are of good quality as to avoid ridiculing myself to the others. (i.e. fix Lame -> Late). My point is, we can't control how we are born, but we can struggle to restrain ourselves but this isn't an easy task, and requires constant effort. However when such effort is made, it takes a good ammount of energy and time, and this is one of the reasons I am not as a big contributor in Wikipedia as the most of you are. My content contributions are far minor and between, compared to yours, and for a reason. The yesterday's incident only causes discomfort and stress, which isn't helpful for my efforts. Because it is an attack which does not take in account the fact that behind every word I type, there is struggle from my part, a struggle which goes unnoticed to the rest of the community, since they can't imagine what is going on between me and my keyboard and how much time it takes. This is why I broke emotionally and went to another administrator yesterday. I know, I am supposed to be strong and not let emotional meltdowns from happening to me but at this moment, just it was too much for me to bear, especially after all these 8-year-long efforts as Wikipedian to improve myself. I really want to speak to all of you, not simply as an editor, but also as a human to human and I really hope that this was the first and last time such a thing ever happens. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

• FP@S backs off the decision to revert edits beyond the second one in a row. The world is messy, not every irritation is fixable, and sometimes the solution causes more problems than the problem. There's a spectrum of disruption, and this really isn't that big a deal. It's maybe disruption, but not disruption. An extra helping of flexibility is called for.
• SR either uses the Word document technique they've been using in articles in talk pages as well, or uses preview, in order to cut down on the number of edits. Especially for long posts. They seem to understand that this causes at least some difficulties for others; we need to understand that our general talk page preferences cause difficulties for them. I think this can be solved by everyone being slightly more accommodating.
• Everyone else stops talking about anything in this thread except this one issue. It is not a "FP@S is evil" thread. It isn't a "Solve the content dispute" thread. It isn't a "this side is morally right and this side is morally wrong" thread about the Aegean dispute, Turkish maps, or anything else.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. What they said above is what I and some others too have said in previous comments. No need for drama. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly I'd prefer to be able to take Floq's route. OP didn't seem to try addressing this issue with Fut Perf on their talk page first, which might have helped. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an editor to take a complaint about an admin saying I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row to that admin's talk page. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The way this transpired was indeed unfortunate -- perhaps it would have been better if it was taken to DA rather than ANI, or somewhere else where uninvolved parties could discuss it and hopefully get FPAS to walk back that statement; I am probably worse than her in my retroactive post fixes, actually. But to SR's credit... it wasn't her who chose to take this to ANI. All's well if it ends well, and of course content disagreements will continue, and Wikipedia can be irritating, but maybe the result of this can still be the two getting along at least marginally better, and Floq's proposal is a good means for that.--Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any solution that requires a change on SR's part to appease FP's unreasonable demands. This isn't a situation where "each side gives a little" is appropriate, and we shouldn't impose special requirements on an editor just because somebody threw a temper tantrum. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that since yesterday, SR has managed to get most of their postings written up in as few as two attempts, which I'd say is a big step forward. So she is able to do that with a bit of effort after all. Good for her. Simply asking her to do it wasn't enough apparently, but yesterday's little shot across the bow did the trick. Thanks, one problem solved. Now comes the next and bigger task, of stopping her from posting copyright violations and POV-pushing opinion pieces in article space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't know how much effort it took, nor whether the "cure" was worse than the "disease". Paul August ☎ 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This post above by FPAS is concerning. FPAS's comments were not "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". They were bullying, and abusive, which is serious, and particularly so when it's from an admin, and even more so when the admin fails to show any indication of taking this feedback on board. I hope that changes quickly. – Levivich 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Floq. FPAS needs to lighten up. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Future Perfect, you are in effect saying, "Once I, who am in a position of power, threatened the person and their disability issues were widely publicized, they managed to comply with my demands one day. This means compliance isn't impossible; therefore I'm right and compliance should be expected." That's BS. I have arthritis in both knees. I'm supposed to avoid stairs. If I had to, could I climb 200? Yep. I'd need to ice them both and stay on anti-inflammatories for 24 hours, and I would have a hard time even walking for two days afterward. You are behaving in a way that is counterproductive to collaborative work, and you're doing it from a position of unequal power. Please stop doing that. --valereee (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Let's look at this revert by Fut. Perf. of SR's edits a bit closer: They reverted the correction "covers" back to the grammatically wrong "cover". The edit changed "due" to "duue", and "developments" to "develeopments", while removing the comment "I do not want to initiate a Move Request before consulting with the editors first and make sure there wont be any problems with that." Restoring the mistakes and removing the clarification of a person with a disability, while gloating that it was a little shot across the bow did the trick, is not simple bullying. It is petty bullying that is fundamentally incompatible with civilised behaviour in a collaborative project. Dr. K. 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• What Floq said. I find that the way forward here is for BOTH sides to desist from accusing the other side of bad acting: FPAS could be a little less forceful about the editing-ones-responses issue; being mildly annoyed by something someone else does does NOT mean the other person is disruptive. SR could also tone down the "I'm being bullied" angle; people expressing annoyance with an annoying thing is not bullying, and it is annoying to have to edit conflict with someone 4-5 times in a row. If FPAS gives some allowance for SR to compose their thoughts, if SR can work on composing their thoughts using a method more forgiving (as in the "offline-copy-and-paste method") and if both sides can stop accusing the other of being evil, I think we can find a way forward that causes less problems for anyone. --Jayron32 20:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is not that FPaS is expressing annoyance. The problem is that FPaS is threatening to summarily revert SL's talk page edits. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is a distinctly concerning, if not horrible, statement by FPAS, one that makes me vastly less sympathetic for his viewpoint and my previous comment's AGF. @Leviv: is right that that only one user seems to be taking their feedback on board. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Does FPaS actually have the policy-based authority to impose such a restriction unilaterally? Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. I can't think of a policy basis for his "rule" as a unilateral action, not even if DS authority were available (FP@S has given SR a DS notice recently). It could be imposed as an editing restriction by community consensus, I suppose. I believe that FP@S's rule should be declared void as unsupported by policy and unjustified, and that FP@S should be considered WP:INVOLVED and ineligible to act administratively against SR. I have asked FP@S to comment on this below but he has not posted on WP since and so I await his return. EdChem (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't agree with FPAS' way of maneuvering 'bout this part. dispute but the grotesquely poor quality of edits by SL ought be considered as a mitigating factor. ∯WBG^converse 06:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with Floquenbeam: I was asked by User:SilentResident to advise on the conflict with FPAS, before this thread was posted. In my opinion, they are both at fault. SilentResident is not being punished for a disability, and that claim is absurd. I advised SR, both on my talk page and on her talk page, to compose her replies in Word or Notepad. I was about to write that I don't know why the copy-editing of posts is annoying FPAS. I can guess that it is, first, because the edit-conflicts make it difficult to reply, and, second, sometimes the copy-editing makes a slight change to the meaning, which interferes further with replying. So either compose in Word or Notepad, or use Preview. Also, SilentResident said that FPAS had a pro-Turkish point of view. I don't know whether that is accurate, but it is insulting to imply that another editor is non-neutral. I don't consider it a personal attack, but I can see that FPAS thinks that it rises to the status of a personal attack. So SilentResident was wrong in alleging a non-neutral POV, and is making replying difficult. and is wrong in arguing that their disability is being used against them. On the other hand, as other editors have said, FPAS is seriously over-reacting to the copy-editing on talk pages. Both editors are out of line.

So I agree with User:Floquenbeam. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have strong reservations about the advice given to SR by Robert McClenon.

- First, on McClenon's talk page: "I don't normally want to get drawn into a dispute between an administrator and a non-administrator." Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." It is absolutely appropriate for other editors to get involved in a situation like this, and reluctance to be "drawn in" essentially allows an admin to abuse their power.

- Second, on SilentResident's talk page: "It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability . . ." Nobody is requesting special treatment here; there's no rule against copyediting one's comments as many times as is necessary, and many editors do it regularly. In fact it appears that attempts are being made to impose special requirements on SR, which no other editors are expected to follow, because of their disability. This holds true even if it is presented as "advice". –dlthewave ☎ 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about that, too. It's not 'special treatment' to be asked to accommodate a disability in a way that costs us little; if we want to be inclusive, we should be accommodating them when we can. This seems to be a matter of her re-edits being nothing more than an annoyance requiring other editors to deal with edit conflicts if they're replying quickly. Couldn't FP simply wait a few minutes before replying? --valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • First, I will point out that no editor has an obligation to become involved in any dispute between two other editors. Dumping on an editor who chooses not to become involved in a particular dispute may have the unintended consequence of making editors hesitant to get involved in any dispute. Second, I agree with several other editors that FPAS is simply being wrong-headed in saying that they will revert excessive copy-editing by SR. Just because SR is making it difficult to reply to her posts by continuing to copy-edit them doesn't give FPAS an excuse for making it deliberately more difficult to reply. Third, I think that there is a consensus that FPAS should not revert copy-edits by SR, and if FPAS doesn't agree to stop, I would support a topic-ban, and will remind FPAS that an administrator should have the judgment not to make it necessary to have editing restrictions put on them. Fourth, I still think that SR should provide a more reasonable accommodation for their own disability rather than forcing the community to do so, but that is small compared to the absurdity of FPAS reverting grammar-fixes. So will FPAS agree to stop reverting SR's copy-edits, or will they need to be restricted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability Absolutley not. I am sorry if I have given you this impression. I came to you for advice because I was emotionally broken and I am fully aware that when emotions get in the way, mistakes can be made. This is why I came to you. Because I wasn't thinking clearly on what to do but I knew one thing for sure: I wanted to avoid mistakes that could escalate the incident beyond control. And a good way to prevent mistakes is to listen to a third party voice of patience and calm. You are a well-known administrator for being patient, fair and who doesn't hesitate to give an advice to editors in need. Am I wrong? If yes, then all right. My apologies for even coming to you at all. Next time something happens, I will simply leave Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I had Robert in my list of Admins to seek for help with various matters concerning Wikipedia. In that case, my apologies and thanks for the info. Still Robert has done great work in responding to me in the past, you would hardly notice that he isn't admin if you don't pay attention.

OK listen. I think it is pointless to ask from Future Perfect to lift the 1-edit limit imposed on my comments. He won't do it. But for the sake of Wikipedia's stability, if I have to be the "sheep for sacrifice", then so be it. I believe there are two ways out of this problem: 1) either I fully submit to his grievous demands and never make more than one edits to my comments and use third-party programs for every single one of my posts/replies/comments, or 2) try to avoid using Talk Pages at all, if possible. I know, this sure will seriously hamper my work as Wikipedian and jeopardize my work, but I don't know what else to do. I know however what I don't want to do: I am not here to fight with Future Perfect. Nor my intention is to turn the admins against each other because of my disorder. I hate to see all this happening because of my disorder! My only role in Wikipedia is to contribute to the project without letting my disorder get in the way. (I can't believe I am actually saying this, but looks like there is no other option. Or is there?) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: There are many other options. First, I want to say that my talk page is always open to you. I consider you a wikifriend, and the thought of you leaving Wikipedia is heartbreaking! Second, you're not alone in struggling with disorders. I suffer from clinical depression and constantly feel worthless even on-wiki.
There are various tactics I personally use to lower my talk page edit count. For example, I'll fix an earlier typo in a response to someone else. If a userscript would be of assistance to you, then we can always work on developing one for you.
Either way, don't get too worked up about this. If my sister ​(a native English speaker) can type comments like this and still be understood, I don't think people are going to judge you too hard for some semi-frequent typos. That goes the other way, too. If you're on an article's talk page and need to make 5 corrections in a row, then will people really care about long term? Ceoil has been known to do it, and he's a highly respected user.
Also, I don't think Fut. Perf. intended to make you feel upset. He seems to have just gotten frustrated in several moments in his interactions with you. Regardless, no one has "turned on" Fut. Perf.; they're just trying to make sure he lightens up more.
Tl;dr: We're all fine, and we all still love each other. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you dear! I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone too! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Dec 12

SilentResident, I am upset about the way you have been treated and felt obligated to post to this ANI. I am not an admin and have no more authority than you here on WP, but I want you to know that I believe that there are plenty of Wikipedians (beyond those who have posted here) who look at what FP@S is doing and can see it is both unacceptable / wrong and inconsistent with WP policy. Please be aware that:

• Many editors make edits in series, sometimes to correct typos and grammatical issues, sometimes making incremental changes, sometimes to add new ideas. On both talk pages and articles, these are entirely acceptable. This can lead to inconvenience for others but that is not on its own a reason to issue an ultimatum or try to impose a restriction.
• I recognise that you have tried to reduce series of edits in article space through drafting in word or notepad, etc, which is an inconvenience for you and I would like to register my appreciation for making that effort. Doing so for article space but not talk space is both a concession and a gesture of compromise on your part, one you were under no obligation to make. To me, that shows both your good faith and desire to contribute to WP positively. Others may ask that you extend that practice, but no one can reasonably demand it nor can you be obligated to do so. Floquenbeam, do you agree?
• There are many editors that leave their typos etc in place on talk pages, viewing that they are unimportant and don't reflect on our competence. There are others who feel the reverse and want to make fixes to their talk page posts. Both approaches are entirely reasonable and if you feel the need to make corrections, go for it, in full awareness that you are following policy and that you are not alone in taking your chosen path. I don't think leaving such minor mistakes in talk page posts reflects poorly on you at all, but equally choosing to correct them is perfectly justifiable and reasonable.
• Their are exceptions described at WP:TPG, like making changes that alter the meaning of a post after others have responded – in which case a separate post or a notation of the change is appropriate and a straight modification is not – but I don't see evidence here of edits of yours of that sort. Such edits would justify a warning or ultimately a restriction, however.
• FP@S's edit here that re-adds typos is an unjustified revert under WP:TPO. Describing your posts as "obsessive fiddling" is a clearly inappropriate comment given your disability. His declaration that "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row" is both unjustified by policy and beyond his authority as an administrator. In fact, it is so outrageous that I consider it an attempted misuse of administrative authority that renders him WP:INVOLVED and prohibits his use of any administrative tools against you in the future. FP@S, are you willing to post accepting that you are involved with respect to SilentResident and that you will not take any administrative action against this editor?
• Many editors have disabilities that place them in an (at times misunderstood) minority. WP:NOTTHERAPY suggests that editors may be restricted when their editing interferes with building the encyclopaedia. However, the edits discussed here are not frustrating that goal. They are constructive, not disruptive, and applying your skills at correcting typos and minor grammatical errors in article space would be making helpful and necessary contributions in the style of WP:WikiGnomes.
• In response to your proposal above, I disagree that those are thew only two options available. A far-superior alternative, in my view, would be:
  • FP@S accepts that referring to your condition in the way that he did (possibly inadvertently, WP:AGFing) is inappropriate and offensive and will not be repeated.
  • FP@S accepts that he is INVOLVED with respect to you, admits that his "rule" with respect to your edits has no validity, and declares that he will not act against you in an administrative capacity.
  • You recognise that serial edits can be an irritant and consider when you are about to make one whether the change you wish to make is one you see as necessary. Preparing edits in Word or Notepad, etc, is appreciated when you feel able to do so for larger edits but is not a requirement.
  • You continue editing WP in good faith and continue to ensure your talk page edits follow WP:TPG. Try not to blame yourself for this escalating from the talk page to ANI, it happens regularly that issues are brought here and that is what should happen when a discussion has not resolved an issue. Khirurg acted appropriately in opening this thread and it is in your interests and FP@S's to reach a resolution.
  • Nothing here restricts either you or FP@S in relation to the usual rights and privileges and policy restrictions of editing WP. Any areas of disagreement about article content are unaffected by the resolution of this ANI thread.
• This is not about your disorder, SilentResident, nor are you required to be a "sheep for sacrifice" – and please don't leave Wikipedia. It is about an inappropriate action by FP@S in response to what he sees as an irritation, and one that also arises in many other circumstances. I suspect and hope that FP@S has over-reacted based on other circumstances in his on- or off-wiki life. He can be a hardliner at times, but he is a bright and generally reasonable admin, and I hope he can see that he's gone too far in your case. If not, this thread can consider imposing a restriction on him by community consensus that will override his threatened "rule" on your edits. I hope that will not be necessary. Just as you become obsessive at times, so too do other editors for reasons other than your condition. Sometimes, a reminder or intervention is needed for us to stop / step back and reflect to recognise that we have made a mistake – hopefully that can happen here. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @EdChecm: What?! "Referring to [SR's] condition in the way that [I] did"? What on earth are you on about? I never once referred to any condition of hers (other than her general WP:CIR incompetence, which is a different matter). Why would I? I wasn't aware of any "condition" of hers, since she never mentioned one to me I was criticizing and describing, accurately and appropriately, a pattern of disruptive behaviour she was displaying, nothing more. I never cared a bit, nor do I care now, what "condition" that behaviour might be caused by. She has now shown some willingness to curb that disruptive behaviour, so that's fine with me.
  • About being "involved": dude, seriously. Of course I'm involved; how stupid do you think I am? I've had the misfortune of encountering that editor wrecking articles I'm interested in with her single-minded, naively incompetent tendentious editing for years. If I was free to act as an administrator, I would have indef-blocked her years ago, but of course I'm not. Of course she knows that perfectly well.
  • As I said earlier, I'm satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts. So, that's settled. Now, when you'all are done cuddling her, you're quite welcome to join me in trying to do something for the quality of the encyclopedia and prevent SilentResident from continuing to post copyright violations and tendentious opinion pieces in article space. Will you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    "CIR" stands for "competency is required", but we also have a rule that "communication is required", which is a part of competency because you can’t competently edit the encyclopedia if you can't competently communicate. "CIR" could also stand for "civility is required", because you can’t communicate competently if you can’t communicate civilly. So I do view an editor who is persistently uncivil as lacking the competency necessary to collaborate on building an encyclopedia, and thus as having a CIR problem. – Levivich 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    Her edits have been of consistently poor quality, in a domain where there (as demonstrated) exists extensive scope for POV pushing. Considering that as a mitigating factor, serial edits can indeed be an irritant. Whilst I don't agree with FPAS' behaviour, we need to get away from considering WP to be a tea-party and realise that competency is the most-desired trait when writing in controversial domains. I have seen some of the stuff, that FPAS has been routinely subject to, in his editorial activities and strongly disagree that he is anywhere near persistently uncivil. ∯WBG^converse 08:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    @Winged Blades of Godric: Even though her edits are argueably 'poor quality', it still does not justify FP@S's actions. Even though it is not persistantly uncivil, its still uncivil. I would advise both FP@A and SR to stay away from eachother if they cannot have contructive debate (even if heated) without resorting to incivility and borderline WP:Bullying. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves. Even more so female editors with disabilities. And even more so when a recent case when WMF was involved highlighted how female editors are having a hard time within male-dominated Wikipedia. Dr. K. 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Never bring 'gender' into a discussion, concerning editor identity. It is & always will be a divisive topic. Best to adopt the idea that all editors are gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My comment had three distinct stages. Casual cruelty and gloating should never be used against any editor of any gender, especially as a teaching tool. But ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women is an ostrich-type approach. Dr. K. 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the most unfriendly, unwelcoming, actively repelling thing any of us can do is using another individual's gender as an argument on their behalf – I can't see where SR has said that she have felt unwelcome because of her gender, and unless you know for certain that gender has ever been a factor in anybody's comments to or about her (outside this discussion where it has been waved as a banner), it has zero relevance. If people have been using her gender as a grounds for bullying her, then those people should be blocked, of course, but that's not because of her gender but because that's unacceptable behaviour. And going from one individual's potential experience (which again I would like to see some evidence of) to saying "Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women" – I don't have words for how inappropriate that is. Unless you claim that your experience as a woman (which I won't pretend to understand) means that you know exactly how every single female-identifying contributor from a hundred different nations feel about contributing here. If so, I admit that I am wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my argument. As I said, my response had three stages: The first stage addressed that all editors of any gender should be free from casual cruelty in this environment. So the root of my argument was not based on gender. The second stage referred to gender, because SR is a female editor, and a minority within Wikipedia. I think treating a minority with respect and not with casual cruelty is a worthwhile goal, especially in situations where there is also a power imbalance with their detractors. That was the point I was trying to make. Dr. K. 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to refer to gender here. Doing so creates an unfriendly atmosphere for female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I can see your point and I agree with it on a theoretical basis. Women can take care of themselves like everyone else and they don't need champions. However, in practice, there are two problems. The first problem is the perception by others that Wikipedia is unfriendly to women, as discussed during Framgate. The second problem is that minorities on Wikipedia, including women, should be encouraged to edit here, not treated badly. It's the old affirmative action dilemma. Dr. K. 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be that the fact that SilentResident is a woman may not have been a factor in this bullying, but bullying someone because of their disability is just as bad. I held off commenting in this discussion here because I felt pretty sure that after sleeping on this Future Perfect at Sunrise would have realised that such behaviour is unacceptable and offered a full apology, but it seems that I was wrong. Can we take appropriate action within the English Wikipedia or do we demonstrate that the "trust and safety" team at Wikimedia needs to intervene again? As someone with my own, but different, mental health issues the fact that we have an administrator here who acts in such a way frightens me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Bullying someone because of their disability"? What a f..ing joke. How often do I have to repeat that I didn't even f...ing know about any disability? How was I supposed to guess? When I first asked her to curb her habit of tinkering with her posts, she could easily have told me: "I'm sorry if this annoyed you, but I have a condition that makes this more difficult for me than for most people, so I have to ask for a bit of patience". There wouldn't have been any problem, as far as that talk page habit was concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe yesterday such action could be forgiven as a simple mistake resulting from your not reading SilentResident's user page fully, but the fact that today, after this has been pointed out to you, you are still refusing to apologise is completely indefensible. I don't know anything about SilentResident's condition other than that she has it, but friends of mine with OCD have made far more serious errors than hers, such as missing job interviews or flights, because of their condition. Can't you see that your behaviour yeaterday was wrong, and that your behaviour today is totally indefensible? Having OCD is not a fucking joke. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Yesterday, I asked a person to stop a certain annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that. Today, I commended her for having mustered the strength to curb that annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that either. Everything else I said about her – and yes, a lot of it was not very flattering – wasn't related to that particular habit, but her general pattern of disruptive editing. I haven't seen her argue that her habits of pushing POV, edit-warring, violating copyrights and making talkpages unreadable by flooding them with IDHT drivel are also to be excused for being caused by her OCD, so I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologise for expecting a disabled person, who declared her disability on her user page, to edit in a way that her disability does not allow her to, because, however many times a person with OCD checks what they have done, another check is still needed. This is about your response to that behaviour, rather than anything else that you have brought up here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Who declared her disability on her user page"? Dude, seriously? That disclosure is somewhere on number 86 in her list of userboxes. A couple screenfuls below the one that says she plays Elder Scrolls games or whatever it was. Are you now blaming me for not having studied that list before interacting with her? You are getting bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And, as I have already said, that initial failure to spot this on her talk page can be forgiven, but you have done nothing since it was pointed out to you apart from defending the indefensible. Do we really have to put up with editors, let alone administrators, who behave like this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

...and for multiple threats to revert talk page edits and purporting to impose a one-edit rule, and for characterizing those threats as "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". For my part, I don't really care much whether or not FP@S says "sorry", or whether or not they agree this behavior was inappropriate, but I do care that they commit to not repeating it again. WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINCOND document broad consensus about behavior expectations, and they were not met by FP@S here. – Levivich 22:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, so I'm just another second-class citizen around here too. But I know behaviour that is unacceptable, inconsistent with WP policy and just plain wrong, and I want to say that I agree with EdChem completely. I'm something of a perfectionist myself, and I frequently work and re-work what I have to say. (The spell checker doesn't work on long sections like this one.) If you get an edit conflict, blame the software, not your fellow editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem and Hawkeye7: I concour. Thank you very much. and if you allow me, even though your words on me are very kind, I don't want to rest when it comes to myself: I would like to keep my efforts and try to improve my edit account in talk pages by reducing their ammount. There is a room for improvement, even for a person with Obsessive–compulsive disorder and I can't see why I shouldn't take the opportunity. After all, that's what we live for: to improve and adapt in life (and Wikipedia). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hi SilentResident, I've seen editors write their talk-page posts, especially anything lengthy, in their sandbox before copying them to the talk page once they're satisfied with them. When they're done, they remove the comment from the sandbox and periodically request that the sandbox be deleted. That would keep your talk-page edit count down without your having to compose things off-wiki, and it would reduce or eradicate edit conflicts. Just a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): SilentResident, you don't need permission from me or Hawkeye7 or anyone else to try to improve your editing... and I agree that striving to improve is a worthy WP and life goal. My point was that requiring you to change to adapt to FP@S's (or anyone else's) preference is unreasonable, just as would requiring FP@S to adopt your approach and preferences. Taking the argument to its extreme, I might like it if all talk posts agreed with me all the time, that all article space edits were flawless in content and referencing, and that no one with harmful intent contribute to WP – but trying to require that would be absurd. Compromise to accommodate each other's needs is desirable and I welcome your willingness to try to adapt and develop. Seeing this discussion as an opportunity for self-discovery and personal growth is both helpful and wise, and I hope that others reading this can adopt a similarly forward-looking approach. EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's proven that SilentResident's mental condition OCD & lack of some english skills is effecting his/her performance on Wikipedia? Then WP:CIR should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an unfair comment about SR. She has no "mental condition" other than OCD. If you use this criterion on her, you would eliminate a large percentage of wiki editors. Also her English skills are excellent. Please rescind this crappy comment. Dr. K. 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Was going by the opening comments of the report. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, there has been no evidence offered that I've noticed to support the proposition that there are any WP:CIR issues. OCD may have consequences for editing style but do you have any evidence of this affecting the quality of encyclopaedic content? EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have ADD, I can appreciate how one might have trouble on article or talkpages, due to a real-life condition. If it's not a CIR issue, then perhaps some of you can help SR? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that conditions can lead to problems with editing article or talk pages, but I have seen no evidence that it is happening here. I think several people are helping SR and her posts above suggest that she is trying to help herself. Further, I believe that this ANI thread making clear that the "rule" that FP@S devised is unsupported by policy, void, and that FP@S is involved with respect to SR, is also helping SR. What I do not see as helpful is you (or anyone else) suggesting that there is a CIR issue without evidence. Jumping from someone having a medical condition to being unable to constructively edit WP while skipping over the quality of the editor's contributions is unfair and arguably uncivil. SR does not deserve to have aspersions about her competence made without evidence. I am happy to WP:AGF and believe you intended no slight against SR, but I encourage you to look for evidence and present it or note where you have seen it in cases like this where the thread does not already contain diffs pointing to a CIR issue. SR is clearly distressed by events and feeling responsible for or in some way having invited the bullying she perceives from FP@S. I believe it is desirable for us to avoid adding to her distress, and I fear that your CIR comments could do just that. EdChem (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you & others, to decide what's best. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• +1 to EdChem. Here's what the closing statement should be here: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• In support of the comments made by Only in death, Michepman, Dr.K., EdChem. SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us. As long as an editor's contributions have a net position value to the project, the community should, and should be able to accommodate them. As no diffs have been presented to the contrary, this should be treated as a case of harassment and abuse of administerial powers. François Robere (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Which "administerial powers" have been (ab)used? ——SN54129 13:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: and @François Robere:, Admin powers have not been abused, however I would not expect this from an admin. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike "regular" users, when an admin repeatedly warns a editor against a certain behavior, their ability to sanction that editor is implicit in the warning. If the warning is not policy-based, and constitutes harassment in the "regular" case, than for an admin it would also constitute an abuse of administerial powers, because of the implied threat. In others words, an admin doesn't need to eg. block a user to abuse their power; it's enough that they harass them from their position of power. François Robere (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thank you for expaining in more detail. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: You said: "SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us." Well, to be honest: My condition was well-known since November 2015: [65] Today we have almost reached the new year 2020. FP@S has been interacting with me for ages. His claim that "he didn't knew" my condition, is not exactly very convincing. I never have heard before of admins who do not check on Users before putting restrictions on them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; To be honest, I did have to look quite hard to find the OCD userbox. But the wording of his 'warnings' was an attempt at making you feel bad about something your can't control. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem:; This is true, He indeed wanted to make me feel bad. But it is my fault that I felt bad too. I mean, I am a grown woman now, not a little child that would go crying around just because of an insult. I was supposed to contain myself and prevent the emotional meltdown. I believe I am at a fault too, for showing weakness to his actions. Wikipedia is not a friendly club, is a project, and I wasn't supposed to let my feelings surface. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; Even though I agree with , it should not allow this. People should not attack eachother when we are supposed to be collaborating together. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Sigh... I have to say, although I've long respected your good work here, I find your remarks above repulsive. Whatever problems SilentResident may have as an editor (I have no opinion on that), your treatment of her, and your responses here, as many of your fellow editors have indicated, has been very inappropriate. It would be good if you could take that on board. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't read all posts, but the very first post of Khirurg strikes me. It was because recently, it was Khrirg who said to me "competence is required" after some spelling mistakes.[66]. He also was aggressive at my Talk Page [67] (I can find much more in the same line) This is not an "appeal to hypocrisy" by Khirurg. We should all realize that civility is a requirement and should refrain for using inappropriate language. I also had a look at Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I find them mostly constrictive- his remarks towards SilentResident should have been better worded. Your comments were borderline. But I also agree with Ktrimi991 words: No drama needed. Cinadon36 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. wrote: "We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves." Exactly. The comments of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise resemble a victory dance, which is disapproved of even in American football, which is a rough game, and are not any better in Wikipedia, in which civility is the fourth pillar. I haven't looked into whether the edits by User:SilentResident are of poor quality. It doesn't matter. After a cleanly scored touchdown, a touchdown celebration can still incur a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff. If there is an issue about the quality of SR's edits, raise it on an article talk page, or raise it on her talk page, or if it rises to the level of a competency issue, raise it here, but don't rub it in or gloat. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus, is this still going on? Aren't we all repeating ourselves or others by now? Could someone who hasn't commented yet please close it exactly (well, OK, I made a tiny 2 word editorial tweak) as User:Rhododendrites suggests above: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as you are acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I'd do it myself, except it's very close to what I suggested a day ago. I really don't see this closing any other way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Not certain if this is the case. But, what if one's making changes to one's own posts & it thus confuses the responding posts, that were already made? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think this should close with either FP@S voluntarily agreeing to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior, or with FP@S being warned to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior. – Levivich 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

+ Consider EdChem's recommendations above in closing this properly.

Also, I would appreciate if someone is kind enough to update me about the current status of the restrictions/sanctions FP@S had imposed on me? Are these restrictions lifted? if not, will they be?

These restrictions are counterproductive. While I am struggling to limit my edit count, having these unfair and inhumane restrictions hovering above my head like a threat, is a form of discrimination and is bound to stress me and stress complicates my OCD situation. Special administrative restrictions on OCD people go against the ideals of dignity and equality in our community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no restriction. There never was. It was a personal thing I said. I'm not in any position to "impose" formal restrictions on you, as I'm sure you know. As I said above, I appreciate your willingness to make an effort about your edit pattern, and I've already said I won't be making reverts again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Levivich. While it is understandable that FPaS might not have been aware of SilentResident's OCD (although he did use "obsessively" in two edit summaries...), the little shot across the bows did the trick needs to be addressed. Btw SilentResident, there are absolutely no restrictions on you whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• SilentResident, the "rule" that Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared to impose is void. FP@S has stated that he is WP:INVOLVED with regard to you and so is prohibited by policy from acting in his administrative capacity with regard to you, and I am glad to see that he has said so. Basically, FP@S and you have exactly the same authority and editing rights. I took his edit summary stating a "rule" as an overreach of admin authority but, WP:AGFing, he was engaging in hyperbole and expressing his views of your editing and nothing more. This is good news, that FP@S recognises that he is involved and so if either of you seeks any administrative intervention, it will need to be requested of an uninvolved administrator.
• I find it very surprising that FP@S was unaware of your OCD given the extent of your interactions, but WP:AGF requires accepting his statement that he did not in the absence of evidence to the contrary. His use of the term "obsessive" in describing you could be an unfortunate coincidence, though I don't doubt that it felt cruel and abusive to you. FP@S, SR has addressed you directly on her user talk page following your DS notification, which might give you some idea about the experience from her perspective. SR has been hurt by your actions, even if they were inadvertent, and I ask you to reflect on that fact.
• FP@S, your behaviour here has been well below that expected for a Wikipedia editor, including your refusal to recognise your inappropriate actions and statements. I join others in expressing surprise and disappointment that you have not acknowledged and reflected on the feedback you have received.
• FP@S has also raised issues of allegedly problematic editing from SR, such as copyright violations. I have not looked at SR's article space editing as it was irrelevant to the issue of FP@S's "rule" and the policy compliance of her manner of talk page edits. I am not going to wade into the article space issues as I know very little about the topic. However, SR, I will say that nothing in this thread demonstrates that your article space editing is unproblematic. I ask that you reflect carefully on any problems that might be raised about your article space contributions and to focus on the issues raised rather than the manner in which they are raised. Equally, I ask that others focus comments on the issues rather than on personalities or disabilities. As a community of Wikipedians, we are united by a common goal to build and improve the encyclopaedia, which we can work towards cooperatively and in an atmosphere of acceptance and mutual respect. That does require that article space work is policy compliant and those who don't have regard to our content rules are likely to find their contributions reverted and to face sanctions. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• When Fut. Perf. made the comment: little shot across the bow did the trick he knew full well that SR had OCD. Is Fut. Perf. sorry for uttering this insensitive remark about a person he knew at the time was suffering from OCD, or does he still think he can teach OCD victims how to improve by using forceful methods against their will? Dr. K. 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 EdChem expresses things well above. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I know it is difficult to admit to being less than perfect, but it would really be helpful—especially as you are an admin—if you could accept and acknowledge some of the well intentioned feedback you've been given above. Paul August ☎ 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:: I urge you to give close attention to the concerns expressed in EdChem's last point above. Paul August ☎ 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August and EdChem:: first of all, let me be clear regarding my work: I am not a perfect editor. Nor I claimed/pretended to be. In fact, I have been telling everyone that their contributions/fixes/adjustments/rewordings on content that was added by me, are far more than just welcome: they are appreciated, as I am aware that they may find issues which I do not realize at the time of the input. Doing the work of adding content all by myself and without real help by anyone else (none else is updating the article, I am the only one to do so, unfortunately, and the article was very outdated), is bound to have issues which at the time of the input, may escape my awareness, and when I say that, I mean for example that copyright-violating literal translation which EdChem mentioned, which can be found here: [68]. The important thing here is, that at least someone, in this case FP@S, is watching the article and reverted my additions, as you see in the diff. For which I am grateful and, as a matter of fact, I didn't revert back nor I questioned/disputed the admin's revert of this problematic addition. And this shows that I have acknowledged it and accepted it. While I may be kinda lonely in adding new content to the article, at least I am glad that I am not completely alone: someone else is watching my back there, even if that person is FP@S.

My only gripe with this is that, FP@S does never appreciate my work and is constantly focusing on my shortcomings as an editor. Criticism comes after criticism. Criticism for my poor english language, criticism for my OCD, criticism for violating Wikipedia's rules, criticism for adding content that is on the lines of WP:NOTNEWS. While FP@S has some very valid points (and I have been telling him that I do recognize his valid points) however there is a very negative environment between me and him that I can't help but note it here to help you realize how big discrepancy there is in the environment between the articles FP@S is watching and the articles he is not watching: I have contributed to hundred articles across Wikipedia in my 8-year long presence as Wikipedian. But in the articles where FP@S wasn't monitoring, i.e. Prespa Agreement, LGBT rights in Greece, and more, my work has been respected by everyone and there had been far more limited criticism to no criticism at all, and had there been any issues with my contributions, these were swiftly addressed by fellow editors who are kind in doing the necessary fixes without actually complaining about me as a person. To conclude: sure, there were issues such as a copyright-violating literal translation as EdChem mentioned and that FP@S has valid points, but it is important that he assumes WP:AssumeGoodFaith and understand that my mistakes aren't made on purpose nor are the result of CIR as FP@S keeps repeatedly saying about me for years. Everyday the editors are learning something new, and so do I. However constant criticism, and harsh language towards my shortcomings, are counterproductive and doesn't generate an atmosphere of cooperation which is the foundation Wikipedia is build on. I am not perfect, but that doesn't mean I haven't improved over the course of 8 years. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure review

Added 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC) My original close:

I think we can close this discussion now. Future Perfect at Sunrise could have conducted themselves with greater sensitivity, true. And for that lapse they have been admonished by many here. I do note, though, that they were unaware of SilentResident's disability at the time, which they should not be forced to constantly repeat for those not reading closely enough. *** That said, SilentResident's editing does, indeed, invoke competency issues. I just looked at one, single addition of theirs at random (latest edit at Aegean dispute) and found I had no choice but to revert it entirely because it was simply too poorly-written. I would suggest that, for some more substantive edits, they make use of the draft and sandbox spaces instead of editing the mainspace directly. Sorry, SilentResident, but although we are an inclusive project, the aim of our interactions (the alpha and omega) is about improving the encyclopedia. If one constantly needs cleaning up after (of the sort I just had to apply to your addition), that then becomes a problem. I'm not saying there are no solutions to that problem, but it also needs calling attention to and for it to be addressed head on. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Amendment: I take everyone's concerns seriously. Especially the ones that point out that I devoted more time to SR than to FP. To be clear, I found FP's conduct to have been troubling and I thought that my closing admonished him for their lack of sensitivity. It appears this was not phrased as strongly as many participants wished. I see that now. As for the disproportionate space given to SR's pressing issues (and I do find them pressing) —I did so with the intent to offer helpful counsel rather than admonish— I now realize that this is a product of machine translation (the result of which is often awkward and unwieldy), which I advise them to not make use of anymore. Their own English language, as seen in their comments, are fine, so I would encourage them to be confident with those, instead. Finally, I'm sorry my close contributed rather than ameliorated the dispute. That was obviously not my intent. But I don't think perpetuating the discussion further serves a productive purpose, either. El_C 22:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed three times ([69], [70], [71]) and those closures have been challenged three times ([72], [73], [74]). It's time to either reach consensus on the consensus or possibly open a Closure Review. In my opinion, the initial closure by Valeince nicely sums up the discussion using text that was supported by several editors. I also feel that El_C's closure fails to accurately assess consensus. Reading through the discussion, there seems to be clear consensus that Future Perfect's actions were unacceptable regardless of any mitigating factors. Rather than pointing out that Future Perfect has already been admonished within the discussion, an accurate summary would include an admonishment as part of the closure. Several editors mentioned possible CIR or other issues on SilentResident's part, however there is clear consensus that this is a separate issue from FP's harassment. El C seems to ignore this consensus and instead focus on Silent Resident's behavior which is not an accurate summary of the discussion and borders on WP:SUPERVOTE territory. –dlthewave ☎ 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Dlthewave, it could be argued that there have only been two closures and challenges...I mean, one of each was by me so I guess they cancel each other out? But, yes, I confess to blatant indecision  :) ——SN54129 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Dlthewave, there is no "separate issue." This dispute encompasses overacrhing components. It is also ought not to be an indictment, of either editor. My closure was not a supervote —I reject that premise— but rather assessed the views expressed by various participants. I stand by my closure and I think it is time to move on. El_C 20:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that there is a problem here with regard to the multiple closures, and closure summaries, some seem to have better summarized the discussion than others, perhaps all three closure summaries can be included in any subsequent closure? Paul August ☎ 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus against my closure, so be it. But the issues I identified with both editors are ones that I, as an uninvolved administrator, will continue to keep an eye on. El_C 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how these comments were allowed to stand, but my comment was removed by El_C after I challenged his comment about SR's CIR. Also, I think El_C made a grave error in describing SR's edit at the Aegean dispute as "incoherent" on my talk and CIR in this closure. Dr. K. 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because we were still discussing the matter elsewhere, so I was hoping not to split that discussion. El_C 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Dr. K. 20:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The ANI has closed without reflecting properly on consensus, and, El C implied that I am incompetent. On top of that, User:Ktrimi991 endorsed El C by giving them a barnstar and calling El C's problematic wording used in that ANI Closure as "perfectly worded". [75]. I find this unfortunate and put me into bigger chagrin. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I think you put more care and attention into your comments than do your mainspace submissions. I stand by that assessment. El_C 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you on that. There is always room for improvement. Just I disagree with you putting the label "Incompetence" on my language skills just because they don't seem perfect to you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If I offended, I, of course, apologize. Such was not my intent. I think your language skills are a match with mine, but again, that you need to give as much attention to the mainspace —what we are here for— as you do your comments. El_C 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C, if you think SilentResident's language skills are a match with yours, please modify or undo your close accordingly. As you can see, your close was quite contentious. Khirurg (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: On the Mainspace, I am using Microsoft Word -> Google Translator -> Microsoft Word -> Web Browser to prepare my texts. In the Talk Pages, on the other hand, I don't use this route and I simply use my own english skills (I type straight on the web browser without using third-party programs)

You say that my Talk Page comments are better quality than my main space contributions? I don't have idea why this happens. For the Main Space I use Google Translate which, albeit not perfect, helps avoiding translation errors. Perhaps this is the discrepancy of english language quality you are talking about?. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I had been trying very hard to avoid commenting here, but as another uninvolved sysop I will note that I cannot imagine having closed this thread devoting more than 5.5 times as much weight to SR's issues as FPAS' issues. I do defend El C's right to close this thread using his discretion and judgement even if that goes against the majority of participants. If he wants to admonish SR at length, well ANI is a place where that is appropriate, in the closing of a thread and after having assessed some evidence. However, as I noted at the start of this comment I will suggest that we seem to be coming down incredibly hard on SR, an editor who is making an effort to engage and improve, rather than FPAS who has chosen to largely not engage (and to the extent that they have engaged have done so in ways multiple editors have taken issue with) and who, as a sysop, has a higher standard of expectations for their actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you! I feel some admins do not appreciate my afforts. The reason I am using Microsoft Word -> Google Translator -> Microsoft Word -> Web Browser for the mainspace is because Future Perfect was complaining about my mainspace edits for years. And now El C complaining of my use of Google Translator and calling me Incompetent editor just because I was trying to satisfy Future Perfect's demands, is just too much for me. No matter what effort I put, there seems to be always an unhappy admin at the end of the road. @El C: please correct the ANI closure or at least reword it because this is insulting and unfair and not reflective of my complicated situation. You should understand the effort I am putting. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, I do recognize the effort you've put in. However, in assessing the situation El C is OK, at least in my book, to look at product not process. I know he didn't want to be insulting, and has apologized as that was not his intent. But it is not unfair, in my mind, to point out areas for growth and to suggest ways you can improve as an editor and I don't think he needs to necessarily change his close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed comment restored

• The following comment was removed by the closing admin after I added it at a separate section after their closure:

As I noted in my edit-summary at the article El_C used as an example for CIR issues with SR: I have to strongly disagree this is a WP:CIR issue. This is just a run of the mill mild language issue very common amongst many editors on English Wikipedia, including those for whom English is their mother tongue.". Dr. K. 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is far from mild and, basically, had to be totally rewritten. El_C 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are an experienced content editor El_C, as am I. What are we discussing here? You know that this was a no brainer rewrite in terms of difficulty. Dr. K. 21:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but, I disagree. In any case, it comes nowhere close to CIR. Dr. K. 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that — likewise. But obviously, we are at an impasse. El_C 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I won't argue about what level of fluency is required to be considered 'competent', it's just too subjective. But honestly the closing statement about FP doesn't feel strong enough to reflect how many concerns were expressed about the 'shot across the bow' comment, which came after FP knew about the disability. --valereee (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Don't you think enough vitriol has been expended already? El_C 20:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So that is how you see it? A vitriolic battle of some sort? Wrong. Editors, myself included, are just asking for the obvious here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That was the central question of this thread. It cannot/should not be ignored. Dr. K. 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, El C, to say that, but as the closing party, you ought to reflect on the consensus, otherwise it sends the wrong message about the mistreatment of people with disabilities across Wikipedia bearing no consequences and sends the message that it is ok as an Admin to behave like that, and this is very worrisome. The closure comment must make sure that such incidents are unacceptable. Please this time, close the ANI properly, otherwise I will have no option but include your name in the WMF filling. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I welcome anyone's input, including but not limited to members of the Foundation. El_C 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• This ANI thread has gone on too long for any positive outcome to come out of it and as it stands, there is no third-party who read this wall of text and make a conclusive call to fix things (kudos to El_C to attempt a bold close), as there is no close that will majorly satisfy all parties of this dispute. The secondary and only other possibility is to punt this to the Arbitration Committee, who I am not sure will even take up this case, but till then, I say all parties here make a compromise, drop the stick and get back to editing articles. I doubt this closure review will come to fruition and I doubt this ANI thread will result in a resolution at all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

At a minimum the closing statement needs to be amended. Khirurg (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that it's been undone, the closure review probably can be suspended and the matter can resume being discussed, although my opinion on its resolution remains intact. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly there didn't seem to be substantial opposition to the initial closure. It's not clear to me exactly why it was reverted, perhaps Phil Bridger could weigh in? –dlthewave ☎ 22:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• El C, I don't want vitriol, and I also don't want to pile on to you or to FP. Dealing well with people with a disability is really important to me, and I believe we need to be willing to reasonably accommodate, even when it's kind of annoying or causes us a little extra work, if for no other reason than because the diversity of viewpoint that contributions from people with disabilities give us makes the project stronger. What concerned me was Future Perfect at Sunrise could have conducted themselves with greater sensitivity, true. And for that lapse they have been admonished by many here. I do note, though, that they were unaware of SilentResident's disability at the time, which they should not be forced to constantly repeat for those not reading closely enough. FP did know of SR's disability when they made the shot across the bow comment. FP could have conducted themselves with profoundly greater sensitivity, at that point. --valereee (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I take your point to heart, Valereee. Perhaps I was simply too understated. I have added an amendment to my close, which I hope addresses the concerns brought fourth by many here. El_C 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your amendment doesn't cut it. At this point, please undo your close and let someone else close it. Thank you, Khirurg (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What were expecting the close to state, Khirurg? El_C 22:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, if there is still consensus that a different close is needed, I would not insist. But I would like some input first. El_C 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The little shot across the bow did the trick comment at this thread was very disturbing and needs to be addressed head-on. This is not an instance of "not being sensitive enough", it is a clear cut instance of gloating that the bullying of SR "did the trick". This is extremely unbecoming conduct from an admin, and many users have pointed this out. Please also take into account what DIthewave and valeree said. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Please also note, FPaS has a history of such abrasive behavior, and was desysopped once and admonished multiple times for exactly such behavior. There is a history here, this is not an isolated incident. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have undone my close. Sorry to have failed you all. El_C 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate that. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Closure review 2

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

---

I think choosing the very first closure review, was done too fast, and ignores all the subsequent discussions and recommendations. As Valereee and Paul August mentioned, there should be a merging of all the previous closures, an admonishment of Fut. Perf., as well as the "shot across the bow" remark. Dr. K. 23:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interim, a "closed, awaiting closing statement" placeholder could help keep things stable while we discuss. –dlthewave ☎ 23:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A placeholder is a great idea. Regarding the close itself, at a minimum FPaS should be admonished for incivility and conduct unbecoming of an admin. There is a clear consensus for this. Khirurg (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a reason I avoided commenting on FP@S's notorious "little shot across the bow did the trick" statement. Because it hurted and insulted me alot as an OCD person.

However I want to be straightforward with you all: In my opinion the thread cannot be closed properly if the "little shot across the bow did the trick" isn't included. FP@S's statement came after I tried explaining to him that a person's health problems don't go away with little shots across the bow: [76]. Otherwise it sends the wrong message across Wikipedia, that bullying of people with health problems is a toleratable act in our community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am OK with the wording of @Barkeep49:. I am also OK with any other closure as long as Fut Perf is able to keep his admin status and Silent Resident is able to edit. A closure wording is not even necessary as long as Fut Perf does not rv again comments made by other editors and SilentResident takes her continous modification of edits more seriously. If she uses Notepad, she can avoid the mess. A closure that acknowledges that the two editors need to reflect would be perfect. The history of their interactions shows that there is room for improvement for both of them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take it that it is an improvement from your previous statement (and barnstar) on El C's talk page. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

First off, I am happy you are not modifying your comments. It seems that this thread has improved your editing. The barnstar was given to the closing admin, @El C:, by @Serial Number 54129:, not by me. Be more careful next time. I thanked the closing admin as he closed a discussion that was going to nowhere. And I continue to think that the wording made by El_C was perfect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh my apologies about the barnstar. Somehow had the impression the stylized name was part of it. As for the rest, this is unfortunate but I won't try to change your mind, nor it matters much, since it is ammended. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a good thing you understand that you can not change my mind. I do not have any problem with having a closure ammended. As I said, I am OK as long as Fut Perf does not have his admin status removed and you are able to edit. After all, you have already learnt to edit carefully. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

None is asking to strip FP@S of his admin rights. Please read carefully what this is about. He made some remarks that violence can cure people with health problems. El C's's closure didn't tackle on the root of the whole problem for which this ANI report was made in the first place. What you think of it as well-balanced, doesn't even come close to it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We have given Fut. Perf. all the time in the world to explain what he meant by little shot across the bow did the trick concerning his attitude toward a person he knew full well had OCD when he made that remark. Fut. Perf. regularly participated in the original thread defending his actions, and pleading ignorance of the OCD of SR. We AGF'ed that he did not know SR had OCD when he reverted SR's edits on the article talkpage. But when it was pointed to him that the little shot across the bow did the trick comment was made when he was already informed of SR's OCD, Fut. Perf. disappeared from sight. There has been no explanation or clarification from him as to what he meant by that remark, in full knowledge of SR's condition. We need clarity on that, because violence should never be considered a therapeutic means for OCD. If Fut. Perf. meant something else, I think he should inform the community about it. Dr. K. 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Violence"??? WTF? Is this about the "a little shot across the bow" comment? If so then... come off it! If you're really trying to pretend that using this expression is advocating "violence as a therapeutic means for OCD" then that just shows how bad faith your approach here is. Look. We're not stupid here. Nobody is going to take you seriously when you make these kinds of hysterical, hyperbolic claims. Gawd. Typical AN/I Wikipedia. Exaggerate, scream, stomp one's feet and pretend that someone's frown is same as murder and act outraged that you're not being taken seriously.

Now, if there is some OTHER comment that I'm unaware of which actually references violence that's a different matter. But I figure if there was you'd be talking about that one, not this sorry excuse for pearl clutching. Volunteer Marek 02:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This review has all the potential to reach the ad nauseam point as the previous discussion did. El_C's closing remarks were well balanced.Cinadon36 00:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Like how many editors have pointed out: the closing remarks weren't balanced due to ignoring completing the post-report WP:BULLYING remarks of a person who was reported for WP:BULLYING. No editor would call it "balanced" unless they do agree in ignoring/tolerating such forms of violence/indimitation in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone still linedancing on the horse carcass? Good, good. I trust that after the weekend we'll be up to five closure reviews, and demands that single adverbs be rephrased for the salvation of various shattered souls. - Seriously; Barkeep's close is about as collegial and Good Faith All Around as is possible. Please give it a rest now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is your privilege to ignore comments advocating violence against people with OCD as a teaching tool, but please don't be so brazen about it. Dr. K. 00:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"comments advocating violence against people with OCD as a teaching tool" <-- can you be specific as to what "comments" you are actually referring to? Please quote them in response below without polemics or commentary. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as some insist on beating a WP:DEADHORSE, has anyone here considered that this is a "content dispute"/grudge being disguised and presented as a "behavioral problem"? I'm not seeing anyone actually raising the possibility that this is just a way for some editors to try and sideline an admin whose presence has hindered their POV on Balkan articles for many many many years. There's a ton of Wikipedia history that is being ignored here me thinks. Volunteer Marek 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad-faith comment, no one is trying to "sideline" anyone. However that's pretty rich from someone who has a "ton" of history himself. WP:EEML, anyone? Khirurg (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... you accuse me of "bad faith" for pointing out the obvious, then YOU bring up "EEML" which is 100% irrelevant here, an obvious effort at intimidation, and immediately attack me even though I did not mention you specifically "Khirurg"? The fact that you feel compelled to do so kind of betrays the fact that my observation was on point, particularly since, you know, I didn't actually mention YOU *specifically* as having your POV hindered. But hey, thanks for speaking up and making it clear for others. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The original closure was fine. At some point a WP:BOOMERANG needs to be considered for Dr. K and Khirurg for not being able to WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:TEND, particularly since I do think this whole report wasn't made in good faith and with clean hands. It's a POV content dispute fellas, not really about anyone being rude or anything except as an excuse, don't be fooled. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't speak about things you don't know about. FPaS and I generally have few interactions. On the other hand, you and I have had quite a few disputes, haven't we? So, yeah, don't be fooled. Khirurg (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't attack, try to intimidate and lecture others. Oh, and if you didn't file BS reports under false pretenses. You know... I watched this for awhile and wasn't going to comment. But the sheer amount of blustering and bad faith and BS just got to be too much. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were blocked a while back for making exactly these kinds of obnoxious, bad-faith, mud-slinging accusations. It would be best if you did not forget that. Khirurg (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you remember correctly. But your continued accusations about irrelevancies speak quite clearly - you're implicitly acknowledging that my observation was correct. I didn't mention YOU when I brought up POV issues, yet you automatically popped up and started... well, flinging mud, being obnoxious and making bad faith accusations. It would be best if you didn't adopt this WP:BATTLEGROUND condescending tone where you tell others what's best for them. And did we have prior disputes? I'm not recognizing the username "Khirurg". Perhaps I've forgotten. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't mention me directly, you just used the cowardly "some users", but it was pretty obvious who you meant. Don't think you're fooling anyone. And oh yes, I do remember correctly [77]. Khirurg (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh!!! "Cowardly" is it? Wait wait wait! You forgot to accuse me of making personal attacks in the same sentence, like you usually do. I don't think it was obvious at all. And hey, a diff from 3 years ago for completely unrelated stuff. You want to get User:Drmies here? Keep going man, please, keep going. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It was 3 years ago, but nothing's changed. The same bad-faith accusations, mud-slinging and outright falsehoods, laced with plenty of exclamation points. Exhibit A:I'm not recognizing the username "Khirurg" but I got this username in early 2017, and since then, we have tangled at White Helmets [78], Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [79], just to name a few. But, yeah, you "don't recognize" my username. Complete and total bull. Khirurg (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Save your AGF-defying wisdom to yourself. Noone advocates that the admin involved be removed from the Balkans. It has not even come up as a subject. Plus, I haven't discussed anything with this guy since a long time ago. If you think he has not mistreated SR, you are entitled to your opinion. But you cannot cast WP:ASPERSIONS against the editors who disagree with you and who include several admins and many good faith editors. As far as BOOMERANG, continue on that bad-faith tirade and see who gets blocked for disruption and WP:NPA violations. Dr. K. 01:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No... I think I'll share my wisdom with others. There's definitely an underlying POV content dispute here and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The best outcome here hasn't changed since I originally proposed the closure way up there, which was then supported/modified by floq, implemented by Valeince, then undone and implemented again by SN, and then modified/implemented again by barkeep. There seem to be a small number of people here looking for blood. That's not a great reason to repeatedly open the discussion. If the behavior continues, come back. If you're after FPaS's bit, go to arbcom (but probably not a good use of time). The longer this goes the more side beefs are going to appear and the less clarity there will be for anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a clarification to a simple question is not "asking for blood". Noone is asking for the admin's bit. Just for a clarification. Dr. K. 01:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a second closure review. It's not asking for "clarification". It's not a "simple question", but a bad faithed one. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Leave the brazen attacks to yourself. You can obviously have the last word. I will not try to outcompete your attempts at derailing this discussion. Dr. K. 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me have the last word. Here it is: I'm not making any brazen attacks, just pointing out that this whole report is based on an underlying, long term content dispute about POV in Balkan articles and that context seems to have been ignored, but it shouldn't. Volunteer Marek 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:@Volunteer Marek: This ANI report is about behavioral issues, not content issues. Coming here and saying "bullied? Lets look on content differences!" - as if it is justifiable to bully someone because of content differences. This leaves a souring impression.

@Everyone else: This is over for me. The story started and ended like this: Someone bullied me. A report is filled against him. He showed no remorse for his actions. Not even apologized. Contrary, during the discussion, he expressed satisfaction for his bullying methods working on his victim. Then he disappears entirely from the discussion, never to be seen again. And the ANI isn't closed properly. He wasn't even given a simple formal warning. Once the dust settles down, the bully will be free to reign over their next victim since the report against them concluded without dealing with their behavioral problem. Congratulations to all.

Despite the honest efforts of many editors here, bullying is tolerated in Wikipedia and this is an alarming failure for us all. But while you may continue you wikipedic lifes, I am no longer wishing to be part of this. I am too tired and excausted emotionally and this filling is dragging indefinitely. It is just too much. PS: To those who supported me: thank you all for your support. To those who showed insensitivity and indifference to my situation, wish you good luck in dealing with your own future bullies. Because you will be alone on this like I was. It doesn't matter if the community sides with you, because, at the end of the day, what counts is that there is a precedence. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am really disappointed to see how this has developed. FP@S has not responded to requests for reflection nor acknowledged the comments from numerous uninvolved editors. An ArbCom case is the only way to seek a desysop and I doubt such a case would be taken, but this incident could be presented as evidence in a future case. SR has acknowledged editing problems and indicated a willingness to address them, and it now seems feels unwilling or unable to remain at WP. That is very sad on an individual level and an indictment of us as Wikipedians on an overall level, that we are unable to address harassment of an editor with a disability. FP@S, your behaviour towards SR has been unacceptable, and in the time since you must have known of her condition, has been appalling. To those who view FP@S's actions as justified by alleged shortcomings in SR's article space editing, I ask you to reflect on the inhumanity of your position. SR is a living, breathing human being who has contributed to this project for years. She has a disability that leads to an editing style that FP@S finds irritating, but has contributed in numerous areas in collaboration with other editors despite this. She is clearly in pain, upset, distressed, and exhausted by our inability to declare that FP@S's actions are unacceptable to us as a community, and I am ashamed that we have failed to make this simple and (what should be) uncontroversial statement. No circumstances described here go even close to justifying FP@S's behaviour. Those who have tried to divert this thread onto other issues, you should also feel ashamed that your eagerness to pursue personal issues has blinded you to the pain and plight of SR.

Constructing a close that accurately reflects the seriousness and unacceptable nature of FP@S's conduct should have been easy given the volume of comments. Recognising that SR being harassed is not justified by her editing while recognising editing problems may exist, should have been equally easy. FP@S is a respected but also controversial admin and his ongoing good work should not make us blind to his failures in this case. His failure to admit to any fault and his gloating response that he had succeeded in forcing SR to overcome OCD (as if that were realistically possible) have seriously damaged his reputation in my eyes, and I suspect in the views of others as well. However, this is also something we have failed to include in a closure. In short, it is circumstances like this that led the WMF into starting the FRAM debacle and we must learn that self-governance comes with it responsibility to stand up against bullying, to adhere to principles of inclusion and acceptance in practice as well as in principle, and to demonstrate that we are a community that respects its members and behaves as mature adults.

I doubt that any balanced and respectful close is now possible that reflects our principles and our better natures. Some will no doubt view SR's departure as a triumph or vindication, and anyone who feels that way should take a long hard look at themselves and ask how her pain can be a reason for celebration. This thread will die, as many other ANI threads do, without addressing the underlying issues. That is sad, as is SR's departure, as is FP@S's inability to acknowledge mistakes, as are the contributions that have sought to divert this discussion from the core issues. I was motivated to enter this thread by what I saw as unfair treatment of a disabled person, believing that the Wikipedia community is better than that. I am now doubting that the decency and humanity of the Wikipedia editing community exists as it once did. EdChem (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: I was trying to find words that express my shock that anyone in the 21st century could behave in such a way, but am finding it very difficult without it looking like a rant, so will do no more than say that I share the disillusionment that you express in your last sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I watched this whole thread evolve over the days. Didn't want to say something, but I have a few words. I edit mainly Balkan related topics and at times its no easy thing neither for editors or administrators due topics that are of a contested nature. Sometimes they cause disagreements and yes sadly it can get nasty. Administrators dealing in this field have no easy ride. They have to constantly deal with IP disruption, editors pushing POV in unconstructive ways, trolling and sock accounts. As such it can induce a stressful environment. Few Wikipedia administrators have the grit to deal in this field like @Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Now sure, in my interactions with @Future Perfect we have had our few moments of strong disagreement. He can definitely attest to that. However @Future Perfect has also given the Balkan topics area a degree of order. The administrator has given me helpful advice on article talkpages in relation to improving my editing and i want others to be aware that the administrator does take the time to also do that. @Volunteer Marek: is spot on all counts in what he said. SilentResident looking at your situation, if health is a prolonged and possibly permanent issue, editing articles where stress and so on might occur due to the topic's contested nature, then maybe refrain from editing them. I had a health scare mid year after i did something very foolish. The doctor said to me to stay away from environments that might incur stress and one of those spaces for me was not touching Wikipedia for a long while to aid my recovery. That said, admins like @Future Perfect have made Wikipedia a better place and that should be taken into account. @El C:’s initial closure was spot on and I support it.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for SR, but, as I understand it, the issue here is SR's OCD. SR does not suffer from a stress disorder. She suffers from OCD. That means she is not incapacitated under stressful wiki conditions. She can handle that. The problem is created when her OCD-driven multiple grammatical incremental talkpage posts are undone or she is under threat that they will be undone now and in the future for no other reason than because they upset an admin who doesn't like multiple grammatical incremental posts. The problem is exacerbated when the admin actually reverts her grammatical incremental talkpage posts back to a grammatically incorrect state and then states after the fact that his revert of her multiple grammatical incremental posts may have helped overcome her OCD fidgeting with her multiple grammatical incremental posts and caused her to cut down the number of her multiple grammatical incremental posts. I am certain that everyone in this thread, is a great editor who has contributed great things to this project. The same goes for the admin who doesn't like the multiple grammatical incremental posts of SR and likes to revert them. But our encyclopædic record does not make us infallible neither does it absolve us from the responsibility of acknowledging our errors. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 16:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a platform that aims to be inclusive as possible of people of all walks of life and that should be encouraged further going forward. That said, I never said that OCD is a stress disorder. In medicine, the role stress plays in enhancing or making the symptoms of OCD worse is noted [80]. My point was, if an editor has a health condition and then they engage in an environment where stress might occur, it could affect their editing, especially if their editing competencies are not up to scratch, then situations such as this could be a possible result. A course of action would be to refrain from activities like editing certain articles, topic areas or even Wikipedia altogether, due to the nature of some content on articles being contested and all that it entails in dealing with WP:BRD, talkpage discussions etc because the end result is that it can be harmful to a particular editor's health. I still agree with El_C’s initial closure.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, SR has not reported that she cannot handle stressful conditions. The only complaint SR has made concerns the reverts of her multiple grammatical incremental talkpage posts by the admin involved. When you mentioned: ... then situations such as this could be a possible result, what situation did you have in mind? Dr. K. 16:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, El_C’s initial closure, missed to tackle on the disrespectful remarks (which are a form of violence) towards my health problem. Agreeing with El_C’s initial closure "as is", means you are agreeing in not tackling these forms of violence against disabled people. Looking at your past, this isnt surprising of you, Resnjari. Let me by honest to you. You are a capable contributor and I respect your work. But we do not share the same human values. Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy, and now this support of closures which leave Bullying remarks by FP@S unadressed, are a worrissome trend I do not agree with nor I can be part of, no matter what. The universal human rights are very important to me as a person, and uphold them to my heart and are part of who I am. To me, your indifference to the bullying that happened here (your comments avoided tackling this and instead focused on FP@S's contribs and on my OCD) is disturbing. Please now lets leave this discussion, as there is no point talking about this anymore. FP@S is a great editor and none, incl. me has doubts about that. However this filling wasn't about his great contributions to the community, is about a behavioral issue and we failed to addres it. He showed no remorse for his actions. Nor even apologized. He escaped and the damage to the Wikipedia community is already done, be it with El_C’s initial closure or not. If you re happy, good. If not, again good. Just let it go. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy @SilentResident:, diffs? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy ... I am dying to know if this was all in one diff. – Levivich 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I am dying to know if this was all in one diff. You better get used to that. Wikipedia is a collective project drawing people from all corners of the world. People with all the sorts of different views and beliefs, different religions and most certainly -as you see in this thread- people with all sorts of health problems. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why bother, Ktrimi? You weren't even here to read these remarks with your own eyes. You are new in Wikipedia and this happened before you joined us. If you really want that much to read about it, go dig into the archives my disputes with him and you will find everything you seek there. However, I am having the impression here you are missing the point of my comment above. Please read carefully what I have said about sensitivity here. My message is meant for you as well. Your passionate support to the Closing Remarks which avoided alltogether FP@S's remarks that violence works on curing disabilities, was very unfortunate of you. You already made your points very loud and clear and there is nothing I want to discuss with you.

Contact is made with the legal department of the WMF. It is recommended that this thread is closed and be kept for the records since there is nothing useful to be said here, just unprofessional advices of how to deal with my health problems. This discussion has come to a natural end and if people are kind enough, they ought to stop giving me advices about my health. I said I will work on improving my issues, but I expected more from you. If you can't, just let it go. I want to recover from my emotional distress this has caused, be done with the legal procedures, and move on. Good day to everyone. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can people just stop offering unsolicited, amateur, medical advice here? You wouldn't (I hope) tell someone who was blind that they shouldn't be editing certain articles for their own good, so why do people feel qualified to tell someone with OCD the same? Those of us with mental conditions can decide for ourselves whether editing in particular areas is good for us. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User 67.70.58.234 persistently making factual inaccuracies

• 67.70.58.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 67.70.58.234 has been persistently making factual inaccuracies in regards to statistical information on the 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season article. This all started on Dec. 3 when the IP started making edits to the article. So far, they have made 4 edits, and I have have had to go and correct all of them. After their third edit, I left this message on their talk page, telling them to refrain from adding incorrect information. I even provided them references to help them obtain their information from. I gave the IP editor one more chance on Dec. 10, but they somehow managed to mess up again. I'm pretty lenient when other editors make errors once or twice every so often. However, this is a fourth consecutive time in the last week that this user has made errors. Here are the 4 edits that were concerning to me, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Now, here are my edits that corrected their errors, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Any sort of help would be appreciated. Yowashi (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I please get a response from someone? Yowashi (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Possibaly vandalism; could go to vandalism noticeboard? N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I left notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Tracking verifiability on stats leaders is a moving target when updated every game. Hockey experts can better determine if this is good-faith but inaccurate editing, a content dispute, or vandalism.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've little to no patients for such behaviour. Would recommend that the IP be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like run of the mill vandalism to me. I will watch the page if they continue I will take action, but really if you see it just revert. Changing numbers in articles of any type is a fairly common vandalism move. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone protected the page for 2 months. I assume that this case can be closed. I will file a report again if there are any issues after the page becomes unprotected. Yowashi (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UnknownAssassin1819

• UnknownAssassin1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

This user was blocked for one week on 10 March 2019 for trolling and personal attacks at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. They received the DS alert for AP2 on 11 Dec ([81]) after this reverted edit which was repeated the following day. The DS notice was blanked and the same edit made again today. They were previously warned by Ymblanter here for inserting contentious material here. Other highlights include "far-right Democratic" at Jim Crow laws [82]. I'd suggest a TBAN based on productive editing in other areas, but a look through the talk page history finds examples like this. You have to go through history because the user routinely blanks their talkpage when warnings pile up. The productivity to drama ratio looks poor for this user. What do people think? Guy (help!) 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I obviously think that Wikipedia would be better without this editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that they've previously been blocked for edit warring in the area of video games, I'm not seeing much of a point in just a TBAN.

Between this, this, and this, we're better off just blocking them. Anyone who thinks that black supremacists are super common and that white people are actively being exterminated falls under WP:CIR, if not WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure why my opinions mean anything here when I rarely make edits on political articles. Not that it matters, but i'm Mexican, how can I be a Nazi? I blank my pages because I don't like stuff piling up, that doesn't mean i'm hiding anything, I do it to anything that appears there. "Wikipedia would be better without this editor", yeah, i'm sure removing me will make a significant difference for this website, this will definitely end all "wrong opinions" people may have and cleanse all bad people. I don't understand that talking point, why am I being treated like some kind of menace to society? I barely even make edits here anymore. Wikipedia should have a "No Wrong Opinions" rule if i'm to be censored and have my opinions cleansed from the world. By the way, I don't "think" Black Supremacists exist, it's just what the media alludes to. I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common. You're going to have extremists from all sides, no favors are being granted by pretending there aren't any. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been, and still are, Mexican Nazis, e.g. Acción Revolucionaria Mexicana, Unión Nacional Sinarquista, etc. --Jayron32 12:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant. We do let users have a variety of opinions but we're under no obligation to waste our time with people who hold racist opinions that are contrary to our goals and methodologies.

As for I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common, either you have no fucking clue what "super common" means or you're so scared of black people asking for basic rights that you're lumping them in with the fraction of a percentage that say anything remotely comparable to inverse Nazism. Nazis just love Tu quoques these days.

That's not even touching this. @UnknownAssassin1819: would you say that the idea that white people, in general, are being actively targeted with oppression, extermination, or genocide is A) a racist conspiracy theory, B) unproven, C) debatable, D) plausible, or E) reality? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Other than the slow-moving edit war at Glenn Beck, which would be blockable unless UnknownAssassin1819 agrees to not revert anymore, I don't see anything in their recent editing history to indicate disruption. The last edits of anything political date to July, which you note above. I find them disturbing, but not sanctionable at this point. --Jayron32 12:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think the 20+ warnings that they've received on their user page in the course of fewer than 900 mainspace edits probably gives us a good idea of their general utility to the project. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think if there are other good reasons for blocking them, we should hear them; however the OP seems to focus on AP2 violations, which I don't find much of. If there's a different reason to block which is evident in recent editing history, please put it forward. --Jayron32 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, I only reverted because I found it to be disruptive to the page itself and would move readers away. I obviously wouldn't do it again because I don't want to be blocked for one minor thing. Like Jayron32 stated, I rarely ever "disrupt", it's clearly not something I do often, but i'm wanted to be banned just for having certain opinions, not because it defines my edit history (which it clearly doesn't). UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• You may have a valid argument to make on the Glenn Beck article (saying that doesn't mean you do, I'm just conceding it as a possibility. Maybe you don't...) but if you do, reverting back-and-forth is unlikely to get your point heard. Instead, you should make your case on the article talk page and try to build consensus, seeking help from the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if necessary. Just reverting to keep what you want in the article is not best practice. Start a discussion on the talk page, and lay out your case. --Jayron32 17:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Thinking that white people are being actively exterminated and that black supremacists are very common are not opinions, they're falsifiable claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that is unmitigated bullshit. It's also unmitigated bullshit from February, and the user in question seems to have taken on board prior sanctions and warnings and is not currently putting such unmitigated bullshit into Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I got a TBAN for discussing the White Genocide conspiracy theory on the talk page. There's no point in doing that anymore. I said White farmers in South Africa are being exterminated, not overall White people in the entirety of the world, and there's a difference between the terms "Supremacist" and "Supremacy", we must not mistaken the two. Racial Identity = Supremacist; Racial Authority = Supremacy. In any case, I haven't made these claims in months, why do they matter now? Perhaps because it's being used against me instead of defining my overall edit history? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not going to defend you. I find the philosophy you espouse horrifying and evil, and the previous abject lies you've attempted to spread on Wikipedia to be equally as horrifying. I was trying to give you the opportunity to reform, and I am in no way going to defend you on your prior bad acts, and I've tried to give you an out here, but if you're going to continue to spout such nonsense as you just did right now, I'm going to withdraw my objections to banning you from Wikipedia permanently. I'm disengaging now, because I find my bloodpressure rising to unhealthy levels. Please go away before you make things worse for yourself. --Jayron32 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• CBAN enough already.-- Deepfriedokra 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked the user. We have and continue to waste too much time on an editor who has nothing positive to contribute to the project and who interjects odious unsupported views into articles and onto Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

Kaur.ishmeet. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit to a DYK article while on the main page, this editor removed every citation in the body along with some other mostly unnecessary changes. The edit summary was (Grammatical Errrors, Punctuation marks, Rearranged some words for better readability.)

Looking at their edit history, they have made only 7 similar edits (to 7 different articles) which aren't really improvements. Almost all have been reverted. Not sure where else to bring this. I doesn't look like actual vandalism. The edit summaries may be borderline misleading. The intent may be good (or not?) But there definitely is a low-level disruptive pattern here across several articles. MB 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Account now blocked as a sock. MB 17:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User indiscriminately adding a category to musical artist articles

MrRobot168 (talk · contribs · count)

New user is adding Category:Singers with a three-octave vocal range to mass articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Go to vandalism noticeboard, combined with previous warning this warrents a block. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted their edits. If they resume I will i will request further action. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous IP engaged in automated editing

I was editing using STIKI. An anonymous IP appears to be making automated edits (see anonymous IP contributions here and scroll down on the first page). On December 11, 2019 UTC, they have made about 300 single edits on approximately 300 Wikipedia pages that describe operas. It may be more than 300 - this was the best number I came up with.

Most of these are stubs. They have placed the italic title template {{italic title}} on each page. Although, these edits appear to be correct according to WP:Italictitle and MOS:Italictitle, this seems to be disruptive if 300 articles did not have this template affixed to them in the first place.

Also, from what I know about bot editing, the editor needs to receive permission to use the bot and permission for the project they intend to engage in. And according to an answer to my query on the STIKI talk page ([83], [84])-an actual registered account is required and the bot also needs to be registered [85]. I have queried the anonymous IP on their talk page [86]. They have also been notified about this ANI [87]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes you say it's a bot? The edit rate is only about 5 per minute on average, and there are some pauses (such as around 19:12) and other irregularities in the edit rate that make it seem manual. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think the rate is, the editing is rapid on a per minute basis - very much like a bot. I don't think I do STIKI editing that fast. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, pauses in this instance, would not seem to detract from the possibility that this is bot editing. I'd like to hear some other opinions. And if this is bot editing - the editor may be using other IP addresses. They seem to be an experienced editor. I would also like them to respond here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What I "think" the rate is? Are you suggesting that it's something other than what I've stated? And what reason do you have to think the editor is using other IP addresses? Have you seen any? ST47 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the quantity of edits - 300 or more - would seem to indicate the use of a bot. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't take much more than ten seconds to press "ctrl C" then "ctrl V" and then click the save button. I see no evidence that indicates this is a bot. --Jayron32 18:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are 143 edits from 18:03 to 18:39 (= 36 min) in that IPs edit history with the edit summary of: "per WP:ITALICTITLE". That's just under 4 edits per min, which seems plausibly manual. Paul August ☎ 18:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I misspoke when I wrote "whatever you think the rate is", sorry about that. What I meant was, "whatever the rate is" - the rate appears to be rapid... and so on. Also, I didn't say the IP is using other IP addresses. I said the editor may be using other IP addresses. It's meant to be a kind of heads up. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to detect possible irregularities. It doesn't mean there is an irregularity here - it's just that it seems possible. And I think I am allowed to point them out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you for finding the irregularity. It is important that we feel open and free to share concerns when we see them. Just because myself and others disagreed after your report doesn't mean there was a problem with your report. You did nothing wrong, I just disagreed with you. --Jayron32 19:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. That is a relief. I thought I walked into a bad situation for me. Phew! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the feedback so far, it is plausible this is not a bot. To me 4 edits per minute, and 5 edits per minute seemed to be bot-like and rapid. Apparently, this is not the case, and maybe I am not that familiar with bot editing. Just want to acknowledge that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack and application of arbitrary rules

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs) stated that he had read the archives on Talk:Crusades and also witnessed my behaviour during the last few days and he saw "an excessive level of aggression and bullying". He added that I had "edit warred" my "views into this article," I had "ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating [myself] rather than working to consider all sides), and [I had] made numerous aggressive comments." To prevent me from bullying, he introduced new rules, practically aimed at excluding me from editing the article. ([88]) I think I did not bully anybody and I was not aggresive, but if Onceinawhile is right I should be sanctioned. I must admit I am not always kind, because ignorance and PoV pushing can outrage me, but I have never bullied anybody. On the other hand, if Onceinawhile is wrong, he should be sanctioned for personal attack and the introduction of arbitrary rules.

I think the problem was that I dared to question the significance of two of his "pet themes". My understanding of the events can be read below.

Pet issue 1:

1. During the FAC review of the Crusades article, Onceinawhile proposed that the article should be expanded with a text about the pre-Seljuk Turks and their migrations ([89]).

2. Onceinwhile's proposal was accepted and a text about pre-Seljuk Turks was introduced ([90]). It was not verified by a source dedicated to the crusades, but by a source about the history of the Turkic peoples.

3. I realized that specialized scholarly works cited in the article do not mention pre-Seljuk Turks and suggested that those sentences should be deleted from this lengthy article. If specialists can explain the crusades without mentioning early migrations, we should not find our original way of the presentation of the crusades. I deleted the text with the following edit summary: "These facts are verified by a book which is not dedicated to the history of the crusades? We do not write of the Normans' role in European state formations either." ([91])

4. My edit was reverted with the following edit summary "revert unjustified changes". ([92])

5. I again deleted the text ([93]), adding an explanation on the article's Talk page ([94])

6. A lengthy, boring debate followed, because I insisted on a reference to specialized literature (I mean to books dedicated to the crusades). The other editor proposed that a third opinion should be requested ([95]) and I was happy ([96]).

7. Instead of requesting a third opinion, the other editor reverted my edit ([97]) and I requested a third opinion ([98], [99]).

8. Although my request was improperly formatted ([100]) we received a third opinion ([101]), suggesting that pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the lengthy article. Everybody seemed to accept the third opinion ([102], [103]) and the text was deleted in accordance with the third opinion ([104]).

9. Four day later the other editor changed his mind and again realized that the text about pre-Seljuk Turks is important ([105]). He restored the deleted text with the following edit summary "restore explanation of who Mamluks inexplicably edited out" ([106]). On the same day, Onceinawhile again appeared on the scene. He offered to provide a third opinion, claiming that the previous third opinion was misinterpreted ([107]) and provided a third opinion ([108]). Yes, Onceinawhile, who proposed that a non-highly relevant info be inserted, offered to provide a third opinion on the same issue and provided a third opinion on the same issue.

10. I sought dispute resolution ([109]), but Oceinawhile found two crusader-specific books (one about the relationship between the crusaders and their neighbors and the most detailed monography of the crusades) that mention the pre-Seljuk Turks ([110]). Secretly I thought the pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the article, because most books cited in the article ignore them, but I did not want an edit war and accepted the restoration of the text ([111]).

11. Onceinwhile not only restored the text, but also introduced huge explanatory footnotes with the edit summary "minor clarification" ([112]). I agreed with an other editor that the lengthy footnotes are obviously excessive and deleted them - I did not delete the restored text, but only the lengthy footnotes! ([113]).

12. Onceinwhile reverted my edit saying "please bring this to the talk page. It was added in order to help clarify per your request, and will help others unfamiliar with it" ([114]). I reverted Onceinwhile's edit because I did not request lengthy quotes and there was an uninvolved editor who also opposed it (see point 11 above) ([115]).

Pet issue 2:

1. Onceinwhile practically cloned a sentence in the article, repeating its core both in the first and in one of the last sections of the article ([116]).

2. I edited the text, because duplication of the same info can be useful in a poem, but not in an encyclopedic article ([117]).

3. Onceinwhile realized that I am a bullying aggressive vandal.

Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, I would never say that you were a vandal, as your FA and bunch of GAs ably demonstrate your contributions to the project, but as someone uninvolved in the topic area who took a quick glance at the Crusades talk page (where there's a dispute between you and Norfolkbigfish), I do think your communication style could be improved. You're calling them names in a way that others might consider off-putting and aggressive. At a glance, I see the following comments from you to Norfolk that might be construed as overly personal:

• Going back in time, there's this from November 4: "I understand the continuity of a discussion is intolerable for some personal reason"
• December 4: "Your manipulative communication is boring". You also use the word "manipulative" in reference to Norfolk here, here, here (with an edit summary of wp:nothere), and here
• December 6: This calls the other user manipulative again and accuses them of vandalism.
• December 6 again: This calls the other user manipulative once more and says, "I am more and more convinced you are not here to build an encyclopedia."
• December 6: "Sleep before continuing this conversation, because you are not in the reality of Wikipedia".
• December 6: On Norfolk's talk page, you questioned their ability to edit the Crusades article. Three days later, you gave them a warning for edit warring under the heading "WP:NOTHERE".
• December 9: On your talk page, you say to Norfolk, "you are telling lies again", and call them "manipulative" one more time.
• December 11: "Yes, my English is awful. You do not have knowledge of the crusades. Win-win situation".

You're calling the other user manipulative, a liar, and questioning their competence. Without evidence, these are personal attacks and you should refrain from such statements in the future. Even if there are problems with the editing of other users, insulting them in your critiques does nothing to encourage collaboration. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Giants2008—it has been an unrewarding few months on Wikipedia and it is welcome to have this acknowledged. It is worth noting that Onceinawhile has always acted within the spirit of Wikipedia and has remained consistently polite. In content terms at FAC he raised a perfectly valid point that WP:WORLDVIEW should apply with wider coverage given all the ethnic and religious groups involved in the Crusades. Specifically in content terms that Mamluks, who ultimately destroyed the Crusader States should be explained in terms of who they are, where they come from and why they came significant players in Islamic politics. It is clearly wrong to conflate the Seljuks with all of the other Turkish tribes, and the Turks with the Arabs and all the other Muslims. This was raised as a dispute by the complainant but rather than wait for this to be resolved this case was raised instead. We can only imagine why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a content dispute about the Crusades pending at DRN. I have closed the dispute because this thread is also pending here. I am not commenting on the substance of either a content dispute or a conduct dispute at this time. If there is a content dispute after this conduct complaint is resolved, a request can be made to open a new thread at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I did not want to involve Norfolkbigfish in the debate, because I respect talent. His literary skills are outstanding. However, I maintain his knowledge of the crusades is limited, his communication style is manipulative and he is a PoV-pusher.

• November 4. Norfolkbigfish actually duplicates content debates. Example 1. On 28 October he opened a new section "Vexatious tagging" listing a number of issues which were being debated (and explained) in section "Review by Borsoka" ([118]). Example 2. On 31 October he started a new debate about the survival of Christians in Palestine, although it was already being discussed in the same section ([119]) and I explicitly asked him not to open new debates on the issues already under debate ([120]). Example 3. The background of the November 4 issue is the following: he started a new debate on the deletion of a text claiming that I "was unaware of" a historiographical debate when I deleted the text, although I had already explained the reason in section "Review by Borsoka". Do you think the duplication of debates is the proper way of communication?
• Manipulative communication (multiple remarks): he often states falsely that I wanted to achieve something or I stated something (please read the links you provided, I clearly explained). The latest example of his manipulative communication is his last message above: he refers to the contenct dispute that I summarized under "Pet issue 1" and implies that I did not want to wait for the resolution of the debate. Actually, as my above summary under "Pet issue 1" shows, it was not me who broke a consensus. I think when he writes of my raising the issue he refers to my request for comments ([121]). Is this a problem? Do you think I should have accepted Onceinawhile and Norfolkbigfish's "consensus" although an uninvolved editor had already made it clear that their "consensus" is unacceptable ([122]). The latter editor repeated his view during the RfC ([123]).
• Limited knowledge of the crusades: if it is necessary I can prove it with multiple examples - his lack of deeper knowledge is the principal reason of our content debates. Please let me know if I have to verify my statement.
• Telling lies: he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page several times - if he proves that I was involved in edit warring, I will apologize.
• Giants2008 refers to my communication style, so I must raise other issues as well, that I did not want. 1. Norfolkbigfish's first message on my Talk page was the following: "Please calm down on the FAC for this article. I will work with you but you need to give me something to work with. The article does stand up against current anglophone academic opinion, I can assure you. It may not be perfect but you are close to vandalising it and breaking its hard won NPOV." Background of his accusation of vandalism is the following: I started the review of the article. My review demonstrated that the article was a large mass of original research, original synthesis, PoV-pushing and copyvio (the details can be read here [124] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?"). 2. On 14 October, Norfolkbigfish approached one of the other reviewers of the article and stated that I seem to "intent on reworking" the article "to match" my "middle European Catholic view of history" without pinging me ([125]). Just a side remark: I am not Catholic. 3. I realized from the beginning that the article was highly biased towards the Turks without verification - if it is necessary I can provide evidence. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Interestingly Onceinwhile stated on my Talk page that "You and Norfolk have been doing some excellent work together. The fact that you disagree on many areas is making the article better than ever, through healthy debate and iteration." ([126]) Actually, this is why I did not want to involve Norfolkbigfish in this debate and I have not taken him to AN: our cooperation has significantly improved the article, because he can fix errors derriving from my awful English and I can fix errors derriving from his limited knowledge of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :). Well that is good, but as you personalise this I think it is better that that I articulate my opinion rather than have it misrepresentated. I have no animus to Central Europeans or any other social, ethnic or religious grouping, instead coming from a pluralistic and multi-cultural perspective. The comments I made were not personal, although I would accept that they were not sufficiently well phrased. We all bring a paradigm to our editing, it is unavoidable. Broken English, I can fix—although I would not claim mine to be perfect. The challenge is the clash of paradigms: yours is one I characterised as Central European. This is compounded by what I can only guess, is a position where you understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors. There are no unverified ideas in what I have written in this article—in this what you describe as my limited knowlege of the subject is in fact a strength. Everything I write comes from the sources used: Asbridge, Prawer, Tyerman, Jotischky & Findley Carter. In fact it is through editing here that other editors have suggested, and introduced me, the use of the Tyerman historiography, Jotischky and Prawer. I have an issue with Lock though—it is useful for dates, figures etc but the prose is partial and badly written and is not comparable to the higher level secondary sources. Where does that leave us? There are things that need explaining for the lay reader that currently do not have enough attention. This includes, but is not exclusive to the Turks, Mamluks, the Crusader backgrounds, the Greeks etc. I would not claim to be totally innocent but as Giants2008 points out above your behaviour has on occasions fallen below the level that makes you a positive Wikipedian. It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says and adding context to expalain why you are using it—in case that source is unavailable to whoever you are in discusion with. I think you don't consider that persons perspective and are quick to revert/edit your own opinion rather than discuss on the Talk Page or compromise. This article is difficult, a summary covering centuries and a massive geographical spread. There are also few facts & material evidence is limited. That is why the various other articles on the Crusades as a subject area are of such poor quality. History is not a Science, it is an Art. It would be more positive if you withdrew this incident and tried to bare that in mind. The alternative is a judgement that I suspect would not be to your liking. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, we are not perfect. 1. "We all bring a paradigm to our editing", maybe, but it could hardly be a Hungarian/Central European paradigm in my case. I have never read Hungarian books about the crusades, because Hungarian historians are not really interested in this theme. All my knowledge on the crusades is based on about 20 books published in English by the leading publishing houses. Therefore we can hardly speak about "clash of paradigms" between you and me, although I must admit that I also read some Spanish books about the Reconquista. 2. "...you [that is me] understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors": could you provide an example? In return I provide one example when you did not perfectly understand what was written in the sources. (Actually, I am convinced that you have not read any of the sources that you cite, but only parts of them.) I can list, without difficulties, about 20 more examples showing that you did not understand the allegedly cited source. Example: An old version of the article contained the following sentence: "The Jerusalem nobility rejected the succession of [Emperor Frederick II's] son to the kingdom's throne." Everybody who have some knowledge of the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem soon realize that this cannot be true, because it is well known that Frederick II's son, Conrad, and Conrad's son, Conradin, were acknowledged as the lawful (although absent and powerless) kings from 1229. I added a "citation needed" tag with the following reasoning: "Asbridge does not write anything similar. Furthermore, significant parts of the Jerusalemit nobility acknowledged Conrad and Conradin's right to the throne." ([127]) You did not understand the message and reverted my edit, with the following edit summary "More vexatious tagging" ([128]). You also wrote a message to me under the friendly title "Vexatious tagging" - it revealed to me that you do not have the faintest idea about the whole issue ([129]). I had to copy some text from the sources (that you had allegedly read and cited) in order to clarify this simple issue ([130]). 3. I know that you think I reject Prawer and love Lock, but this is not the case. I only want to secure that no scholarly PoVs be presented as facts. 4. "It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says": could you provide an example? In return I provide an example when you deliberately truncated a quote from a reliable source in order to "verify" a sentence that I debated. Example: The article contained the following sentence: "The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon." I was sceptical about this peaceful picture and raised the issue during the review of the article, asking whether this sentence contains OR. You stated "Again not OR, pretty much matches the source" [131]. I remained sceptical and stated that "no similarity", referring to the lack of similarity between the allegedly cited source, Findley, and the text ([132]). Norfolbigfish posted the following quote from Findley's book: "a mostly Chritian population....made the eligible to live under Muslim rule as dhimmis.....cultures and creeds coexisted...frontier zone....intermarriage was one of the most prominent themes in this environment" ([133]), adding that "looks similar to me" ([134]). However, it turned out that he copied Findley's original text, but in a truncated form, hiding the words, which proved that Findley did not refer to Jerusalem in the 7th-11th centuries, but to Anatolia in the 1070s. Was this a manipulation of the source in order to push a PoV, or was it a mistake? 5. History is a science. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Holy wall of text Batman! If anyone here wants any kind of action, be advised admins don't decide based on who has the highest word count. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Borsoka from the Guild of copy Editors, and IMO they deserve a less-dismissive comment than the one above. This discussion seems to have been derailed from the original issue with Onceinawhile. Miniapolis 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the complaint, but I am requesting the involved parties explain it without resorting to massive screeds that no outside editor will read. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:, I could summarize both editors' conduct with 2-3 words, but in this case you would accuse me of uncivility and personal attack. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Then find the middle ground and take a few paragraphs to lay out your case, no one will be upset at you for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice. My summary is the following: Onceinawhile tried to introduce text in the article, pretending that he is a third party ([[135]], [136], [137]), and tried to introduce arbitrary sanctions against me ([138]). Norfolkbigfish's animus against Central Europeans and limited knowledge of the crusades prevent him from understanding the problems that I raise ([139], [140]; the list of about 80% of the issues I raised can be read here [141] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?" and about 90% of the issues proved valid). I assume but I cannot prove that they maintain communication outside wikipedia, because Norfolkbigfish changed his mind on a consensual edit, restoring a consensually deleted text ([142]) on the day when Onceinawhile who had proposed the text re-appeared on the scene ([143], [144]). Having been convinced that Norfolbigfish's bias and limited knowledge of the crusades is a serious problem, I approached him to offer a cooperation weeks ago ([145], 2nd new paragraph). However, I had to realize that strong statements are my only tools to convince him that he was wrong. Possibly, I should have taken him to AN, but I did not want to achieve a ban, because his literary skills are outstanding and our hard cooperation significantly improved the article (as it was noted by Onceinawhile as well [146]). Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not my dispute, Borsoka raised this against Onceinawhile. I was only making a comment in his defence and attempting to be conciliatory. All Onceinawhile was attempting to do was improve the article by consensus. Bosoka does not react well to disagreement and has been abusing me on WP for months (see above). He repeated this behaviour with Onceinawhile and in an attempt to unblock this situation Onceinawhile suggested proceeding by majority decision. Bosoka then raised this incident. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish, your manipulative tactics are documented above, you have not proved that I whenever was involved in an edit war against you (so your statements on my Talk page were untrue, to use your expression), I proved that your knowledge of the crusades is limited and I also proved that you have been unable to cooperate from the beginning. Your reference to my alleged religion and my "middle European" bias, and your above remarks about paradigms show that you think editors are driven by their ethnic or religious background. Would you document my abusive behaviour against Onceinawhile? By the way, Onceinawhile have not documented that I "edit warred" my views "into the article". Could you help him? Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Response from Onceinawhile

The thread above speaks for itself. To add some color: both Norfolk and Borsoka care greatly about this encyclopedia, and are working hard for the benefit of the community. Norfolk has been working on the article in question for many months, interacting with many editors at the FAC with exemplary professionalism and an unusually impressive ability to work with others. Borsoka joined in, with significant knowledge and passion, but without the same ability to work well with other editors. An argument ensued, which has spiraled out of control. I have tried to intermediate, but was almost immediately alienated by attacks of the nature shown in Borsoka’s comments above. And here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, would you document how I edit warred my views into the article as you stated? Would you document the attacks that alienated you? Would you explain why did not you reveal that the text suggested by yourself was the object of the debate which outraged you? How do you explain that a third editor also stated that your text was excessive? Would you explain why do you think that I have to accept the duplication of the same information in the article without any objection (which was the second cause of your rage)? Why do you think you are entitled to force your own rules to other editors? How do you explain that my "aggressive" comments only appeared during the last two weeks after weeks of cooperation with an editor with obvious bias? Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, unfortunately I don't have time to do so. The questions you are asking can be organized into three groups (1) questions you have asked before and I have answered clearly; (2) questions for which the evidence is easily available for you to assess; and (3) new questions. The fact that you are repeating questions without acknowledging the points previously made, and you don't appear to be making the effort to figure out the answer to other questions, makes me unenthusiastic about spending time on the new ones. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, please take the time, because you have not answered any of my questions above. For instance, you have not proved that I edit warred my views into the article and you have not documented a single attack against you. We can approach the question from an other direction as well. You threatened me of AN for alleged edit warring and bullying. Consequently, if your conduct was worse than mine in this respect, we can conclude you should be sanctioned. 1. I was tolerating Norfolkbigfish's uncivil remarks for weeks ([147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153]), some of which also clearly demonstrats the limits of his knowledge of the crusades. Instead of taking him to AN, I offered him cooperation ([[154]]) and reminded him the consequences of edit warring in a friendly way on his Talk page ([155], [156]). What did you do? After I corrected your two unprofessional edits, one of which duplicates information in a lengthy article ([157]), the second introduces excessive information in the same article ([158]), you threatened me to take to AN and introduced arbitrary sanctions against me, practically trying to prevent me from editing the article ([159]). Please note my second edit was fully in line with a remark of an editor who was not involved in our debate ([160]). Furthermore you had implied that it was me who demanded an excessive text from you in an edit summary ([161]). 2. It was only me who sought external assistance during this lengthy discussion, requesting third opinion ([162]), dispute resolution ([163]) and comments ([164]). On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[165]]) and restored your text reverting my edit ([[166]]). On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[167]]) and accused me of edit warring and bullying when I edited fully in line with the third party's suggestion. Please also remember that you had claimed (in the edit summary) that it was me who suggested an excessive text, as I demonstrated in point 1. 3. You pretended that you are a neutral editor in a debate about a text that was proposed by yourself ([[168]], [169], [170]). If you compare my and your conduct, who is the bully, who is aggressive and who ignores other editors' views? Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi

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

---

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for edit-warring, although they refuse to accept that the block was warranted. Since the unblock, they have edit-warred to reinstate personal attacks on two talk pages: [171], [172], [173], [174]. Prior to the block, they engaged in plenty of other problematic behavior such as twisting another editor's words, moving a page in defiance of an RM from the previous month while falsely claiming that there was no consensus, refusing to indent their comments properly and removing the indentation added by another editor. They have failed to heed prior warnings about their behavior (see [175], [176], and [177]), despite being admonshied for overzealousness in issuing a warning to someone else (advice that they predictably rejected). Sennen goroshi made only a handful of edits from 2010 until this month, and their block log suggests they weren't much of a charmer in their more active days either. In light of their impressive display of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, let's deal with this WP:NOTHERE editor appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I accepted the block, removed my unblock request and stated that I considered it to be a poor block. I will stand by that statement, because I consider the block to be heavy-handed.

I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there and to repeatedly remove my comment, is a deliberate attempt to provoke an edit war.

I made a comment implying that an editor was displaying WP:OWN tendencies on an article. Again, this isn't a personal attack.

I used the (admittedly childish) title of "holy shitballs" for a discussion - this most certainly isn't a personal attack and I renamed it to " Holy Shitballs! (There was no consensus for major changes)"

Oh and an editor doesn't like my indentation style. I guess you can crucify me for that, because bad indentation = Hitler.

In summary, I see an editor who saw me getting blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and has decided to go on a personal crusade of harassment against me, in an attempt to provoke me into personal attacks and edit warring.

To be blunt, I'm happy to stay away from those two disputed articles and indent in whatever pretty style people prefer, but I'm not about to waste my time on defending myself on ANI against such petty claims. If that means that my twelve year old account is blocked, then so be it. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

From my vantage point, your response to the non-native English speak was dripping with condescension. Maybe I misinterpreted your motives, but your history of unpleasantness supports the interpretation that you were being unpleasant in that case as well. As for the rest of your post, I think it sufficiently demonstrates why you are temperamentally unsuited for this collaborative project. Sure, you could stay away from those two pages, but you'd just end up creating conflict somewhere else. This isn't the YouTube comment section and we don't need to coddle editors who can't tell the difference. Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A mild suggestion that someone was being possessive over an article, a childish discussion heading and an ugly indentation style. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, see WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (help!) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I also was surprised to see that the first thing Sennen goroshi saw fit to do after their block expired was to re-institute offensive remarks that had been removed. Apparently they are quite keen to own those. Regarding I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there: actually the full comment was, It's okay, don't feel bad about it - English isn't your native language, so there's nothing to feel ashamed about when you struggle to understand things. That's not Sennen goroshi being accommodating, that's them being a dick, and it is embedded in a variety of other battleground verbiage that makes it quite clear that the intention here was to get a quick one in below the belt.

I suggest they dial down the focus on winning arguments and showing other editors what's what. I didn't enjoy the unnecessary WP:IDHT tantrum at Talk:Askal, and if that's to be the standard modus operandi, nobody is going to be happy about the outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my fault if you put 2 and 2 together and got 5 regarding my comment about someone not being a native speaker. You can take my word for it or not, there's nothing I can do about that, but I'm not about to apologize for a comment made with good intentions, neither do I appreciate you calling my comments offensive, while in the same breath calling me a dick. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with something new, I think I've said all I have to say on this matter, I see nothing productive in a continued tit-for-tat discussion here. Either I'm blocked and don't edit, or I'm not and I do - it's really not of great importance to me at the moment. Apologies to the admin who has to waste their time on this tedious shit. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Replying to yourself after 10 minutes is not a very convincing pose of detached indifference. Just a heads up.

WP:TALK is only a guideline. Maybe a busy editor can't be arsed to format their own posts. But someone who is here to build an encyclopedia wouldn't interfere with wikignomes who fix the formatting for you. Guidelines say a valid remedy is to ignore you. Yet you demand we change your mind [178][179], and edit war claiming you have made a good faith effort to discuss and resolve the dispute.

You claimed 50% of Dodge Tomahawk is "some petty squabble over tongue in cheek comments regarding hypothetical top speeds" after blanking the entire Critical reception section that was all about design, not speed, along with a few paragraphs analyzing the speed questions. I broke down how wrong that is, and that only 23% was about speed (that includes repeating content in the lead, per MOS:LEADREL), and that your version gives over only 2% of the words to cover a claim that a motorcycle could go an astounding 420 mph. BTW, the fastest an unfaired motorcycle has ever gone is 255 mph. Chrysler repeated the absurd claim, for years, and sources debunked it many times over. It was a big deal. A good faith contributor would have read the sources and known all that, especially after others pointed it out to you several times, and asked you to read the sources, several times.I wasn't the only one saying you're off base on that issue, and you attacked them too.[180]

Someone who was here to build an encyclopedia would have acknowledged your error, not pig-headedly cary on as if you didn't hear.

Someone here to build an encyclopedia would cite sources to claim undue weight. Someone here to build an encyclopedia would not hold up a mediocrity, not even a GA, let alone a Featured Article, like the article Bugatti Veyron, as the gold standard we have to aspire to. Your entire case rests on this dubious B-grade article's coverage of a totally different top speed dispute.

Your "mild suggestion" of someone being "possessive" was in fact a serious accusation of violating the Ownership of content policy.[181]. You "mildly" repeated that accusation [182][183][184][185][186] five times, even after I warned you that casting aspersions is not acceptable and that if you think anyone is violating the ownership policy, you need to take that up in an appropriate noticeboard, not an article talk page.[187] Two additional editors[188][189] removed your "mild" WP:OWN accusations as personal attacks. It's not evidence of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia, but of someone who is only here to fight, and who refuses to get the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'll make this short and sweet. I'm tired of dealing with this person's disruptive behavior. I'll probably avoid areas which I'm usually involved in, until they go away, and I suspect there are others doing so too. If administrators see consensus that we as a community are happy with the status quo, I expect them to do nothing. But this is clearly not the case. OBTW Dennis and I have been at the core of WP: WikiProject Motorcycling for about a decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• It is clear from their block log and extensive argumentative history that they are a greater detriment to the project than the value of their contributions. They've not changed their behavior after at least 12 blocks, all for various forms of disruptive behavior. Their actions in this thread are not convincing me there will be any change in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

[removed] Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs)

Based on the reprehensible harassing comments directly above, I have indefinitely blocked Sennen goroshi. I do not believe that I have ever interacted with this editor and am therefore uninvolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree. That was so way out of order that it was over the horizon. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have redacted it. Endorse indef block. Fish+Karate 09:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User: Serial Number 54129

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

---

Take a look at edit summary here and here--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The first is an expression meaning "forget it." The second is a Blackadder quote. I don't see any "issues."-- P-K3 (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kazemita1, "this guy has issues" is a personal attack, and is not appropriate to say about another editor. I've looked at the edits you linked (and their summaries) and I don't see anything particularly concerning - there's no rule prohibiting "bad words" in this case (since they're not directed at another editor). If there's some specific action you want an administrator to take, then say as much (and provide better evidence), otherwise I'd encourage you to delete this thread (because, again, personal attacks are bad). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess I learned something new; that "F-word" is allowed on English Wikipedia. However, "a person having issues" is not tolerated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. You also don't appear to have let SN54129 know about this report; I've done that.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: (edit conflict) The use of the word "fuck" is not a particular problem, so long as you don't direct it at or about someone. "Fuck it" is fine, "This person is a fuck" is not. "This is an issue" is fine, "This person has issues" is not. It isn't the words, its the way they are directed; we strive to discuss actions and behaviors not persons themselves. --Jayron32 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. No matter how you look at it though, using F-word is an issue. It is usually a sign that you are not in control of yourself specially when you use it in a formal to semi-formal situation. Believe me, I lived in the US for more than a decade (Even though English is not my first language). Then again you guys rule this place, so nothing further from my side.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Fundraiser

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

---

Hi Admins. Look, I get it, you need to raise money to keep the project going and to keep it free. Do you think you could do it in a slightly less obnoxtious way? Like, perhaps NOT putting a massive banner up on every page that gets in the way and that I have to click "X" on all the time to remove? Asking for literally everyone - I know I'm not alone in being more than a bit annoyed by this. 81.106.0.237 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not an admin—or even an English Wikipedia—issue. For your amusement, see [190] and takes yer choice  :) ——SN54129 18:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The admins don't have anything to do with the fundraiser. The fundraiser is being run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the umbrella organization that has to pay for the electricity and rent on the building and salaries of the technicians to run the computers that house all of its various projects. The admins here are just volunteer editors who have access to a few more tools than other volunteer editors. Your complaint may be valid, but there's no one here who can do anything about it. Please try https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ for information how to contact them with your concerns. --Jayron32 18:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 81. One of my favorite parts of registering an account is that you can disable fundraising banners (and other Central Notices) in your preferences. I think you'll find most admin and editors agree with you. By the way, here's a link to the WMF's most-recent annual report, where you can read about how they're bringing in over $100 million per year and have over $150 million in assets. Those banners do wonders! – Levivich 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and harm threat ?

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

---

Resolved

Pls look at this page....will need revision to hide all the emails.--Moxy 🍁 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User indeffed, edit revdeled, WMF notified. Thanks for the alert. (Though as an fyi it's usually better to try to alert an admin privately in these situations.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do.. thank you for the advice and fast action.--Moxy 🍁 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

NP -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Jkg1997 is doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

Jkg1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Jkg1997#Please don't remove images from articles (where I asked Jkg1997 to stop) and User talk:Alexis Jazz#December 2019 where Jkg1997 gave me a warning, which is just hilarious.

Jkg1997 removes images from articles both to try and beat CommonsDelinker/Filedelinkerbot and while a deletion discussion is still ongoing. This is sometimes appropriate. Mostly when you have a better alternative, or when the image is so obviously copyvio there is a snowball's chance in hell of it being restored and it wasn't tagged for speedy deletion. Neither is generally the case with Jkg1997's removals.

When CommonsDelinker removes a file from an article, we have a delinker log to help in case an image is undeleted. We also have a log to prove the image was actually in use. (which can be an argument for undeletion) When Filedelinker bot removes a file from an article, it will try to revert itself upon undeletion. When Jkg1997 removes a file from an article and it is either undeleted or (when he removes live images) ḱept, we're just plain screwed. I'd like to use this opportunity to thank L235 for granting me rollback, it saved me a lot of time here. Courtesy ping for GreenMeansGo who got involved on my talk page. - Alexis Jazz 01:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I wondered about that activity at a couple of articles on my watchlist. @Jkg1997: Why are you doing Filedelinkerbot's work? Has there been a discussion somewhere (here or at Commons) suggesting that Filedelinkerbot needs help? If there is no compelling reason supported by a positive consensus, I suggest you stop. For one thing, when I see a bot make an edit, I can assume that the basic facts are as stated in the edit summary. When a random person does it, anything might be going on and that causes extra trouble for onlookers who might want to check the details. That's before we get to the points made by Alexis Jazz. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: your concern is not unfounded:

• Admitted mistake
• Broken file link in summary
• Wrong extension
• Removed fair use image

I cleaned up a lot of this mess, but I probably missed things as I relied on the edit summaries. While most of them had the correct filenames, some of them did not. - Alexis Jazz 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jkg1997 has not edited since this opened. If there is no convincing explanation within another 24 hours I believe a topic ban would be the best approach. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: He's back. Block I guess? - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Alexis Jazz was targeted article: Louis A. Waldman because of reverted again. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 11:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jkg1997: yes, thanks to my rollback it was now removed by the bot. Because that's how we like it. With reliable edit summaries, no removal until an admin has actually deleted the file and automatic undeletion. (or a log in case of CommonsDelinker) You are running out of time to make a statement that you will cease removing files from articles. - Alexis Jazz 12:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this isn't just an en.wiki thing it seems [191] [192] GMG^talk 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh joy.. time to request rollbacker right on Wikidata. - Alexis Jazz 12:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably worse than that. This may make up the lion's share of their xwiki contributions. GMG^talk 12:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Are you trying to say I should apply for global rollback? I don't think I fight enough vandalism to be granted that. - Alexis Jazz 13:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, no. GR is mostly reserved for the small wiki monitoring team. The more immediate question is how we address a fundamentally xwiki behavioral problem. I think we need a native ceb speaker to try to explain the issue more clearly. Unfortunately, Category:User ceb-N is pretty barren, and c:COM:ABL isn't any help either. GMG^talk 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, Pinging @Mclovin'tosh, Bernejay, KylaH. - Alexis Jazz 13:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Since Jkg1997 is continuing to revert while this complaint is open, I think a block should be considered. If they are unable to grasp normal English-language explanations of the problem with their edits, they shouldn't continue this type of work. It has the potential to make a mess. If this is a multi-wiki problem, we probably need to go the route of blocks rather than topic ban, since a ban could only be enacted here on enwiki. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That editor's most recent edit here was a self-revert of one of the bad edits, and, at the time of writing, he hasn't edited any other project since apart from a comment in a discussion at Commons, so it seems that the message might be getting through. It would be nice to get confirmation of that from the horse's mouth. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Furry Vengeance

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

---

@Binksternet: has repeatedly removed information from a production notes source in the article Furry Vengeance for the blatantly invalid rationale that it's an "unpublished source." To know what I'm talking about, it's this one that HAS been published on an official Australian film site. He's just made a page protection request under his false rationale, and decided to bring up an unrelated incident that occurred a while ago only for defamatory reasons. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:2836:E38E:4ADB:8B5 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, the discussion has been moved from RFPP to the talk page, continue discussing there and don't edit war over it. Also while a ping is usually adequate, in this circumstance you are specifically instructed to put an ANI notice on the talk page of the user you are reporting. Luckily @C.Fred: has already done that for you but in the future keep in mind the notification requirement at the top of the page is not a suggestion, it's mandatory. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind me of the policy link for situations where there are links to sites that are hosting material in violation of copyright? I can never remember what it is: WP:VIOLINK or something like that. Thanks. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Your probably thinking of either WP:COPYVIO where the end of the lead says Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to, or possibly to WP:COPYVIOEL which is equally explicit, generally the appropriate forum would be WP:ELN however since a thread already exists and this is not a bureaucracy, we can discuss it here. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, which demand that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The contested source is a Word document hosted on a website; the doc has no connection to a good reputation for fact checks or accuracy. It is not reliable. See WP:SOURCES. Binksternet (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the source would have been usable as a WP:PRIMARY because it contains a lot of out-of-universe information about the character development and casting and so forth. There is no need to worry about fact-checking and editorial oversight for a primary document drawn up by the very people who produced the film. But if it is indeed a copyvio (and it seems so) then it's unusable by us because it hasn't actually been published somewhere and it would be condoning illegal activity to link to it so that others would download it (like I did, out of purely academic interest :) Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shirt58: WP:LINKVIO (aka WP:COPYLINK) for that section of the policy, WP:ELNEVER (aka WP:COPYVIOEL) for the guideline for external links and citations. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

LeeWeathers

This user (LeeWeathers (talk · contribs)) has been making problematic edits since being here, and is refusing to communicate with users who disagree with their changes. For the latest, I have left a note regarding their changes to Steven Universe: The Movie, and have noted them to discuss their changes on the articles talk page. They have not responded, and is now attempting an edit war. See their talk page for more examples. If users like this are refusing to communicate to other editors and just continue to revert to a revision their own way (trying to claim ownership), they should not be editing here. 1989 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

1989, you would think that to be the case, but I'm not so sure anymore, based on the incredulous responses in my most recent thread near top of this page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Lee Weathers doesn’t use edit summaries either. During his ongoing WikiCareer of 1 month, he hasn’t communicated with anyone. Not even once. I’d say give him a warning and if he still fails to comply, resort to a block. User also seems to be quite disruptive in some articles. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revdel (at least) needed - praise for Hitler and call for genocide. Ignored by OVERSIGHT

I reported 65.93.207.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to WP:OVERSIGHT before going to bed last night. I woke up this morning to find nothing done about them. There is no need whatsoever for the content to be visible in the article history. DuncanHill (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I rev-deleted the edits and blocked the IP for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ali Shariati

I wonder if anyone punishes the IP for bad behavior and writing offensive words in the Ali Shariati?Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: "Punishment" sounds a rather extreme measure! I have however, left a first level notice about their two unhelpful edits, both of which have been reverted. This is something you could have done yourself - the easiest way being to enable Twinkle and use its 'warn' function. Only after they've reached a level four warning and show no signs of discontinuing might you then report them to WP:AIV. Again, there's a Twinkle tool to help you do this. There's no need to raise such a minor bit of petty vandalism at ANI for something you could have easily dealt yourself. Their contribution history shows there's no long term story of this IP causing any problems at all, thus far. Probably just a kid messing around, and easily reverted. Hoping this makes sense, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Argentinian IP film vandal(s)

I just spent a ridiculous amount of time reviewing edits by 190.16.83.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), near all of which have been reverted now. In the process, I collected some other IPs that have been vandalizing/warring on the same articles. Some seem to be the same person, or at least doing exactly the same things, while others may be different people, perhaps with a common interest and off-wiki co-ordination. They like to change film release dates and runtimes, move/add images to navboxes in the group params, slap chunks of one article in/on another article. They geolocate to Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina, on three (maybe two – 181.99 and 190.224 have the same abuse email address at telecom.com.ar) ISPs:

• 181.99.120.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.120.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.121.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.122.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.123.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 181.99.124.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.126.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.127.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.127.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 181.99.128.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.128.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.129.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.130.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • ‎181.99.131.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.16.83.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.224.148.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • ‎190.224.148.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.149.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.149.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.150.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.151.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.224.212.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 190.224.213.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.214.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.215.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Only the 190.224.214.0/24 (not /22) was currently blocked (by Ponyo, 6 days ago), and Widr blocked 190.16.83.39 today (both for 3 months). Other than the latter, I haven't reviewed the others' contribs (or the ranges) in detail yet and could use some help with that.

190.16.83.39 also created Draft:Mutant Fridge Mayhem yesterday, cut/pasting the contents from The Fast and the Furious (1955 film). 190.224.149.30 created Draft:Saw a few days ago, which is apparently duplicative of Saw (franchise). Should these be CSD'd? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Added latest incarnation 181.99.129.241, who edited at 2019-12-14T18:09:17Z —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Added 181.99.127.19 (edited 2 days ago), 181.99.123.137 (3 days; in new range 181.99.120.0/22), 181.99.120.89 (3 days), ‎190.224.148.223 (9 days), and others from within 90 days, showing all but two (181.99.124.0 and 125.0) of the /24s within the /22s are involved. I've now looked through all the /16s and found no further evidence of this editor's pattern. It seems to be limited to the five /22s and the single /32 above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

All range blocked for 1 month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Julie Bailey

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

---

This is of some urgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julie_Bailey --91.85.198.64 (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisions deleted, article protected, user blocked for obvious BLP violations. I have no expectation that they're here to do anything but to malign the subject. Thanks for your help. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Grayfell leftist gatekeeping on Stefan Molyneux

• Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The current article on Stefan_Molyneux is a brazen leftist attack-piece which only sources left-biased sites. When I tried to simply propose to include a most fundamental point, that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist, and I provided at least 2 respectable sources (from people criticizing him no less! (eg. the SPLC, and a respected philosopher and historian)), Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#Is_he_really_de_facto_a_facist,_right-wing,_far-right,_white_supremacist,_and/or_white_nationalist?, User:Grayfell predictably refused to acknowledge this and instead focused on his own bias, on other irrelevant points mentioned in those sources against Molyneux. I have encountered him behaving as a leftist gatekeeper months ago, and the situation is not improving. His recent contributions are almost exclusively left-wing agitation, using politically charged and ambiguous language such as "neo nazism" and "white supremacy". I propose that Grayfell should be blocked from contributing to politically charged articles, at least for a few months, if not longer. He is harming the credibility of Wikipedia Dennisne (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are some of the numerous leftist-bias issues that people have mentioned on Grayfell's current talk page:

• "leave your personal view out of your editing/ removals. I cite multiple sources, even sources that critique each other just to have a balanced perspective and remain as neutral as possible", I think in an article involving Ben Shapiro.
• "If you want to slander [Mike Cernovich], that's your prerogative, but please find better sources, not highly partisan and unreliable sources like Buzzfeed. You're not helping Wikipedia's image"
• "if the introduction is a summary overall then why we only have to put negative things like ties to white supremacist and all. The only thing i meant is that we should be more neutral with our words on wikipedia."
• "I made the edits because Jayda Fransen isn't a Fascist nor is Britain First a Fascist movement."
• "Stop playing politics on wikipedia by blatantly vandalizing the Nick Fuentes page to make it reflect your own views in direct conflict with the guy's own words."
• a Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion for his use of the politically loaded word "hite privilage"

Not to mention most of his recent contributions - they all involve controversial political biases. Dennisne (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that Doug Weller warned the filer about making personal attacks against Greyfell in March this year. ——SN54129 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, and I quickly retracted those attacks and focused on the merits of my points. I apologize for getting emotional when I felt the credibility of Wikipedia being threatened. I am not attacking Grayfell personally here, but trying to draw attention to his gatekeeping behavior. Hopefully other editors will see how he completely ignored my simple and non-controversial request to have the article changed. And he has done this before with the incident you are referring to. It's a consistent problem with this editor that many others have noticed too. Dennisne (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the link provided and it appears to be a content dispute and not a conduct issue. You criticized the current state of the article and suggested that it should be revised. Greyfell asked for citations backing up your proposed edits. You provide some citations, and Greyfell shared their perspective on why he disagreed with those sources and then asked you to propose specific changes that you wanted. This is not a WP:ANI issue; there have been no urgent and intractable behavioral problems, conduct issues, or disruption going on. You should continue to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page and, if you don't think that you can resolve the disagreement on your own, look into WP:Dispute resolution such as WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. No admin is going to block an editor simply for saying, on a talk page, that they don't agree with using Conservapedia or Mises.org or an apparently cherrypicked quote from the SPLC as a citation on a biography. Even if Greyfell happens to be wrong about whether these edits are a bad idea, he hasn't broken any rules just by expressing his perspective. Michepman (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is intellectually dishonest to use the SPLC for slanderous statements against Molyneux, but not for other factually important things. (Also, when I mentioned the SPLC as a source, instead of acknowledging my point which was irrefutably mentioned in the link, he instead chose to discuss his other off-topic agendas such as gender and race.) That is blatant gatekeeping. As is the outright dismissal of a major influential think tank in the United States (Mises.org), according to Wikipedia itself. Greyfell did not have a valid reason to ignore my citations (Mises and SPLC). This is also not an isolated incident, as I quoted above by all the people complaining about him on his talk page, and with my previous failed attempt to add some valid balance to another hitpiece article that he was gatekeeping months ago. Dennisne (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see no "gatekeeping" behaviour at all on that talk page, but simply a civil questioning of the proposed edits. Just discuss the issue in a similar civil manner on the talk page, but you will not get far by proposing Conservapedia (or, for that matter, Rationalwiki or Wikipedia) as a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the quotes the OP garnered supposedly proving a leftist bias. "leave your personal view out of your editing/ removals". After Grayfell replied, the editor thanked him. "If you want to slancer (Mike Cernovic). A few minutes after that the editor was blocked 72 hours for editwarring and Grayfell closed the discussion saying "Okay, then. In a few days, feel free to start a discussion of this at Talk:Mike Cernovich. Or not'. ""if the introduction is a summary overall then why we only have to put negative things like ties to white supremacist and all." Grayfell replied explaining the issue and the editor then wrote "I will properly look into it. Maybe i am lacking some sort of information Thanks, anyways!!! ". ""I made the edits because Jayda Fransen isn't a Fascist nor is Britain First a Fascist movement." Grayfell's reply was "If you know of reliable sources, discuss them on the article's talk pages.' The editor is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. "Stop playing politics" - that editor is indefinitely blocked for BLP violations. As for the NPOV discussion on White Privilege, I think everyone involved in that talk page discussion was notified (including me) so that proves nothing about Grayfell. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a garden variety content dispute which has been exacerbated by Dennisne's belligerence and hostility toward Greyfell. All this about whether or not to call somebody an "anarcho-capitalist". Dennisne proposed three sources. Conservapedia is obviously excluded as user-edited content. The main problem with the Mises.org source is that it calls Molyneux a "popular libertarian broadcaster" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist" and those are certainly not synonyms. That book review may well be useful in another context. We are left with the SPLC source which Dennisne has denounced as slanderous. How can a source be both reliable and slanderous simultaneously? If there are any behavioral problems here, they are the ongoing personal attacks that Dennisne has directed against Greyfell. I urge Dennisne to stop it now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a garden variety dispute, but a systematic bias with Grayfell. You can see in my contribution history me trying to make a similar factual correction with the Gavin Mcinnes article, and he similarly acted as the gatekeeper and prevented the update. Libertarian and ancap are incredibly similar, with huge overlaps. They're strong allies. Yet neither of these fundamental attributes are mentioned in the main article - again, because of the systematic negative bias by leftists. Molyneux has spoken many times for both libertarian and anarchist outfits. The fact that you too so casually dismiss the Mises citation also demonstrates your bias. Why not cite him as being a libertarian then, instead of completely ignoring the correction? This issue desperately needs more impartial arbitration. You also completely (deliberately?) missed my point about the SPLC. Greyfell himself loves to use the SPLC as a source, and it is used as such in the main article - yet he dishonestly refuses to use it when it supports the fact that Molyneux is an anarchist / anti-statist / anarcho-capitalist. That's a blatant politically-driven double-standard. Will an unbiased editor please step in here? Dennisne (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I left comments about the content on the talk page. Grayfell hasn't shown any bias and has a long history of contributions. Dennisne has contributed to two talk pages- Gavin Mcinnes and Stephen Molyneux (except on one instance in 2010) [193] so I think WP:ADVOCACY applies to them. The statements about Grayfell I believe are rising to WP:PA if not already there.   // Timothy::talk  20:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of Grayfell's recent contributions are on contentious political articles, and almost always highly disputed. And you don't think it's evidence of bias to deliberately withhold crucial information about a political figure, about his undisputed political position, using sources that were already deemed reliable in the same article? Are you serious? Dennisne (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions Molyneux's earlier association with libertarian thought. The Mises.org source goes back 7-1/2 years and there is ample evidence that Molyneux has gone through a dramatic political transformation since then. It is incumbent upon you, Dennisne, to gain article talk page consensus without engaging in personal attacks against other editors. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

False. The article does not mention anything about him being or having been a libertarian or voluntaryist (ancap). There is also zero evidence that he has changed his fundamental position, and the fact that you simply assert that without any citation again exposes your left-bias. I also explained how this was not a personal attack, but rather a systematic editorial issue - you are personally attacking me now. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that Molyneux is a "voluntaryist blogger and podcaster Stefan Molyneux" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism ... elsewhere the SPLC also admits that Molyneux is "a libertarian internet commentator" https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux ... nobody has ever disputed this, yet you and Grayfell consistently dishonestly refuse to incorporate this information. What is Wikipedia's policy for handling people who stir controversy with disputed articles, where evidence is shown that they are deliberately hiding information to serve their political agendas, as Cullen and Greyfell have been proven to have done? Dennisne (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article now says "In 2005, Molyneux began writing articles for libertarian website LewRockwell.com, before starting a podcast called Freedomain Radio (FDR)." Listen again: Decisions on content are made on article talk pages, not at ANI. As for my alleged bias, I invite review of my conduct (and yours) at any appropriate venue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, someone really should review you too. Again, the SPLC itself admits that Molyneux is (still) a libertarian! In the very same source that the wikipedia article itself uses! Again, it explicitly says that Molyneux is "a LIBERTARIAN internet commentator", yet the biased Wikipedia article about him *deliberately* deletes that word from the quote/citation. I have brought this to your attention a few times already - why are you ignoring this, if not your own bias? This is not simply an issue about particular content, but about leftist bias, and how people who have proven to be dishonest need to be prevented from editing politically charged articles. Someone with higher authority needs to step in. Dennisne (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I welcome a thorough review of my editing (and yours). My only edit that I recall to the Molyneux article, just today, was a minor edit to correct an obvious typographical error. I have not opposed reasonable changes to the article, but you are going about it completely the wrong way, for some unknown reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This content issue should really be discussed on the article talk page.

Dennisne I understand you are upset, but you're not doing yourself or your position any good. You should read WP:DR and WP:DISENGAGE.   // Timothy::talk  22:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy for people who are proven to be dishonest and not acting in good faith, for political reasons? Dennisne (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I dunno. This is a content dispute, so not much for me to say here which hasn't already been said. The original proposal was a non-starter, because it would've replaced sourced content with OR. Perhaps somewhere in the article we could mention that he describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, but so far, nobody has proposed how to do that in an proportionate way. Dennisne's proposal was "he is an anarcho-capitalist", but that came later, and is not actionable, so... Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Observe, more shameless bias! Instead of honestly admitting that even his enemies (the SPLC) acknowledge that he's a libertarian (and anti-statist, anarchist), which I have repeatedly clearly explained, instead of apologizing for the gross misrepresentation done in the article (by deliberately deleting the word "libertarian" when they were quoting the SPLC), he still pushes his leftist agenda forward by claiming that Molyneux only SELF-DESCRIBES as such. Completely ignoring that the SPLC describes him like this in the very first line of their description of him. Seriously folks, something needs to be done about these dishonest editors! Dennisne (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennisne, I invite you to stop using a content dispute and this noticceboard as an opportunity to denigrate other editors who have the temerity to disagree with you. You appear to be under the impression that you can label other editors as "leftists" (or for that matter "conservatives") and disqualify them from editing. That's not how it works, and the accusations need to stop. Wikipedia editors come from a broad range of viewpoints. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell isn't disagreeing with me, he is deliberately refusing to update the article to include a crucial undisputed point about Molyneux. (And he has done this in the past too.) He is refusing to admit that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / ancap / libertarian, even when the SPLC (which he sources) admits it. I have yet to see the "broad range of viewpoints" from wikipedia editors on this issue. Dennisne (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to agree with you or to update articles for you. This is a content dispute, which won't be resolved here. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm asking for intellectual honesty - Grayfell simply refused to accept my update (still refuses, without any reason), which his own sources already corroborate (hence the dishonesty), and I had no other recourse but to appeal to some higher more impartial jury. 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisne (talk • contribs)

This isn't a jury, and it's not a means for you to win an argument by denigrating people who disagree with you. You are abusing this messsageboard to make personal attacks. I advise you to stop - if I see one more accusation of dishonesty, you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reading though the original report and the response I'm seeing some ground for WP:BOOMERANG to be in effect. This is essentially a large personal attack, since most of the argument is based on the editor in question, not page content. I'm not going to go the whole nine yards and say this is an alt-right heckler, but we should make sure Dennisne isn't biased as well. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I explained how I have nothing personally against Grayfell, but am simply pointing out how he is *consistently* refusing to adopt patently-true changes to an article (I have diffs to show him doing this with other articles), for clearly political reasons. When presented with undisputed citations, he simply ignored them. (You implying that I'm a heckler or a personal attacker is actually a personal attack.) Please focus on the issue at hand here - the deliberate consistent refusal to adopt factual changes, due to a political bias. Dennisne (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennisne You need to read WP:CIV, WP:PA, and WP:HA, then read WP:DR and then WP:DISENGAGE   // Timothy::talk  22:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfair. I am being perfectly civil. I have also explained how I haven't attacked anyone personally - you accusing me of this is a personal attack, however. (Why haven't you bothered to chastise Kirbanzo above for belittling me and inaccurately dismissing me as a "heckler"? How was that civil? And where was I being uncivil?) Moreover, Grayfell refuses to be reasoned with, he refuses to address the issue, that's why I'm here. He simply won't include a factually accurate and important change into the article. And he has done this before, which is why I think a more comprehensive solution needs to be had here to avoid such situations in the future. I'm trying to help Wikipedia here. The reputation for the political pages here is seriously lacking among readers. Something needs to be done to restore confidence. Dennisne (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Dennisne for 24 hours after he deployed the "dishonest" personal attack again in response to my message on his talkpage after being explicitly warned not to. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on what shape the article should take, but the source Dennisne cited to argue that Molyneux is just an anarcho-capitalist and not a white supremacist calls Molyneux "A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux operates within the racist so-called “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks." For someone to read that and claim "the SPLC never said he was a white nationalist/supremacist/etc", and to reply to someone pointing out the problems with this with accusations of politically-biased dishonesty... It's really, really hard to see anything but either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE applying. Whatever the case, such an editor does not need to be editing in areas relating to politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

claims of releasing confidential PII of a BLP

Perhaps Deb Raycam (talk · contribs) shouldn't be editing Rosalind Chao and saying, "I work in drs office. I have seen her actual records." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've suppressed the edit. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And I've blocked the sock who's been trying to add this for over a year. But the real question is, are we really sourcing this to 'celebsmoney.com'? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Careless warning

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

---

Yesterday I removed an unsourced WP:PEACOCK term, which is unencyclopedic in nature. User Dey subrata not only reinstated it but also straightaway posted a level 3 warning at my talk page for supposedly continuous use of misleading edit summaries. They didn't bother to discuss once with me or even revert my edit before posting that template. I always explain my edits clearly in edit summaries and have never been warned in that regard. Even in the aforementioned edit, I not only cited the relevant guideline but also explained my edit in plain language as many editors aren't that much familiar with badminton. So I consider that warning as an abuse of warning templates and believe that they should be warned against such careless templating. Note that I have neither ever indulged in disruption at P. V. Sindhu nor have any prior interaction with the concerned user.

PS: Unfortunately, news media often use this project as their reference in developing countries like India & Pakistan. Some outlets just copy the unsourced facts, whereas others copy-paste whole paragraphs from here. This is not directly related to the issue at hand, but I am pointing it out here to give some idea of the damage done by the misinformation or the promotional content of WP in such countries, e.g., there is already a WP:MIRROR of the content in question:

Plagiarism by Mint (newspaper)

Here's a quote from WP's P. V. Sindhu (dated 2 September 2019): Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit, including a silver medal at the 2016 Olympics ... She is the recipient of the sports honour Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri. And here's a quote from a Mint's article (dated 25 September 2019): Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments including a silver medal at the 2016. Sindhu is the recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri. So careless was the copy-paste by the Mint (newspaper) that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016".

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note that my only concern here is regarding their warning, as I am discussing regarding the content at Talk:P. V. Sindhu#Recent revert. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is warning carelessly.

• You have been warned for your inappropriate edit summaries. Your exact quote in edit summary, "...won only a handful of titles, and has a long way to go before becoming Lin Dan of badminton". The edit that you made has nothing to do with Lin Dan or any badmintton players. You could have said "won only handful of titles". Secondly, comparing one world class player with another is utterly bullshit. Sindhu does not want to be a Lin Dan. no players wants to become another player, they want to be established & to be recognized by their name and she already did. Neither a player is less than any other player, even if the player does not win a title. Various players go through various circumstances in their life and career. Bringing such a nonsense comparison in edit summary is demeaning publicly and disrespect to the personality in the article. Keep your opinion to your self, no need to throw mud here and there no one asked you. Write that much in summary which is necessary enough.
• Coming to your point of "numerous" and "multiple". The line exactly written, "Pusarla has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit including a gold at the 2019 World Championships..." And in your edit summary you've written.. "won only handful of titles". The word numerous is not used for titles but for tournaments. She won medals at 1 Olympics, 1 A.Games, 2 S.A Games, 5 BWF World Cmship, 4 BWF World Tour, 7 BWF Superseries, 9 BWF Grand Prix. So you can't call it a "multiple" which is used for more the once used most in case of twice or thrice not for 30 tournaments. Secondly, you have considered "numerous titles" instead of "numerous tournament" by your edit summaries. So before doing edit please open eyes and see exactly what you are editing. Thus "won handful of titles" and "comparison with Lin Dan" both are misleading edit summary per WP:SUMMARYNO.
• Be careful while playing victim card. Dey subrata (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Why is this at ANI? Yes, it a level three warning by Dey subrata seems inappropriate to me. But opening an ANI thread about this by NitinMlk also seems inappropriate to me, particularly when done so less than 10 minutes after explaining the edit to Dey subrata. This isn't an urgent matter, or chronic or intractable behaviour. Give them a chance to discuss, explain, retract, or apologize next time. The edit has already been undone by another editor. Just remove the warning with a suitable summary and let it be. There's a warning template for having used inappropriate warning templates, but there's no use using it now that this is already at ANI. Meters (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it might belong here - @Dey subrata: - yours was a rather unpleasant reply, and an unfortunate one, considering that you're completely wrong. (1) You don't give out level 3 warnings unless the edit is clearly vandalistic - this one wasn't. (2) the warning wasn't required at all, because the edit was correct (or at least more correct than the previous text) . (3) You didn't sign it, either. I was surprised to see this behaviour from an editor with nearly 10,000 edits - well, until I looked back through your contributions - you gave User_talk:Abhishe78 a Level4im (final warning) message two days ago for this completely good-faith edit. Meanwhile this warning had a totally unnecessary rude comment attached to it. How many more am I going to find if I continue back through your contributions? Simply - don't misuse the warning templates, or you may find yourself blocked yourself. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite Abhishe was warned after a level three warning for the same article. He was well addressed in edit summaries in many articles not to add un-official, misleading and inaccuarte materials in the articles. But he seems to have ignored and did same msitakes. He has been blocked before such kind of edit. Thus I don't see any point of not warning him of a level 4. Anyway concerning this, I have explained the two point and both the part in the edit summary is misleading, "edit for tournamnet and put summary for title" and "unnecessarily comparing a established player, the personality in the article with another established player to show one inferior to other or in achievement is not in anyway good taste. Dey subrata (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a level 3 warning which was also incorrect, as it was for a good-faith edit which was even explained in a note in the article. You should not be giving out high-level warnings to editors making good-faith edits unless they are being deliberately disruptive, vandalising or edit-warring. In this case, you explained why you reverted in the edit-summary and that should have been enough - and the same should have been done for Abishe78. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Dey subrata, First, as far as edit summary was concerned, as I've already mentioned here, "I not only cited the relevant guideline but also explained my edit in plain language as many editors aren't that much familiar with badminton." So the purpose of it was to clarify my edit, not to demean anyone.

Second, being a runner-up is not same as being a winner. For the rest please see Talk:P. V. Sindhu#Recent revert. BTW, Asian Games, South Asian Games, etc. aren't even BWF events. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Read again, I can't teach you now what is difference between, won medals at, and winner. Thats why said, read between line what the line si saying.Dey subrata (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Good point, Black Kite. And "Are you out of your brain !!!"[194] is a completely inappropriate talk page post. NitinMlk, if you are making a complaint about long-term behaviour please state that you are doing so and provide diffs in the future. Meters (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, neither medals are awarded in open tournaments nor many of the events are listed under BWF. But please keep content-related comments to the relevant talk page, and clarify the reason for level 3 warning to me.

Meters, I did notice their aggressive templating to others, but I thought behaviour against me was bad enough to report here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

neither medals are awarded in open tournaments....Is this reflecting from your edit, "numerous tournament" to "multiple tournament", or does your edit summary, "won handful of titles" reflects such. Here you are commenting what it is or what not, you could have properly done that at edit summary without bringing a unnecessary comparison of two established players which is in bad taste and is undoubtedly a misleading edit summary. Secondly, again you are saying "many of the events are listed under BWF.", now I can't help you. All of those tournaments are under BWF. Are you serious?? Check this- BWF World Tour#Tournaments. I think you don't seem someone who wants to learn from mistakes, you again making false claim by saying the above comment that many of thse tournament are not listed under BWF. I am sorry, you have very less knowledge of BWF tours. Dey subrata (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You are aggressively posting lengthy comments rather than discussing the matter. I am repeating again that please keep the content-related discussion to Talk:P._V._Sindhu#Recent_revert, where I have already posted a comment. And explain here the reason for level 3 warning. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And straightaway posting level 4 warning for a single edit isn't good either: [195] - NitinMlk (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Extreme personal abuse

This:

• [196]

Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Seems to be an isolated incident with the IP in question only making that edit. Highly suspicious due to the fact it is indeed the only edit the IP has made, which likely means its a sockpuppet. Going to put down a 4im. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Timelines of the war in Donbass

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

Following a post at WP:RSN § news-front.info (a Russian-backed fake news / disinformation site) I found a walled garden of articles with literally hundreds of references to daily news dumps from Russian and, to a lesser extent, Ukrainian propaganda sites, most of which events have not been picked up in any mainstream source. I'd like to ask fellow-admins to watch this AfD please as it may well become contentious. Guy (help!) 22:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Limesave

Limesave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the page Big Four tech companies three times. This user has three warnings on his/her talk page for vandalism of other articles. I added this user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but Ad Orientem told me to post this here instead. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I guess I dig where Ad Orientem is coming from; they've made some decent edits. Limesave, if you insert that unverified politically-tainted nonsense again I will be happy to block you indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Finney Boylan; article deleted

I was looking for an author who's book I had just finished. I found the article wasn't there. I undid the edit by one " Jemccabe1145 " and that restored the article. I thought it would be nice if someone in responsible position might look at this. I have editing rights, like so many, but no expertise. Thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanieW (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article Jennifer Finney Boylan hasn't been deleted; Jemccabe1145 (talk · contribs) accidentally commented out the article. Your reversion of that edit made it visible again. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy Vanishing

I request a courtesy vanishing as soon as possible. Been trying to get one for a while, unsuccessfully so far. There is a period of time I have to wait because of a TBAN. I wish to have the courtesy vashing done before the end of this year, because I will be unable to log back in later. If a courtesy vanishing within the next two and a half weeks is not possible, can I arrange one in advance? Any action on my part must be done before the end of this year. Iistal (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iistal: Please follow the "how to" section at WP:VANISH. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Pedrovariant and their IPs: NOTHERE, soapboxing, edit warring, and logged out socking

• Pedrovariant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 148.63.244.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 148.69.10.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 148.69.198.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:818:EA9B:5600:15B3:ED92:A7FF:9E89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, and the IPs they are using, are not here to build the encyclopedia, but instead to use it as their soapbox, such as by enforcing their language preferences, in order to advance their activism. To this end, they have engaged in edit warring, original research, and violations of WP:SOCK, specifically WP:SCRUTINY and WP:LOUTSOCK.

Evidence

All the same person All of the IPs geolocate to Portugal, and are owned by Vodafone. 3 of the 4 IPs start with "148.6". Pedrovariant has edited Portugal and LGBT rights in Portugal, but no other countries. The two most active IPs have signed talk page posts as "Pedro". [197][198] Here, at 20:40 on 10 December, they said, "sorry that I forced the changes", even thought the attempt to "force" it was done by the IP. [199] They all have the same interest, editing articles related to gender and sexuality, focusing on inserting their preferred terminology, and in many cases editing the exact same articles. Which brings us to... Logged-out socking Pedrovariant was warned by Flyer22 Reborn on 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) to not switch between an account and an IP. They edited with Pedrovariant at 20:40 that same day, so they saw the message. I myself asked them why they continued to edit under an IP on 04:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC), but never got any response. Yet, they have still edited under IPs after both warnings. [200][201] Several articles have been edited by more than one of these IPs/account, usually attempting to add the same phrasing. This often occurs when they engage in... Edit warring At Female condom, attempting to remove "female", "male", and "woman", and add the anus: [202][203][204] Reverted by IdreamofJeanie and Flyer22 Reborn. At Sexual orientation, attempting to rewrite the lead: [205], they were reverted by Freeknowledgecreator and they posted on the talk page, where their proposal was opposed [206], yet they tried to do the same thing with the same edit summary: [207] At Corrective rape, attempting to add cisgender or gender expression: [208][209][210][211] (the latter 2 were after being addressed on the talk page and claiming to be sorry about forcing the changes [212]) At Third gender, trying to rewrite how intersex is described, and remove the link to Disorders of sex development, due to being offended by "disorder": [213][214][215] Reverted by Schazjmd, me, and Pepperbeast. At Safe sex, among other problem changes, removing "men" and "women": [216][217][218] All after having been warned not to do this: [219][220] At Girl, attempting to add undue content to the lead: [221][222] Reverted by John from Idegon and me. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox for activism Much of their POV pushing has already been described, but here are some more examples: Removing "men", "women", "male", and "female": [223][224][225][226][227] And again even after having been warned against this: [228] Reverted by Flyer22 Reborn, Rickyurs, Rsrikanth05, OrangeTopaz, Denisarona, IdreamofJeanie. Unsourced changes or commentary: [229][230][231] Reverted by Flyer22 Reborn and Springee.

It is clear that this person is ignoring the warnings given them on their various talk pages, and the opposition of the Wikipedia community, and is intent on engaging in the same bad behavior. I therefore propose that the admins indefinitely block Pedrovariant and block the IPs for a good while. Any attempts thereafter to return under another IP or account should likewise be blocked. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ouch, the activism is very evident—that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The Pedrovariant account was created on 8 December 2019 but the IPs were doing similar editing beforehand—for example, 148.63.244.197 on 21 July 2019. I support an indefinite block of Pedrovariant and blocks on the IPs for block evasion if similar edits continue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm using different IPs because it's different devices I use, not because I want to keep going with the edits I did in another accounts, just happens to be in different devices I used and not all in the same. I removed gendered and sexed language to keep more neutral, and be acessible for trans and intersex people, use gendered language is also take a side, so neutral is literally neutral, and I didn't use explicitly neutral language, but variants. Pedrovariant (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced controversial details by Launeaau

User:Launeaau is adding controversial unsourced details in the articles of BJP leaders Tejasvi Surya, Pratap Simha, and Ram Madhav after multiple warnings issued to them. see this, this and this. His contributions outside these three subject is zero and definitely he seems to be here only for these purposes. Can someone apply WP:NOTHERE block to them?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPI

I wouldn't usually "bump" an SPI here, and I know you're all busy, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das seems inexplicably overlooked, and it's been a while, and Jku456 is becoming quite (... ah, ok, not "quite" - I lied - .. very...) irritating with their repetitive nonsense, so, I guess I'll break the habit - bumped... Sorry. -- Begoon 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oops, I forgot to ping Doug Weller, who's also had the indescribable joy of dealing with this irritating sock, so, here's a ping @Doug... -- Begoon 13:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Kempf

Martin Kempf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is this a sockpuppet? SPI was inconclusive.

Please see discussion about sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Multiple chemical sensitivity for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Untrammeled

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

Has a history of disruptive edits and pushing an agenda (see their user talk page), adding very little real content. Has today resorted to abusive messages over an editing war on White Africans of European ancestry. Have tried to engage on article talk page and on user talk page with little success. --BenBezuidenhout (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)