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

Proposal to topic ban Bastun

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

Bastun needs to be topic banned from J. K. Rowling and from other BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. This is because of a persistent, ongoing issue involving WP:BLP violations because of Bastun's extremely negative feelings about Rowling, and their advocacy on the subject of transgender resulting in tendentious editing, which involves rejection of WP:NPOV, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (IDHT) behavior, and personal attacks.

Note that on 4 July 2019, they were given a DS (discretionary sanctions) alert for BLP: [1]

• Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [2] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [3] This is false. No other editors supported their material.

• The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.

• I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [4] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.

• Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [5] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [6] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [7]

• Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [8][9] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.

• Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [10] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [11] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [12])

• Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.

• At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.

• They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [13][14]

There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a bit hard to enforce, perhaps broaden the scope to BLPs in general? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: DS alerts are only good for a year. I've notified them of the gender-related and BLP sanctions. ---22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support this proposal. Bastun has a long history of posting negatively-biased material on BLP pages about those who have expressed gender critical views and reverting all attempts to make the pages WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss edits on the Talk page are futile; even when an RFC has just begun, Bastun will simply refuse to wait for discussion and continue reverting to the biased changes they want in the article and declare it consensus. In addition, they routinely revert edits that remove unsourced, defamatory claims in BLP articles of subjects who have criticised transgender activism, often with sarcastic edit notes [15]. They also make sarcastic and hostile comments to other editors on the Talk Page itself [16]. This is very unhelpful in fostering an environment of cooperation and civility among editors.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

An example of Bastun reverting attempts to remove negatively-biased content is on the Graham Linehan page. The RFC that can be found on the Linehan Talk Page followed numerous attempts by other editors to change Bastun's biased section heading "Antitransgender activism", only to be immediately reverted by Bastun. Some of the times this occurred include (but are not limited to):

1. April 2019, changed to "Transgender Issues" by Onetwothreeip, reverted by Bastun [17]
2. April 2019, Bring back Daz Sampson removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun [18]
3. August 2019, changed to "Pro-feminist ally activism by Planted Kiss, reverted by Bastun [19]
4. August 2019, changed to "Activism" by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun [20]
5. October 2019 changed to "Gender critical activism" by an IP, reverted by Bastun [21]
6. April 2020 changed to "Transgender Controversy" by me, reverted by Bastun [22]

While the RFC on the subject heading was still underway in June 2020, Bastun once again reverted it to "Antitransgender activism" [23] and although no consensus approving that was reached, it remains in the article as everyone eventually just gave up trying to improve it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the proposal. I noted before (in a recent BLP noticeboard discussion about Rowling) that I have purposely been keeping out of the Rowling stuff. But having taken the time to look over all of this (that's a lot of diffs to analyze), I must agree that Bastun is a serious problem in this area. A topic ban appears to be needed. If not that, then some sort of other sanction. This can't be allowed to continue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. After viewing the diffs provided by Crossroads and User:Lilipo25, it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers if User:Bastun was topic banned. Some people don't pay attention to WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies, until their arrogance pushes the envelope off a cliff. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my analysis. It was intended for respondents to say things like "edit N was out of line." Instead it has become one more battleground. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just put together a couple of timelines. Sorry for this being long. The only substantive change between the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision and the latest revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2020 is the addition of a "Open letter on justice and open debate" section.[24] During this period there was a lot of talk page discussion here: Freedom of speech#Freedom of speech Freedom of speech#Bias in section "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate" I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise: 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section.[25] 17:34, 24 July 2020 Bastun reverts.[26] 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version.[27] ("Re-add Harper's Letter, with adjustments, per agreement on talk page.") 11:32, 26 July 2020 Bastun adds to the section.[28] 18:39, 26 July: Crossroads removes a smaller portion.[29] 05:32, 28 July 2020 Crossroads removes a section[30] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July 2020 Bastun reverts[31] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Bastun's talk page comment as of 08:50, 28 July[32] included these words: "And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning. (By my count it was 10 hours) Looks like I need to create another timeline: 13:30, 26 July: IP 2a02...6582 opens section "‎Bias in section 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' "[33] 14:23, 26 July: Bilorv says keep.[34] 14:25, 26 July: Bastun says keep.[35] 15:00, 26 July: 2a02...6582 says remove.[36] 17:21 26 July: Ward20 says modify and expand.[37] 18:37, 26 July: Bastun agrees with expansion.[38] 18:53, 26 July 2020: Crossroads mentions his 18:39, 26 July[39] edit that removed a smaller portion, then writes "Lastly, as a reminder to all, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated WP:BLP violations on any Wikipedia page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI."[40] 20:20, 26 July: (I am going to disregard this one. Nothing that is in The Daily Mail can be trusted for any purpose. The poster later retracted the comment for the same reason.) 21:23, 26 July: Ward20 comments. Can't tell it it supports keeping or removing.[41] 09:59, 27 July: Bastun continues arguing his position. [42] 17:34, 27 July: Crossroads continues arguing his position, pings Bilorv, Czello. Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, and Ward20.[43] 17:44, 27 July: Guy Macon says remove any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name.[44] 17:49, 27 July: Crossroads agrees.[45] 18:44, 27 July: Czello agrees.[46] 18:56, 27 July: Ward20 agrees. [47] 19:33, 27 July: Autumnking2012 agrees.[48] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes. See timeline above. 08:50, 28 July: Bastun posts his "I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning." comment, says he is "Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal is directly related to Rowling."[49] 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts. See timeline above. 08:58, 28 July: Ward20 makes thoughtful comments too hard to summarize. Please read the diff.[50] 09:14, 28 July: Bastun agrees with Ward20.[51] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes a section[52] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts[53] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Questions: Is the claim "some of the removal is directly related to Rowling" true of edit [54]? Was ten hours after several editors agreed too soon to make the edit? My conclusions: No evidence of wrongdoing that would justify a topic ban for Bastun alone. A one month topic ban for Bastun and Crossroads might be worth considering. Restoring the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision, rolling back in the 50,000 to 60,000 correction, and fully protecting the article for a month is also worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Struck out last paragraph. Best to let the reader look at the timeline and come to their own conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)>

Seriously? Acting like I am equally at fault? As for "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring", that was right after an/maybe more than one (I don't remember) SPA had turned up, added a bunch of stuff, edit warred, and (one of them) got blocked. I never thought that strict formality we had been doing was meant to be permanent (indeed, it really isn't standard Wikipedia procedure) and I thought maybe you had stopped watching. And you ignored all the problems I pointed to above in favor of focusing on the "when" of edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And your first timeline is extremely misleading. You begin, I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise, and then state, 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section. But I did not do that out of the blue; it was based on the 2 comments that already existed in support of doing so (and no comments rejecting it) in this section of the talk page: Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Freedom of speech. Further down that timeline, you say, 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version. But this again was after further discussion on Talk in that section I just linked to. I was making every effort to engage on Talk and follow WP:BRD. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I implied that you were equally at fault. I thought that the timeline spoke for itself. I think it is fair to say that

[A] the first edit I put in the timeline was the first edit in the dispute (which in itself says nothing about whether it was good or bad, for or against consensus), Being first is simply a fact. It doesn't imply anything. There is no implication that the first edit in the dispute was in any way wrong. Many times it is the second edit where you start to see a problem. occasionally it is the seventh.

[B] When I say "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise", I am saying the you made an edit when you knew that someone would disagree and most likely revert. No matter how tendentious the revert, that's how edit wars start. What you should have done is post something like this on the talk page: "Bastun, by my count X number of editors agree with A, and Y number of editors agree with B. Can we agree to change it to A without edit warring?" Just going ahead and making what looks like a good edit to you is usually fine, but when a topic is generating a lot of strong feelings and the page has recently been protected because of edit warring, you really need to at least try to get everyone to agree before making the edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You implied I was equally at fault by proposing equal sanctions for me and for Bastun. And I didn't think that Bastun or anyone would necessarily be tendentious enough to revert. The order people normally follow is WP:BRD. Discussion does not have to come first, although there had been discussion. And there is no need to go to extreme lengths on Talk to try to get unanimity of some kind first. Consensus is not unanimity. And lone editors do not have infinite veto power over the larger group. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've thoroughly analyzed the matter, and that includes Lilipo25's analysis above, and I really can't see that Crossroads has done anything wrong here. He's an editor who staunchly follows the rules, including in this case. I see that he's had to put up with a lot regarding Bastun, who has been significantly disruptive in this area. Crossroads has been one of the voices of reason at these difficult articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I say that Crossroads did anything wrong here? Did I say that Bastun did anything wrong here? Or did I just post a timeline? I have my opinions about who is mostly at fault here, but I was careful not to express those opinions. As for my advice, Wikipedia administrators only have a few options t deal with a page where edit wars keep breaking out. They can stop one or more editors from editing Wikipedia (blocking). They can stop one or mare editors from editing a certain page or on a certain topic (topic ban) or they can stop everybody from editing the age (full protection). They can identify when a policy or guideline is being violated and use warnings and blocks to stop that behavior. What Adminisrators are not allowed to do is to decide who is right and who is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat with you. You implied that Crossroads did wrong, which is why Crossroads took offense. I'm sure he can clarify his feelings on that. And, yes, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

My report has little to do with edit warring. The issue is POV-motivated tendentious editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators decide that editors are in the wrong all the time. As in "the editors conduct was wrong." They are not allowed to decide that editors are wrong. As in "issuing decisions on content disputes". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantics. I can ping multiple admins right now who would state, "Yep, Flyer is correct. As seen on ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time." But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

One can only hope that in moving on you will eventually learn that the difference between "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" is a matter of lexicology and not semantics. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm humored by this. Our past interactions have shown times over that I am one editor you cannot school, and yet you pull this. I don't even think you've read the articles you linked to. No matter what you want to call it, the fact remains that admins have stated "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" times over. And will continue to do so. And they are not wrong for using either wording. They, like me, would see you distinguishing the two as some silly word game. But I suppose you have to seek your wins where you can, even when you fail to win anything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. I really regret to say that I'd support the topic ban as OP suggested. I wish it wouldn't have come to this but I fear bias has crept through to the point of tendentious editing. — Czello 08:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've been pinged above, so just wanted to make a quick comment to say that I've seen this thread, but will be on mobile until tomorrow at the earliest - I would need to be at a computer to read through these diffs properly. I have been aware of some issues in this subject area in recent months, but will reserve judgment on this particular report until I've had chance to investigate properly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment re Crossroads. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. Editor Bastun has been brought to ANI after the whack-a-moling of their edits have exhausted those who are here for the promotion of encyclopedic values, and not for the manipulation of information, censorship of information, and POV belligerence. Crossroads' history as an editor is a completely different universe than that of this problematic editor. There is no comparison. To conclude that topic-banning him should also be considered is to say that Crossroads is on the same level as Bastun. That is utter rubbish ... and a back-handed intimidation tactic. An attempt to punish Crossroads for possessing the boldness and fearlessness to tackle a problematic editor and to call them out, is simply an attack against any editor who has the brass to do what is best for Wikipedia and the general public that it serves. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Bastun T-ban. As for Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary immediately above me says all I would have, more concisely; Crossroads is clearly not the problem here or part of the problem. The amount of "this person is transphobic no matter what!" PoV pushing at articles like this is just running off the rails, and it needs to stop. When numerous TG/NB people (note the difference between that and "cis-gender, hetereo, privileged 'allies' speaking in loco parentis on behalf of TG/NB people, who are telling them to STFU because they're being terrible allies") very publicly leap to the defense of Rowling (as not transphobic for simply observing that her biological womanhood has played a formative role in her life and is a different experience from that of transwomen) – yet our "encyclopedic" coverage is very WP:UNDULY dwelling on labeling her transphobic, with cherry-picked sources that support that extreme, echo-chamber, activist viewpoint, and suppressioin of material that does not support that narrative – then we clearly have a problem and need to act to resolve it. If this were confined to a single page, that might be a momentary blip, but Bastun's PoV-pushing crosses multiple related articles, and can be found in others like the Linehan one. As someone below put it, "BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics" seem to be the flashpoint for Bastun, among others who'll likely end up here eventually. (About two weeks ago, I felt compelled to leave four {{Ds/alert|gg}} templates the same day, due to the frequency with which I was running into highly personalized attacky behavior surrounding TG/NB topics and the sourcing for them. And all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle). I take the same position about this as I do about everything: WP is not the place for your activism, on anything. If you can't act as a neutral-minded encyclopedist in a topic area, only a biased advocate, then you simply have to be removed from that topic area, no matter the subjective nobility of your intentions, or your ability to be constructive in other topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect, SMcCandlish, the claim that all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle seems EXTRAORDINARY, or at least hyperbolic. For your intervention to be relevant, I think the expectation at ANI is to provide diffs. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish - I echo Newimpartial that you need to provide diffs here, I think. (Or better, strike comments that are not related to this editor) Darren-M talk 16:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a silly trap. You're declaring my concerns about Bastun's behavior being part of a broader activism/PoV problem to be supposedly off-topic, then asking me to add actually off-topic diffs regarding other editors exhibiting related patterns, to an ANI that isn't about them. I decline that bait. If the other editors cross the lines again, it'll be a WP:AE or WP:RFARB/WP:ARCA matter, since they have received Ds/alerts; ANI is not the appropriate venue for them any longer. Whether they have individually done anything ANI would take action about is not pertinent. My very point was that the overall pattern of TG/NB-related PoV pushing against various BLP subjects is being generated by more than one editor; one of them is before ANI right now, while the others (if they keep it up) are destined for another venue's examination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Um, yeah - most of what you've written about there? To quote Shaggy: "It wasn't me." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I am agreed with SMcCandlish that articles related to this topic suffer from a lot of POV pushing, especially from the advocacy side. Opposite-side POV pushing happens occasionally too, but is quickly shut down. This ANI report was meant to focus on a particular case that became so severe I considered it reportable. But it isn't the only activism that occurs. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  From an empirical standpoint, I question your assertion that the POV pushing happens especially from the advocacy side, and that Opposite-side POV pushing happens but is quickly shut down. For example, on Talk:Graham Linehan you made one particular POV assertion here that you subsequently repeated precisely the same assertion here, here, here, and here with no more support than an illicit appeal to the colour of the sky, in spite of polite requests for some kind of justification in policy or precedent from several editors. If that is what your POV-pushing is like when it is "quickly shut down", Crossroads, I would hate to see it fully unleashed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm glad you posted those because they show me rebutting your implausible POV assertion that "anti-transgender" is not value-laden such that WP:LABEL does not apply, you pushing to apply that label to a WP:BLP, and you baselessly equating me to white supremacists and the alt-right. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, they show you repeatedly asserting, without evidence or the agreement of most participants in the discussion, that "anti-transgender" is value-laden such that WP:LABEL applies. A previous RfC had affirmed that the section using "anti-transgender" in both the title and the body was appropriate for the article, and no noticeboard discussion has ever applied LABEL to "anti-transgender" or any other "anti-" label as far as I know. However, you did not even deign to rebut the previous discussion or address your novel interpretation of LABEL, but only made a BLUESKY argument while most participants in the discussion were not in agreement with you about the colour of the sky. I did not "equate you to white supremacists and the alt-right", I addressed the form of evidence-free argumentation you were using in that discussion and continue to use. Which rather illustrates my point that here at ANI you are engaged in continuing a content dispute by other means, although you do not see it this way because the arguments of those who disagree with you, no matter how well-sourced and policy-compliant they may be, simply do not fit your worldview so you dismiss them out of hand. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody needs your characterization of the previous RfC. And anyway, my comments were at a new and much bigger RfC at which consensus can change. As for your last sentence, back at ya. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Of course WP:LABEL applies. The entire purpose of the guideline is addressing such labels. Newimpartial appears to be engaging in the fallacy that the example terms listed there are an exhaustive list of those that qualify. It simply is not true, as even a few minutes on the guideline's talk page will show you. Proposals to add additional terms are almost always rejected, specifically because the examples are not an exhaustive list (which would just grow indefinitely), and the extant samples are already broad enough to get the point across (to everyone except Newimpartial and a few others, I guess). However, if someone wants to propose adding an example like "anti-transgender" (since the list doesn't include any "anti-foo" illustrations), I would support adding a new example for the first time in a long time. If a misinterpretation of guideline wording becomes recurrent, the solution is to write around the misinterpretation so that it stops recurring.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, this isn't the place to re-litigate the RfC, either, but I never made the straw man argument you just attributed to me, that the list in LABEL is somehow exhaustive. The argument I actually made is that "anti-x" labels are used in Wikivoice all the time, and that I didn't see any policy-relevant difference between "anti-transgender activism" and say "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish rhetoric". That was the argument made by myself and others at the RfC. Now it is fine for you to disagree, but it is not fine IMO for you to strawman the actual argument and then insist that there is some "silent majority" consensus about "anti-transgender activism" without providing evidence.

  But really, my point here is that SMcCandlish has not shown good judgement in this subject area since The Signpost fiasco, and that in spite of their superficially measured words, their perception of the actions of other editors in this subject area is deeply affected by what seems obvious to them based on their POV, a POV previously expressed in the current Graham Linehan RFC, as I recall. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please do not ping me about this comment. Strong oppose: "BLPs who have commented on transgender topics" is not clear enough to enforce (does Bastun have to research whether a BLP has ever spoken publicly about transness every time they edit a BLP on any topic?) and "all BLPs" is certainly unwarranted. Rather than suggesting a topic that would fit better, I will say that I do not see evidence that Bastun has behaved in a consistently reckless manner worthy of a topic ban. I do seem some protracted disputes, in which Bastun does engage in discussion. A number of the users participating in this discussion have engaged in similar ways but with opposite points of view, so it is not the conduct they are objecting to but the beliefs. Lilipo25 presents the situation of Graham Linehan incorrectly in that the section heading was not "Bastun's biased section heading" but a long-standing heading which has received support from many users. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The section heading was originally "Controversies". It was created by OCuin on January 20, 2019 [55]. You changed it to "Transgender Issues" two days later [56]. It then went through a series of different headings ("Transgender Rights", "Transphobia", etc.) before Peter the Fourth first inserted the "Anti-Transgender Activism" heading [57]. It was changed again numerous times after that by different editors ("Gender critical activism", "Anti-transgender activity", "POV", etc.) and on April 19, 2019, the heading was back to the one you put in: Transgender Issues. At that point, Bastun changed it back to "Anti-transgender activism" with an edit note declaring that to be "accurate and neutral" [58]. Since then, as demonstrated above, Bastun has held control over the heading and reverted every change. While there are certainly those who support their wording, there are many who have not, and the RFC was unable to come to any kind of consensus. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So your contention is that Bastun should be banned from an area because their contribution is the one that, after much discussion and debate, remains? The way you discuss this makes it clear you view the situation as a game of capture the flag. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Additionally, you have the facts wrong. I did not change the subject header. What I did was to insert a full stop in prose. Please do not say untruths about me again. I suggest you check your other comments for factual accuracy because the diff about me was literally the only one I opened and it does not say what you claim it does. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is most definitely not my contention; I was trying to demonstrate that Bastun's edits on the example I used are not to an agreed-upon heading. But you are correct that I misread your edit and for that I apologise and will strike it through once I look up how to do that again, as I've forgotten. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose t-ban: Bastun's edits and interactions with other editors on the JK Rowling page specifically appear to have been part of a completely ordinary content dispute. Crossroads' characterization of that dispute as sanctionable seems pretty dubious based on the timeline provided by Guy Macon above. However, it does seem, at least based on the evidence provided above, that Bastun has been pretty unreasonably combative on other pages. For this reason I'd support a warning and maybe an interaction ban, but a topic ban seems very poorly tailored to what actual misbehavior there is. Loki (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support - I was mentioned above and I well remember the dumpster fire that Bastun (and some others, to be fair) presided over at Graham Linehan. I haven't been active at JK Rowling although I'm sure it's more of the same WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL carry on. SMcCandlish summarises this unfortunate situation better than I can. I'd only add that I think part of the problem is that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us - they respond with incredulity and disproportionate hostility at those of us who are only looking to try and keep things encyclopedic. Unchecked it sometimes boils over into edit-warring, POV-pushing, coat-racking and so on, like it sadly has in Bastun's case. In fact unless Bastun can point to some sort of worthwhile contribution in other areas I wouldn't be averse to supporting a block rather than a topic ban. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  With regard to the preceding intervention, please see this remarkably self-aware comment by the same editor. Based on their own experience on this same issue at ANI, this looks to me like a pot::kettle situation, and the allegation that the allegation that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us must be regarded as unproven (without evidence) and set aside. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Cancel culture is when you express your opinion on a topic, whereas opposition to cancel culture is when you forcibly prevent someone from expressing their opinion on a particular platform. Given your self-admission of not having done due diligence in research before making this comment, I trust the closer will give this as little weight as it warrants. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: topic ban from J. K. Rowling. I'm discussing that article because I am familiar with the TG topic editing there. J. K. Rowling has increasingly made politically controversial comments about TG topics. It has now branched out into "cancel culture" vs. the rights of disenfranchised or oppressed groups to exercise their political power. Her fame has brought widespread coverage of the issues, and cherrypicking sources can badly distort the neutral view. It's a difficult topic. Editors bring opposing views, but when the editors have worked together there the article benefited. There are so many sources to sort through[59], the more editors doing good research the better. I would rather see a sanction on the article using zero reverts for a period, cautioning editors to achive consensus and WP:AGF rather than banning editors from the article. Ward20 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support a 1RR restriction for all editors on Rowling-related and Linehan-related articles (Non-administrator comment) (At least not yet 😛) This discussion seems to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is best conducted on article talk pages. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on the totality of diffs provided in the thread above (which took half an hour to read through; I would like my time back >.> ), I don't think a topic ban would be appropriate at this time, though I do think the editor in question (and editors in general) should be reminded to avoid being confrontational or becoming heated in discussions of these topics. (I am troubled by the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics, and in general, as another commenter touched on, by the amount of battleground-ing that goes on in multiple directions in this topic area.) -sche (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: As per Bilorv, Loki, Ward20 and others. This is rushed as I am packing and travelling the next few days. Everyone knows that JK Rowling has made a number of highly controversial political statements about Trans People. All Wikipedia Editors including Crossroads and Bastun have a political view points: when the are strong opposing views, things can get a little heated, both sides have been equally combative. I have not seen any clear evidence of consistent poor behaviour by Bastun towards other editors, Bastun has simply engaged in the discussion from a different political standpoint from Crossroads. As a trans person myself I am very grateful that I see at least one other editor is standing up for a minority group and against discrimination both intentional and unintentional, and the overal systemic bias that naturally exist in Wikipedia. Bastun's interactions with other editors in the protracted disputes on the JK Rowling articles has been part of a completely normal content dispute in a contenious area. The is no solid evidence that Bastun has espicially behaved in a Un-Wikipedian like manner to warrant any topic ban whatsoever. I agree also with WanderingWanda that this appears to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is indeed best conducted on article talk pages. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: We need more uninvolved, unbiased commenters. So far all of the support and oppose !votes are from people who are in some way involved, either editing the Rowling articles directly, or else heavily involved in transgender related articles. As -sche stated, there is the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is going to get involved, if they are not already, in such a bitter, vitriolic, hate filled topic area? I only notice it when it appears on one of these boards, I am staying far away. Admins really need to take some action to make the topic area one uninvolved editors feel comfortable participating in. Smeat75 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This, I think, is really the important question. 1RR limits seem to help (q.v. Terf and what might help even more would be an approach to relevant, reliable sources (or even basic evidential standards) more in line with the rest of the project (the constant re-hashing of issues on Talk:Trans woman is exemplary here).

And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary, Bastun and myself - have a tendency to become dismissive or waspish in these discussions. Additional efforts at civility (and avoidance of microagressions) might go a long way. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the editors "re-hashing" issues at Talk:Trans woman are not the editors here. It's not those of us interested in neutrality repeatedly complaining there. It's new users. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

While that is true, I would venture that a respect for evidence and process over self-certainty and personal conviction would make an improvement to the discussion at Talk:Graham Linehan just as much as it would at Talk:Trans woman. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably ... Pyxis Solitary ...." If there's one thing I've stayed away from for a long time, is being involved in the editing of trans-related matters. Editing trans-related subjects is a snake pit. As for becoming involved in a discussion such as this one, well ... that's one of the privileges granted to all Wikipedia editors. Now, I know from experience that you're into baiting and turning discussions into arguments. But I just want to assure you that whatever cork you blow after this, I have more productive things to do than to respond to anything you have to say to me. Don't spit in the wind. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And there it is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: First... Regarding votes aligning with editors' POVs. My "support" vote is not about any personal POV I have on trans issues. I only saw this thread because I looked at Crossroads's contributions. And editors have noted that I do look to follow Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy and other rules on these (and other) topics. Second, except for one or two others who may have followed Crossroads, it appears to me that WP:Canvassing has taken place. I could understand if certain editors voting "oppose" frequented ANI, or this thread about Bastun was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Talk:J. K. Rowling, or Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling (although it shouldn't be). But for a number of editors involved with trans topics to show up here out of the blue, and when a couple of them haven't been editing frequently lately (such as being absent from Wikipedia for two days)? No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest anything like "both sides are POV and equally bad". It's not like that. The evidence - actual evidence - speaks for itself as to what is neutrality and what is activism, and it is also clear what is supported by evidence and what is based on ignoring evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  That CANVASSING accusation is so oblique that I can't really tell who is being accused of canvassing or being canvassed, but I will volunteer that I followed Crossroads's contribution history here, like a normal person. I have studiously stayed away from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling, but when I saw what was going on here I had a feeling there was a desire to re-litigate the Talk:Graham Linehan RfC, which is not even closed - and I certainly do not seem to have been mistaken in that apprehension. If editors are going to use one-sided behavioural accusations (accusations not accompanied by a degree of self-awareness) to gain an advantage in content disputes - which certainly seems to be the case with Crossroads here - it should not be surprising that the potential targets of such strategies become wise to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I do not normally watch this noticeboard, who does? Like other editors on both sides of this current dispute i was simply mentioned on this very page, so I came, nothing more. I am extremely saddened to find that some very experienced editors seem to be playing Wikipedia politics here, to shut down (or to induce doubt about) fair and reasonable contributions of opposing editors and viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: per User:Bodney. Bastun is simply an avid editor, a trait encouraged by wp:bold. It's normal to have disagreements followed by some reversions on controversial topics. At least from that editor's part, the confrontation of different points of view is being maintained healthy, productive, and is helping to improve the articles mentioned here. There's nothing out of ordinary on your accusatory diffs. We can see that Bastun is very active on talk pages; edit history of articles show that that editor frequently avoids escalating unproductive edit-wars, turning those into talk page discussions and subsequently abiding by established consensuses. daveout ^(talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Another highly involved editor whose defense is founded upon denial. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • To be fair, I also think that your contributions have a positive side to them and that they are helping to improve those articles (in a way). But those "evidences" you are bringing here simply aren't grievous enough in order to justify banning someone. They look like just any other editorial dispute (honestly). Suppressing disagreeing voices isn't the way to go. daveout ^(talk) 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mostly per what the other opposers said. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Crossroads has accused Bastun of advocacy, but is there anywhere a text where Bastun actually voices a personal opinion on transgender issues? Most of the above examples seem more like content disputes and disagreements over sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, Bastun's personal opinions in and of themselves are not relevant if they were to edit in accord with NPOV, NPA, etc. My point is that Bastun's editing, however, constitutes POV pushing/activism, resulting in tendentiousness, BLP violations, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT, causing disruption and driving away other editors. I believe my evidence and that of others (especially here) shows that. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per sche. It seems like a content dispute with a bit of the usual argy-bargy that these topics attract. Crossroads has been just as involved in the argy bargy, though it should be noted that thay have been more civil than Bastun. IMO Crossroads is throwing bad faith and battleground accusations around as a way of "winning" content disputes. I also noted a claim of canvassing above without any evidence of said canvassing being provided. Bacondrum (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This editor is highly involved when it comes to me personally and is not an unbiased observer. [60] Crossroads ^-talk- 02:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Highly involved? How so? Another unwarranted bad faith accusation, this report is full of them. Crossroads is bludgeoning the debate and making numerous bad faith accusation throughout. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in replying. I was away for just over four days with just a phone, and came back to a heavy workload and a lot of bytes on this page. I've already responded to Lilipo25's contribution. I wasn't entirely sure where to place this response, or how best to format it, but I think I do need to respond to the original "charge". I've responded below by copying most of the points in the original post and responding to each. I hope that's ok. Crossroad's points should be indented, mine are bulleted.

• Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [61] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [62] This is false. No other editors supported their material.

• This is a content dispute, not appropriate for AN/I. But if Crossroads does not like the reference I supplied, there are more: one, and two, for example. Certainly happy to include a "likely", but Rowling herself seems happy that Boylan was referring to her.

• The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.

• And I answered Guy Macon just 20 minutes later, and clarified my statement.

• I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [63] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.

• I genuinely didn't - and don't - believe that the mere fact of signing an open letter with 151 other people merits a whole section in a BLP. A sentence? Maybe. Yes, the letter got coverage - mostly because of the subsequent controversy. As of now (16:00, 6 August), the article we have on the open letter isn't linked to from the biographies of any other signatory, with the exception of Jennifer Finney Boylan (two sentences) and Thomas Chatterton Williams (one sentence). The other, more famous signatories, such as Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky? Does not even merit a mention in their BLPs.

• In any case, at the time of this addition, we had been discussing controversial additions and removals under the unofficial mentorship of Guy Macon, and it had been working well. When you asked who supported your addition, pinging four editors including Guy, only [one responded. (And that section still doesn't adequately cover what the open letter was actually about - one still needs to go to the main article to read that it includes "denouncing President Donald Trump as "a real threat to democracy", for example).

• Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [64] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [65] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [66]

• Yes, I'm guilty of salty sarcasm at times. But as I mentioned at the time, "I'm very aware of WP:RSP. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on WP:RSP as reliable." Rab V, in the same section but 4 days earlier, had said "Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't WP:DUE."

• Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [67][68] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.

• Sorry, but I'm going to have to request that people read that full section for context, which followed removal of sourced content (Daniel Radcliffe's Trevor Project statement, which generated more news than, for example, the open letter).

• Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [69] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [70] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [71])

• Rowling herself linked to her own essay, with a heading of "TERF wars." Yes, guilty of a half of a sentence breach of WP:NOTFORUM, less than 1% of what I've contributed to talk pages on improving the articles. Apologies.

• Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.

• Your personal opinion? I find the pages toxic at times due to the unrelenting removal of relevant and pertinent, due, reliably sourced material and the resulting necessity to rehash the same arguments over and over on those talk pages - recently, e.g., removal of mention of the spat between two of the world's most successful authors, removal of mention of Mermaids, GLAAD and the Trevor Project. Anything that could possibly be deemed negative coverage of Rowling or her approach to transgender issues. While signing an open letter is due?

• At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.

• At the time I made the WP:SPA comment, Lilipo's only contributions to WP for more than the previous month had almost exclusively been to transgender issues, from one POV. Girth Summit agreed that "this subject has been her sole area of editing in the last couple of months", but GS obviously checked back further than I did at the time. I acknowledge now Lilipo's account is not a SPA and she has made many positive contributions to WP. I should have done so at the time. A reminder, though, that GS concluded "Both: I believe you're both editing in good faith about a subject you're approaching from different positions."

• They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [72][73]

• Re voting on one's own RfC: bullshit, and called as such at the time. I don't know what's unclear about "Bullshit! Of course you'd vote in your own RfC, you'd be mad not to. That's not the point I made." "Weaselly?" Writing "I believe that the RFC is worded non-neutrally, come please comment" would have been non-neutral.

• There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I add and remove material as I see fit, in accordance with our policies, including those on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV. Additions I made to the Rowling articles and the Linehan article were made in accordance with those policies. Many of those addtions were removed, at one stage or another, by Crossroads, and others, as outlined above and as identified by other contibutors elsewhere on this page. Some of those who removed large additions by me and others, elsewhere on this page, claim they are editing neutrally and others aren't, even where they replaced a whole section with a single POV sentence. Talk page discussions generally followed, and in most of those cases, additions that I had made, or deletions I had reverted, were subsequently re-added (sometimes with further editing, as is WP's way).

• I currently have 2,780 pages on my watch list. I have no idea how to check which of those are "BLPs that have commented on transgender topics", but that's obviously going to include everything from Tuppence Middleton to Donald Trump and taking in Chelsea Manning, Barack Obama and Stephen King on the way. Oh - and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Eddie Redmayne. The call for a topic ban is, in my opinion, ridiculous. But if one were to be applied, it clearly needs to be applied to more than one editor from more than one side.

• There are certainly issues over how we are dealing with transgender-related articles and BLPs on Wikipedia, and a discussion on how best to proceed is timely.

• Personally, though, I stand over my 15 years editing, block free, with 98% "live" edits. That includes editing in such contentious areas as "The Troubles" (broadly construed). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Question of Scope

The evidence-based discussion here has been largely confined to the (highly sensitive) J.K. Rowling article, but those seeking sanctions have suggested a much broader scope for a topic-ban. Is there evidence from any other page suggesting that problems extend beyond the single page? Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. A great deal of my evidence has to do with the Politics of J. K. Rowling article. But Rowling isn't the only BLP either. My 8th bullet point (second to last) clearly stated, regarding another BLP. That is the Graham Linehan BLP. Lilipo25's comment also specifically referred to that page. Clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I had wondered if there were a desire here to re-litigate the Graham Linehan article text; if so, I would direct interested admins to Talk:Graham Linehan, particularly the ongoing (?) RfC at that location. I have seen some dubious accusations there, but no actual problems with Bastun's editing on that page. But I would encourage everyone to review the evidence for themselves.

As far as "clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics", that is the question I was asking in opening this section: is it? So far I have seen mention of one other page, and a rather minute examination of its edit history hasn't shown me any inappropriate editing on the part of Bastun. But I would be happy to look at anything I missed. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial should not be at this discussion. They were warned by El C: Newimpartial, you should not have responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a final warning). Above you can see clearly they are effectively responding to/addressing Lilipo25. It is a case of mak[ing] reference to or comment[ing] on each other anywhere on Wikipedia...indirectly. They obviously saw where Lilipo25 talked about the Graham Linehan page - there was no need to ask about evidence beyond the Rowling page. Newimpartial's I have seen some dubious accusations there is also a backhanded reference. Sure seems like a violation of El C's clear direction to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 18:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I have not addressed Lilipo in any way in this discussion, upon due consideration of El C's comment. I have been very careful to do so. I have responded to comments by three highly INVOLVED editors in this ANI report: yourself, SMcCandlish, and Daz. I am not under any form of topic ban or Iban, and as El C said above, Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN, even if there were one. So it seems to me that a BOOMERANG sanction for Wikilawyering may be appropriate here; it reminds me of the time Crossroads flagged me for a (dubious) 1RR violation in reprisal after I refrained from reporting them for a clear 1RR vio, opting instead to a notice on their Talk Page. GAMING the system really ought to be taken seriously at ANI, IMO.

And the policy-relevant consideration I raised was whether there was a basis to extend the proposed sanction to Bilorv beyond the J.K. Rowling articles. You mentioned the Graham Linehan page, and so I asked whether there was an intention to re-litigate the current RfC at Talk:Graham Linehan, without naming names or casting aspersions. It seems pretty clear that there you do intend to re-litigate, in which case I would point to this 2019 RfC, the one that brought Daz to his aforementioned "up before the beaks" and which you, Crossroads, have introduced POV edits to overturn (q.v. slow motion edit war) without any Talk page resolution, almost as of you did not accept the result of the 2019 RfC. [74] [75][76] Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are not technically under an IBAN then I am in the wrong about that, but El C's language is clear regardless. But anyone inclined to believe Newimpartial's version of events should check their links. Yes, I did report you for a 1RR violation within 26 instead of 24 hours, as WP:GAMING, and for which you were warned by El C who considered it a violation. My supposed violation of 1RR, as I said there, involved two completely separate edits involving content by different people. As for the 2019 RfC about Graham Linehan, I don't remember ever hearing about it before, although maybe I forgot, and was not aware of it for those edits. In any case, it does not appear to be about the heading itself.

As for "INVOLVED", readers should know that Newimpartial is in no way an uninvolved, unbiased observer. We have debated each other for ages. And despite their nom-de-plume they are in no way impartial on LGBT matters. Check their contribs and the above discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I was up before the beaks on a completely unrelated matter (for which I was exonerated). During that kerfuffle I had to apologise and redact an instance where I'd mistakenly used the word 'transvestite' and inadvertently caused some offence. It was totally unintentional but unfortunately was portrayed as evidence of my bad character, which I obviously regretted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In the aforementioned Rowling BLP noticeboard discussion, Bodney repeatedly used the word transsexual even though so many trans people object to it. So you're forgiven. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I normally see myself as me, sometimes as a woman, sometimes third gender, an individual, but also as a transsexual woman who was bullied out of job and became homeless I was rescued by a women only charity and given shelter for two years in a shared single sex female only accommodation, four years of single sex group counselling and support. After my sheltered housing, they rehoused me permanently. That is why I was interested in that BLP RfC because Rowling is tying to bring to an end the very same safety net that came to my own rescue. I am not sure what is your objection to me using the term transsexual? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 06:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, I did not state that I object to you using the term transsexual. I stated that "many trans people object to [that term]." This is made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles. It's made clear by IPs and registered editors (especially newbies) removing the term transsexual as offensive (or, as some of them say, "outdated") and replacing it with transgender, including in cases involving people who identify as transsexual...such as Buck Angel. It's made clear by various other cases. It's often that when people use the term transsexual, they are accused of bigotry and/or ignorance. Never mind the fact that the person using it may be transgender. So I do avoid that term unless the text on Wikipedia calls for it, such as a person who identifies that way or researchers using that term to specify a type of transgender person. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh Wow apologises I must be an ignorant self hating bigot. Thank you. Point scored. It is a long time since I was actively and productively involved in trans politics or civil rights campaigns, so please hang me for not using the terminology that some of my fellow trans folks prefer. I humbly suggest even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. But for the point of this thread I am happy to bow down to your obvious greater knowledge in this matter. Gosh you are sooo right. You got me. Everything I have written must be wrong. I shall now disappear in a puff of trans terminology smoke. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, serious question - do you think that was a helpful interjection to this discussion? Flyer did not criticise you anywhere in her post - she expressly said that she doesn't object to you using that word, and then explained why she doesn't use it. Why did you feel the need to be sarcastic? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about below - discussions about this subject rapidly descend into the gutter, and it's very hard to drag them out again. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see at all that Flyer22 Frozen meant to 'score points' or lord over greater knowledge. Rather, she is making the same point which you now made: even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. This is the same point that me and numerous other editors are making. What happens at these articles is that a few editors tend to want to present only or nearly-only one POV (e.g. one set of sources that present that POV) because that POV is treated by some people (most of whom are cisgender) as though it were the one and only trans POV, and hence the only right one, morally and in terms of WP:Due. All other sources presenting another POV, even though such a POV is held by trans people like Buck Angel, Dana International, and so on, are minimized or rejected. This is the activist approach to editing that, ultimately, leads to disruption, and thus led us here to ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Girth Summit,Crossroads and apologises to Flyer22 Frozen. Happy to strike through the offending parts of my reply, even though I was not sure of the tone being directed towards me, I was thinking myself that my reply was a bit rushed, flippant and not productive. I was hoping to delete/modify my reply, but its been exceptionally busy half a home moving day. I would suggest that views held by individuals like Buck Angel & Dana International are simply minority points of view, compared to all the trans organisations that have responded to Rowling's tweets and Essay. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, thanks for this gracious apology. I genuinely feel that if everyone editing in this topic area were to follow this example of self-reflection and moderate how they interact with other editors, people from different viewpoints would be able to work together in a more collegiate manner. Sincerely, thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology too. Regarding the views expressed by Buck Angel and Dana International, WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We do give WP:Due weight to advocacy organizations, but we also are to give due weight to other views represented or described in the reliable sources. WP:NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As seen here, Crossroads is correct that I was noting that not all trans people think alike. I've noted this more than once. As for the trans people who partly or fully agree with Rowling being in the minority, I don't consider voices that are louder necessarily the majority. As various people have noted, a lot of trans people on social media have agreed with Rowling...at least in part. They just don't get any, or hardly any, media attention because certain viewpoints have managed to get deemed transphobic so often by the newer generation. I have often seen that younger trans people's views conflict with older trans people's views, and older trans people like Buck Angel have talked about this. But there are enough young trans people who share Angel's views on trans matters. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to say that whoever Crossroads is talking about, who present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV, that isn't a thing I do, and I don't think it is a thing Bastun does either (though I havent reviewed their entire edit history). Without diffs being provided, I wonder whether this is idle speculation on Crossroads's part or more some deep intuition. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Without diffs being provided". The diffs I already presented show it. The diffs you already presented show it. The diffs and discussions presented by others show it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Crossroads, you say a thing, and you handwave (this time to already presented diffs), and you have exactly no evidence for the thing you claimed. This time the thing is that Bastun, or I present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV. I know my own diffs, and I just wasted my time going through all the Bastun diffs from your original filing and found nothing at all that meets that description. The closest thing to it that I found - and I looked at every last one - is Bastun's use of the impersonal "some signatories" rather than naming Gabrielle Bellot and/or Jennifer Boylan. And whatever error that might have been, it did not take the form of presenting the one and only trans POV. His edits on the letter don't direct the reader to any Trans POV at all, as far as I can see.

Perhaps readers here will come to recognize that the imprecision and merely assertions nature of your blanket accusations here is entirely of a piece with your behaviour at the PinkNews RfC and the Linehan RfC, in neither of which do you seem to listen to your interlocutors. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I already explained above that the issue is maximization of coverage of the activist POV and minimization of coverage of any other, in violation of NPOV. People can judge for themselves if my presentation is accurate. Certainly no one needs your heavily involved and biased characterization of me at other discussions in which I, for my part, would say you engaged in the same WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behavior as you have here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Crossroads, how can you still insist even now that you were in the right about the matter discussed here? WP:3RR reads An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (emphasis added). Nobody should let their battleground tendencies overcome their respect for process and consensus, and consensus about process. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Show me the diffs. Were they even reverts? Even if it were a violation, I made a mistake in good faith and had said I would have self-reverted. [77] You, on the other hand, have twice gamed the system by reverting twice within 26 hours on a 1RR page (1st time: [78][79] 2nd time: [80][81]), been warned by an administrator as a result, [82] been blocked for edit warring, [83] and just earned a one-way IBAN. [84] "Battleground tendencies". You are not in a position to condescend to me about anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit and this edit were made 12 minutes apart, in a 1RR page, and are both labelled as reverts. Are you questioning your own edit summaries? And you know why I was so well aware that 3RR/1RR can be violated without reverting the same material? Because that's what I was blocked for. I learned my lesson from that, thanks. How does your "mistake in good faith" argument now fit with your "supposed violation" comment two hours earlier? Either you have learned from your mistake or you haven't, and honesty and directness are better approaches than defensiveness and deflection, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as the edit war warning and the (very recent) 1-way IBAN are concerned, they are both cases that you filed/instigated and were both placed by the same admin. And since you want to talk about GAMING, this is clearly GAMING, as well as a misreading of the Talk page discussion that it repeatedly distorts through selective quotation. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I was pinged by Crossroads in the above comment. I didn't even bother reporting this, even though I can see it is meant as a reply to me, because the user was careful to avoid addressing me directly. But they also went through my User Talk page to find comments to use against Bring back Daz Sampson, below, so I did report that to El C. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So I'm in work today, then travelling with just my phone until Tuesday (it's a bank holiday in Ireland), and likely patchy coverage. I will be responding, but not substantively until next week. What I would say in the meantime is:

a) Anyone commenting here needs to have read the Linehan RfC in full (yeah, sorry), and in particular this contribution, which addressed most of Lilipo's points from above, almost a month ago.

b) Yes, WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. I had been wondering about the merits of seeking a tban for Crossroads from the Rowling articles, as they seemed determined to remove or minimise anything that could be deemed negative, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, and to include or highlight anything that could be deemed positive, for quite some time. I hadn't gotten around to anything like recording diffs or quotes, but a scan of the talk pages Talk:J. K. Rowling and Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling will show what I mean. E.g., I include coverage of two of the largest HP fansites, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, jointly announcing that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her HP fiction; this gets reverted as WP:NOTNEWS. Similarly, removal of mention of The Trevor Project from the Politics of... article; removal of mention of a U.S. Senator quoting her essay prior to a vote (NOTNEWS, apparently, and a strawman about inferences); arguing against inclusion of mention of the Stephen King issue, because NOTNEWS. Yet, at an RfC at the BLP noticeboard, the same user proposes including mention of support from Dana International (suddenly NOTNEWS doesn't apply?); and, at the Politcs article again, adds a new section on the fact that Rowling was one of 150 signatories of an open letter - while debate was ongoing. Again, NOTNEWS and UNDUE stopped applying?

So there's that, and that too needs to be considered by the community. I would point out the absolute irony of championing that particular open letter, on the one hand, and attempted cancel culture of someone whose views you don't agree with, on the other.

c) Crossroads mentioned quite a few editors. I'd be interested in hearing from some, too, involved in the Rowling and Linehan pages, who may or may not be aware of this particular AN/I, and may or may not wish to comment on my and/or Crossroads' editing: YuvalNehemia; Licks-rocks; -sche; Bodney; Ward20; Bilorv; Wikiditm; JzG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping; ironically, I posted above in the exact same minute as you, requesting no further pings to this discussion. No harm done but pretty amusing timing.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And all of those things ended up in the article anyway. I followed WP:BRD and accepted when consensus was against me. And many other things, especially lately, I have not reverted, even though it's a continual pile-on of negative material. WP:NOTNEWS is a valid argument and WP:ONUS does favor discussion before inclusion. And those discussions show I was not alone in my views. For example, regarding the US Senator, inclusion was opposed by Zedembee, Autumnking2012, and others. Much the same views were expressed by many at the RfC at BLPN, including by SMcCandlish, CactusJack, and Zaereth, about limiting excessive ephemeral Twitter drama. I mean, nobody's perfect, but we're not going to have a false balance between me and you. I made every effort to follow policy. Trying to prevent POV pushing is not the same as actual POV pushing and advocacy. I am all for WP:Due and substantive criticism of Rowling. My comments and discussion behavior shows that. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't mean to intrude, but your claim that you make every effort to follow policy is somewhat undermined when you have engaged in a slow edit war to reverse the outcome of a previous RfC without any kind of mandate to do so from a new RfC. [85] [86][87] Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude - you clearly do. Where does that previous RfC discuss the heading itself? Where was I made aware of it before I made those edits? I did not willfully reverse any RfC. False accusations don't reflect well at ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form was the RfC close. That is quite clearly includes the section title, including the term "anti-transgender" that was discussed in the RfC. As far as your not being made aware of it, BastunAutumn King referred to the this edit - which was on the Talk page before your edit warring and is still on the Talk page now - explicitly acknowledged that the editor in question changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise. No, the word RfC wasn't used in that case, and I didn't use it when I referred back to the same consensus, but it isn't my referring to a previous discussion as "an RfC" that makes it one, or that makes Edit Warring against it against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Obvious WP:WIKILAWYERing. The RfC never discussed the heading itself, nor did the closure specifically mention it. When it was referred to here (actually by Autumnking2012), on 6 June, I never read that discussion; I didn't join the talk page until 2 weeks later, here, at a higher discussion that had picked up again. And as for this, you never even linked it. So, no, I am not at fault for going against an RfC I did not know about and that did not address the heading. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; I have now corrected the name of the actual author of the diff, above.

It seems obvious to me that the close, The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form, includes the section heading itself; the RfC did explicitly discuss the appropriateness of the term "anti-transgender" in the text, which was the object of your edit warring on the article (as well as your BLUDGEON and IDONTHEARTHAT in the current RfC). So I'm not sure that "I was unaware that the previous discussion people keep referring to was actually an RfC" provided a valid justification for the slow edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I was pinged a couple of days ago, apologies for not replying sooner. In all honesty, I have avoided getting too involved in all this. However, I do strongly feel that there is a major issue at present with the editing of transgender related issues on Wikipedia, in particular with certain WP:BLP’s. The talk page atmosphere has become unhelpful and unconstructive, largely due to users’ insistence of casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. Unfortunately, this is something Bastun appears to do on a frequent basis. For what it is worth, I will add my experiences:

• The first was on what I believe was my first interaction with Bastun. Following an editing disagreement at J. K. Rowling, I took the matter to the talk page as requested. Bastun’s first reply to me contained the following [88] Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours. It is my opinion that this type of response is not only unnecessary and against WP:UNCIVIL as well as going against WP:AGF, but that it is also an attempt to discourage editing by those who disagree with them. When I responded asking that editors refrains from throwing aspersions at others motivations, Bastun’s response was to double down [89] Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. which is pretty much agree with my edits or you are wrong/anti-transgender. I strongly dispute the allegation thrown at me here, and am confident that my editing supports that. Like many editors, my editing has periods where it tends to “go down a rabbit hole”, following linked articles/issues to make subsequent edits. However, my aim has only ever been to insert balance, especially in BLP’s, something which is often severely lacking in this topic. If by “minimising” we mean attempting to present balanced opinion, using reliable sources as opposed to conjecture and opinion pieces, using neutral language for WP:WikiVoice and avoiding contentious WP:LABEL’s, then I will happily admit to such.
• During the somewhat protracted and unproductive RFC at Graham Linehan regarding the section title “Anti-transgender activism”, Bastun saw fit to make the following comment [90] This was very clearly aimed at myself, and again was totally unnecessary and unhelpful and felt simply like another attempt to discourage my input.

This should not be the way Wikipedia editors treat each other. Assume good faith should always come first, and seeing Bastun’s interaction with others as well, I do not feel that is how they are acting. Additionally, the Linehan RFC very clearly illustrates the problems in this area. I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. There is a section title which multiple editors agree is contentious, which many are concerned violates standards for a WP:BLP and in particular of WP:LABEL and which is not widely supported by sources. Various alternate options have been put forward. A group of editors disagree that it is contentious and therefore refuse to discuss alternatives, and continually insist that the current section title remains. This should not be how Wikipedia works. If multiple editors feel there is an issue, the resolution is to find a compromise not to double down. It is pretty unacceptable that the section heading still remains. I am unsure as to whether a topic ban for Bastun would be the solution, he is not the only editor behaving in this manner. But something really needs to be done to resolve these issues. AutumnKing (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think it might be helpful to discuss, not the Bastun part of this comment, but Autumnking's characterization I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. I don't think this accurately summarizes either the RfC or AutumnKing's part in it. Their concluding attempt to add evidence to the discussion - for which I expressed appreciation - was this. Both I and other editors suggested alternative readings of that evidence, additional evidence, and additional policy considerations. From that point, the evidence-based discussion simply stopped on that subthread and the BATTLEGROUND resumed over what the stable heading had actually been. From there to here, I see very insistent doubling down on the part of those who are more interested in discussing their internal conviction of NPOV than actual evidence and policy on the matter, and a willingness to continue the POV dispute by other means which led directly to this filing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  And these replies were themselves replied to, there were multiple editors on each side, and there was no official closure. For those who want to see the entire discussion in context: Talk:Graham Linehan#RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?

• May 2020 ANI thread
• July 2020 ANI thread
• Thread on my talk page
• Fred Sargeant talk page thread
• Bastun's talk page thread

Let me start for apologising for what will be a lengthy post - I feel it is necessarily so. I also want to stress that in writing it, I am accusing nobody of acting in bad faith, but I do think that there is some seriously problematic editing going on in this topic area.

I have been taken part in a number of discussions involving some of the editors mentioned and commenting in this thread. Some of them are noted above, but there have probably been others that don't jump so readily to mind. I've come to the conclusion that there are some issues that seem to make editing in this area particularly contentious, and make it difficult for some editors to truly follow the old WP:AGF maxim; discussions often become uncivil rapidly, quickly descending into sarcasm, personal commentary and accusations of improper conduct. There are numerous examples in the threads I've posted above, and many more can be found by checking the contributions histories of some of those commenting here.

I don't pretend to be in a position to comment on why some people find it so hard to collaborate constructively in this area with people who they disagree with. I think that Bodney's moving explanation above about how they came to edit J. K. Rowling is interesting though. I don't intend to single Bodney out for criticism here, but if an editor is coming to a BLP because the subject has spoken out on an issue that is so close to the editor's heart, I think that it would inevitably be exceedingly difficult to avoid editing, unconsciously perhaps, with a RGW attitude, and it would perhaps be unusually difficult to see avoid seeing editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being 'enemies', rather than collaborators.

I'm not sure that a topic ban for Bastun would do anything to solve the over-arching problems here; I wonder whether a more widespread approach is needed. BLPs are already covered by discretionary sanctions, which might need to be enforced more actively in this area, but I'm not sure whether that is in itself sufficient. Here is an example of Newimpartial telling an editor with whom they disagree that they are talking out of their arse. That sort of confrontational approach is not civil, it is a barrier to effective collaboration, but it is not on a BLP talk page. I'm starting to wonder whether 'Transgender issues' needs to be covered by its own discretionary sanctions, targeted at enforcing civility and cooperation. I'd welcome others' views on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit it is OK I have no personal WP:RGW issues :) (I expect that will now be held against me for ever), prior to the current Rowling disputes i have done comparatively minor and infrequent amount of editing on trans issues (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Bodney/1 ) I am in fact passionate about all civil liberties and Human Rights, and I simply support the standing up against inequality & discrimination everywhere. Should anyone of any 'minority' be banned from taking part in articles that affect them, should Jewish or Muslim editors be banned from topics to do with their faiths or the Middle East, black editors from black lives matter etc , female editors from feminism etc, differently abled people be banned from issues relating to their impairment, .... etc etc I really do not think so. Its also one sided, every single editor who contributes to wikipedia everyone has their own political bias, both sides (and more sides) all have biases, but we all try to be neutral. If we removed everyone who spoke in support of a minority just because they might be linked to that minority, Wikipedia would be left with an enormous systemic bias. What matters is how we act. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I was saying that trans people shouldn't edit trans articles - that is very far from my position. I was speculating on why it is such a contentious area, and I thought your comments might shed some light on that. Having said that, I would observe that the distinction between 'speaking in support of a minority', and 'righting great wrongs', is subtle. We're not here to advocate for any position, we aim to be genuinely neutral. If one has strong feelings about something, one might be well advised to avoid it as an editing interest. I do not direct this at you, and I have not looked into your contribs in detail - it's a general observation, not a criticism. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions are desirable, although as you said, BLP sanctions are already available. The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed, as seen above. I support community general sanctions for transgender topics per Girth Summit. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly agree that topic-specific DS are desirable. I have definitely had my lapses, which usually come late in a long interaction with editors who violate editing and/or talk page norms, as illustrated by the diff provided by Girth Summit above (the editor I addressed was banned for edit warring before the comment was made, as it turns out, but I shouldn't have let them get to me).
• So I do think that more active enforcement of WP:NPA in this area would help, but this should also address the persistent tendency for editors in this area to engage in civil POV disputes, complete with moving goalposts and Lucy's football, and also the remarkably consistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior whereby editors refuse to condescend to provide evidence (whether diffs or sources or whatever) because of course their position is self-evidently correct. Strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies thrive in this environment and make policy-based consensus almost impossible to achieve. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, and I also wanted to sincerely thank Girth Summit and anyone else who reads these difficult talk pages in order to comment on this ANI filing. It can't be easy to go through Talk:Trans woman, Talk:Graham Linehan, or for that matter the ongoing PinkNews RSN discussion, and I salute anyone with the stomach for it. I mean, I can't take more than a peek at Politics of J. K. Rowling discussions (or even edit summaries) before scurrying away like a timorous beastie, so I wish well to all who manage to bring fresh eyes to bear. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support discretionary sanctions for all articles that deal with transgender issues.WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:HOUNDING violations are out of control and have been for some time. The most aggressive editors work as a bloc to overwhelm any others who attempt to make pages adhere to WP:NPOV. I have confidence that the admins will recognize any offenders who might attempt to manipulate them and will deal with rule violations consistently. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it is already covered by WP:ARBGG, so you are already authorized to apply the discretionary sanctions as you see fit. El_C 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that gamergate discretionary sanctions were interpreted that broadly, but looking at it again I see that it covers any gender-related dispute or controversy. If you are confident that it would be uncontroversial to apply GG in content disputes over transgender issues, I will bear that in mind for the future.

Newimpartial, Lilipo25 your comments directly above kind of underline the point that I was making. I am certain that stuff like what you describe does happen - but too many people in these debates lose their trust in other people far too quickly, and start seeing everyone who disagrees with them as part of an opposing side, and seem to end up assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is guilty of things like civil POV pushing, failure to hear whatever, hounding when they turn up at related articles, etc. WP:OFWV really is worth reading, and trying to abide by - especially when interacting with people you disagree with. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I'm confident. In fact, I have just invoked ARBGG to sanction Newimpartial yesterday with a one-way interaction ban with Lilipo. El_C 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still not entirely clear how this sequence of events merits this outcome, but I suppose discretionary sanctions means not having to say you're sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of innuendo is to your credit, Newimpartial. I recognize venting, but you are not doing yourself any favours by engaging the imposition of your sanction in this manner. El_C 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The I-BAN has has been ruled upon by an experienced admin. Wikipedia has legitimate avenues for appeals if that's what is desired. I would love some peace on that front. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (as original filer) I think that in any case, the BLP discretionary sanctions need to be enforced more actively in this area. It would help a great deal. The POV pushers in this area often fall into BLP violations. But the issues go beyond BLPs, and yes, there is already the GG/gender DS too. Yes, there is much incivility. Yes, the problems seem to come from WP:RGW behavior. As Johnuniq said, "The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed". And there is so much WP:SEALIONing, but not by the group Newimpartial thinks. It is hard to even try to get these issues handled, because WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view..., and this is hard to prove with diffs. And then when a report is made, one can see above the denial, closing of ranks, whataboutism, and by one editor in particular, use of the WP:BLUDGEON against the filer (me). Crossroads ^-talk- 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 14:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  From over here, the problem looks different. There are RfCs held, to establish the consensus or policy-compliant version, and then people with a strong sense of subjective certainty (SMcCandlish is paradigmatic in this regard) arrive, completely prepared to ignore consensus, RGW as they perceive them conforming to NPOV according to themselves, without the modest accessories of sources or evidence. The arrivals then engage only superficially in Talk Page discussion, or edit war, or FORUMSHOP or just engage in skewed editing from their own POV. I am (have been, in fact) the first to admit that there are civility violations on all sides, but as long as "one side" is convinced that the "other" is engaged in RGW and they alone are the guardians of NPOV (a kind of NPOV so deeply understood that it doesn't need sources or evidence), it is difficult and frustrating to move forward with these articles. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

But those of us trying to hold the centre ground are not the obverse of the POV-pushers. We have an influx of editors simply looking to bash Graham Linehan or J.K. Rowling etc. because they have an axe to grind with them and think they are "TERFs". Then we appear to have another group of editors who, like me, have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues but just see a real mess being made of Wikipedia articles. I only waded in because I remembered some of Linehan's comedy and noticed his article had been distorted into an attack page with several other glaring issues. It's also true that the problems at these pages do run much deeper than you and Bastun, although you have undoubtedly been consistently among the worst culprits. If I had strong emotions around hating some celebrity or pushing some other sort of controversial positions I'd probably keep away from them on Wikipedia to be honest. Experience tells me that it will only end one way, and ultimately no amount of whataboutery or off-Wiki canvassing will change that. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, Daz, I have nothing against Graham Linehan; I have nothing against J. K. Rowling; I have nothing against Fred Sargeant. In the latter two cases, I hold real respect for their early work. In the case of Linehan, I don't know his work, and I literally had not heard of him until his 2019 fiasco on Trans issues.

But when you did these POV edits followed by this over-the-top comment on Linehan, well, your perception that you have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues seems misleading. Your idea of BALANCE in the currently existing RS commentary on Linehan just seems to be off, and your edit-warring last year to remove the section on the issues for which he is now best known is, in fact, a version of RGW thinking, even if you can't see it in yourself. That isn't the "centre ground", man, and we can only base an assessment of NPOV on sourced discussion, not on feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Daz, please do not claim that you are trying to hold the center against POV pushers when you replaced a whole section of the Graham Linehan article with a single NPOV sentence that describes his critics as "censoring" him, and then when the ensuing RfC turned overwhelmingly against your edit you called your opponents "transvestite activists".

To be honest, I have been very frustrated by this rhetorical gambit from multiple people on multiple trans-related articles. For some reason, people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. But that's not true. Everyone is trying to improve these articles, including the people you disagree with. The people who are trying to add examples of anti-trans activism to Graham Linehan's page aren't doing so because they are pushing a POV, they are doing it because it is heavily documented in reliable sources. If the people who were claiming they were "neutral" had free reign of these articles, they would be worse: heavily POV and discounting many statements from many reliable sources. Loki (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, when that happens, we get "balanced" versions like this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

More whataboutery and finger pointing. This was a genuine attempt at WP:SOFIXIT to a single article, more than a year ago. Contrary to what you have written here there was no edit warring on my part, and the 'examples' of supposedly POV edits you've cherrypicked are pretty lame too. Contrary to what you are suggesting I took the result of that RfC on the chin and walked away. I have never been active at any of these other articles which you all descended upon. No wonder you're currently subject to interaction bans if you go about making these sort of unfounded aspersions! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

When we are talking about TENDENTIOUS editing that does not conform to the neutral point of view..., I think we have to consider specific, representative cases or descend into mudslinging or caricature. Thoughtful consideration of cases is not what WHATABOUTISM is. Section blanking with POV insertion in the midst of an RfC is not a "cherrypicked" example, it is a key one in terms of policy, as I thought you understood since to my knowledge you have not repeated the gesture. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem too worried about descending into mudslinging and caricature - it seems to be your stock-in-trade. I'm glad you seem to have dropped your incorrect allegations of edit warring though. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is still edit warring even if you don't break 3RR; you reinstated both your template tag and your section blank after reverts. But those are just facts [91] [92] [93] [94] Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That isn't edit warring. Given your own long and happy liaison with edit-warring (and other WP:BATTLEGROUND antics) I might have expected you to know the difference! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Daz, my problem is not so much with the edits themselves. I recognize they were made years ago, and that you struck the comment later. My problem is your insistence that you are merely a neutral observer fighting against POV-pushing opponents while you have in the past demonstrated a clear POV. I don't have anything against you personally and recognize that even edits I think are obviously POV were from your perspective a genuine attempt to improve the article. All I'm asking you is to assume that same minimal amount of good faith of everyone else. Your perspective isn't objective or neutral just because it's yours, and other people aren't "POV-pushing" just because they disagree with you. Loki (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Listen, if Graham Linehan had offended some other set of particularly zealous ideologues (vegans, Zionists or whoever) I'd still have showed up at the talk page, and tried to have the same sort of discussion with them. That's the difference. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And you would have done so with an anti-vegan POV, or an anti-Zionist POV, presuming you arrived with the assumption that their edits were bad and should be opposed. Many people can believe a thing because that thing is true: the fact that you see them as "zealous ideologues" who are "offended" (when I presume you wouldn't say that about, say, believers in evolution removing creationism from a biology article) without even a serious attempt to discern whether what they believe is supported by the sources is a further indication that your "neutral" POV is nothing of the sort. Loki (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. There's an irony in how editors who like to go on and on about their own "neutrality" and their hatred of "activism" are very likely to be partisan. If you (and here I'm speaking generally) have a dog-eared copy of a RadFem book about how "transwomen" are "erasing" "real women" on your bedside, and if you can't stub your toe without angrily accusing the coffee table of being a "transgender activist", you probably aren't quite as neutral as you make yourself out to be. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Shout out to Talk: Lesbian erasure. The page is aggressively archived, but there is some good material here for those who want to see frustrated editors talking past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I'm going to be honest here - I have no idea what your post is about, or who you are referring to. Please either be clear about the point you are making, or refrain from commenting. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

(This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section per WP:TPOC)

The above clearly demonstrates that there is a huge battle going on regarding this topic. I would like to open a discussion about what to do about it. Suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: terminology RfC - it might help to have an RfC on NPOVN concerning whether "anti-transgender activism" is subject to normal sourcing requirements (like "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish sentiment"), or whether it is subject to the stricter requirements of LABEL. Lots of people think they know the answer to that question, but it gets discussed heatedly on various pages without any consistent outcome. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think there's potentially something in that suggestion, but I'm not quite sure about the comparisons you've used to make your point. You've compared "Anti-transgender activism" to "Anti-black violence". I don't think that it would be controversial to describe an attack on a trans person, because they were trans, as "anti-transgender violence", or as a "transphobic assault". However, "Anti-transgender activism" isn't quite the same. "Anti-black activism" would more usually be called "White supremacism", which I think most people would agree would fall under LABEL, as does neo-Nazi (which is listed explicitly, alongside "transphobic"). The same goes for "anti-Jewish sentiment" - if we're talking about the abstract idea of anti-Jewish sentiment, it's not being applied as a label - but if we call someone an anti-Semite, or say that they are involved in anti-Semitic activism, I think that LABEL would definitely apply. If an RfC is necessary to nail that down, it might be a good option. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I intended that as a real question, not a rhetorical device. I understand that there are differing perspectives on this, and it may also make a difference whether a particular discussoon concerns a BLP matter or not. So I would like to see the community discuss this matter outside of the BATTLEGROUND of a particular page. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion dealing with the content dispute over the phrase "anti-transgender activism" will just move the battle to a new phrase or some other way for the combatants to have a go at each other. I think we need a general solution of some kind. Simple dealing with the one phrase will leave us playing Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Query - I am wondering if there is any provision anywhere in the rules that could limit the sources that can be used for articles that are proven battlegrounds? I know it's a long shot, but it seems like a lot of the trouble occurs because there are so many subject-specific websites and publications now that whenever a topic is as controversial as this one, anyone can find a source that says pretty much anything on it that they happen to agree with. If we were limited to only using content from general news sources that don't specialize in either of the polarized viewpoints - meaning no feminist or LGBT publications - and that have a Wikipedia rating of "Reliable", it might cut out a chunk of the edit warring. I've never seen any provision for it and frankly, I don't even know if it's feasible, but figured I'd throw it out if we're brainstorming ideas here. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo25 Take a look at WP:PARTISAN. Sources which might be perceived as biased are not disallowed if they are otherwise reliable, but it is often appropriate to use in-text attribution when using them. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Well, if limiting the sources can't be done, I'm not sure what would help other than the consistent monitoring of these articles by a few genuinely impartial admins, and strict sanctions going forward for anyone violating the rules. I know that admins are busy and I don't know how it would work, exactly, but things like opening yet another RFC on the same section heading would get us nowhere: we'll just have the same arguments all over again, and there's far more than that one subject heading in dispute anyway. The divide between the two points of view is at this point a chasm the Colorado River could have made and I'm sorry to say that without more oversight, I don't see these entries ever becoming less of a battleground. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any admin volunteering to constantly monitor the ongoing battle. How about a warning to everyone who is doing the fighting that if it doesn't stop, everybody involved will be given a "no fault" month away from the article so that some other editors can give it a go? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying "everyone involved" gets blocked from the article implies that would include people who are being personally attacked/hounded/etc. as well as those who are the perpetrators, and that seems both unfair and unhelpful. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? I certainly wouldn't say that everyone is equally guilty, but it does take two or more people to have a battle. Look, it isn't the end of the world being caught up in a "no fault" month away from the article, especially if it the no fault bit is is made clear. We routinely block everybody from editing a page with full protection -- including editors who have never edited the page. I don't see anyone who has been harmed by this. I think that "kick everyone off the page for a month and let new editors give it a go" is reasonable in a world where we routinely decide to "kick everyone off the page for a month and don't let new editors give it a go". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that will work for the time out, but I fail to see how that will make editors work cooperatively afterwords. I still favor some sort of carrot and stick approach for the long term. Ward20 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're trying to say with this sentence: If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? as that doesn't seem in any way at all to disprove that there are often issues between editors in which only one is actually at fault? And "it isn't the end of the world" to punish an innocent person is a poor argument in any case: if "the end of the world" is the standard by which we plan to judge what is a fair response and what isn't, we might as well just ban everyone who disagrees on the first offense. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is my theory: [A] The battling editors may find a one-month time out to be a good motivation to cooperate instead of battling. We have seen this many times with on month full protection. [B] One or more of the battling editors may not come back. Again, often seen with on month full protection. [C] The new editors may be able to create a version that the battling editors are willing to live with. [D] when the month expires, the new editors may be able to change the dynamic on the talk page. I think it is worth a try. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, this is still unjust "both sides"-ism as Lilipo25 said. And the simple fact is that full protection is not a sanction on individual editors, but a topic ban is. As for "it takes two", pretty much any social misbehavior takes two or more, but any civilized legal system knows only the wrongdoer is to be punished. Anything else is simply wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Who told you that a partial block (that's what I am proposing, not a topic ban) of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days is a sanction on individual editors, but a block of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days plus everyone else is not a sanction on individual editors? That any admin who applies a no fault page block and says that it targets everybody who has edited the page whether they are at fault or not is automatically lying? Neither the no fault page block or the full protection singles out any individual or attempts to assign blame. In fact both actions purposely affect both the guilty and the innocent. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No way is my clean block log getting sullied because 'no fault block for all'. You apparently don't see it that way, but let's be real here: blocks and bans are pretty much only given to those who have done wrong. So no, I will not roll over and accept a public humiliation without good cause. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I'm with Crossroads on this. Until this time I thought this was about a full protection of the article for a month. That I would reluctantly support, but I am totally opposed to having a partial block history on my record for editing constructively at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ward20 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I had not considered the block logs. I withdraw my proposal until such time as the W?F gives administrators the ability to do it without causing entries in the block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think it would be a help I would be willing to commit to a voluntary editing time out along with the commitment of the other involved editors. There could be a discussion about it, and a pledge sign up on the talk page. It could even be a coerced time out, voluntarily pledge or face a partial block. That might eliminate the block log quandary as it is giving the editors a choice to opt out of a block. I think there are less than 10 on the Politics of J. K. Rowling. I do not know how many editors are involved in the J. K. Rowling‎ article as I haven't been involved there nearly as much much. It seems like it would be easy to monitor as there would be several editors checking their watchlist to observe activity. It could be reported here for sanctions if someone broke their pledge not to edit. Question though, if a voluntary editing time out is implemented would it include the talk page? Just wondering. Ward20 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that Wikipedia does not have a legal system, "civilized" or otherwise. Strong moral intuitions here, though. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:NOTLAW, but the principle stands nonetheless. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So you weren't really saying that Wikipedia ANIs constitute a legal court under international law? (; Thanks for your continued attempts to debate in good faith. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The issues seem to be not adhereing to: "Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. and not adhering to WP:AGF by mentioning motives of editors.

Propose: 1RR per editor per day, and trying to find an uninvolved admin to follow the article and give a week or more time out on the topic to any editor that violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING or WP:Tendentious editing. This is not a unique problem, there must be a history of how to handle this. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section"

(As promised, moved from above section.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I already stated what I think needs to be done when I started this thread, and gave evidence when I did so: [95] And this very recent comment by Autumnking2012 is also particularly evidence based. The bulk of all this behavior occurred within 1 year of Bastun's 4 July 2019 BLP DS notification. There's been a lot of noise since this thread started consisting of WP:IDHT and whataboutism, but if administrators focus on the evidence, they will know what to do. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I do think some problem editors need to be blocked or topic banned, and anti-trans POV-pushers pose a particular problem. Of course, over-eager non-transphobic editors can be a problem too, but a partisan with a strong, angry view about a vulnerable minority group will necessarily be a bigger problem when it comes to maintaining an atmosphere of WP:NEUTRALity and WP:CIVILITY. Everything the WP:NONAZIS essay says about racist POV-pushers applies just as well to transphobe POV pushers. Just substitute "transphobe" for "racist": [a] problem with racist beliefs is that they immediately alienate any non-racist. As soon as a good-faith editor begins to suspect another editor of harboring these beliefs, it becomes all but impossible for them to work together without conflict. The block a couple of years ago of one problem editor for transphobia, a block which was upheld by community consensus, was a good start, but he was part of a larger circle of bad faith actors who contribute to a poisonous atmosphere on the site. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

So, in contrast to my suggestion of a single editor getting a topic ban tailored to fit proven disruption, WanderingWanda apparently wants multiple blocks/topic-bans doled out to unnamed anti-trans POV-pushers and partisan[s] with a strong, angry view. The previous indef of TaylanUB, who actually had significant evidence against them and who repeatedly engaged in misgendering, was just a good start. Actually, I agree that editors who engage in a pattern of any kind of POV pushing, tendentiousness, attacks, and so on should be topic banned or blocked, including that which is anti-trans. But given the claim of an apparently already-existing larger circle of bad faith actors, this looks to me a lot more like casting WP:ASPERSIONS and creating a chilling effect. Regarding WP:NONAZIS, I believe the WP:CRYRACIST portion is more relevant here: Casting aspersions of [transphobic] trolling and vandalism should not, however, be used as a trump card in disputes over content or at a noticeboard. These claims can have a chilling effect and make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through....Unsubstantiated claims of [transphobic] vandalism and use of unsubstantiated claims to gain an upper hand in a content dispute or noticeboard thread is disruptive and a form of personal attack and will often lead to the user making it being blocked. Claims of [transphobia] should not be made lightly and editors should strive to work through the normal dispute resolution process when it comes to legitimate disagreements on interpretation and quality of sources and other content disputes rather than clear [transphobic] disruption. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, the instruction at the top of this section says specifically This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section. With all due respect, it appears that you've done exactly what it says we should not do, by attacking those on one side of the debate as transphobes and bad faith actors. I don't see how that's helpful here. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic banning Bastun is already being discussed. Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground. The section above is for solutions to the general problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground." Who are you responding to? Are you having difficulty keeping track of who said what? Because if your comment is directed at what User:Lilipo25 wrote, it's senseless and baseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is rather obvious who I was replying to. You are assuming a huge amount of bad faith over how many colons someone put in front of a talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"It is rather obvious who I was replying to." Actually, it is not. Assume nothing, because the yada-yada keeps expanding and eyes begin to roll. So who, exactly, where you responding to? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

FWIW, I think that "anti-transgender activism" is obviously a WP:LABEL, since it's basically equivalent to "transphobic activism", but LABELs are sometimes justified. We call a whole bunch of neo-Nazis and white supremacists "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" when there's sufficient sourcing to justify it, and if anything is a LABEL it's "neo-Nazi". For example, the very first line of Richard Spencer is Richard Spencer is an American neo-Nazi..., without even in-text attribution. I feel like we need to update the wording of WP:LABEL to acknowledge more clearly that the presumption that these labels shouldn't be used can be defeated entirely (as in, even in-text attribution is not necessary) if the sourcing is strong enough. Loki (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, the comparison to Richard Spencer is not an apt one. I did not want to debate the WP:LABEL here, but as several editors have brought it up now with the argument that it is fine to call him "anti-transgender" in a Wikipedia heading because he is - and we now have a comparison of his views to those of Richard Spencer - I think it's necessary.

Spencer is called a neo-Nazi because he recited the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels in the original German ("Lügenpresse") at pro-Trump appearances during the 2018 presidential campaign, encouraged his followers to give him the Nazi "stiff-armed" salute, called for "ethnic cleansing" of Jews and other minorities and, when Trump was elected, gave a speech telling his followers to "party like it's 1933" (the year Hitler came to power in Germany). No matter what anyone thinks of Linehan, he has never done anything even half so egregious in his disagreement with trans activists. He has stated repeatedly that he believes trans rights are human rights and that it should be illegal to discriminate against trans people in the workplace or in housing or education, etc. His beliefs (that self-ID laws are wrong because he doesn't think someone born in a male body should be able to self-identify into women's prisons, sports and changing rooms, and that children should not be given medical intervention to transition like puberty blockers or surgery), are certainly very controversial, but Wikipedia cannot summarily label them "anti-transgender", particularly when there are some transgender activists who support them. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I pretty strongly disagree with the assertion that Linehan has "never done anything even half so egregious". I think he has been quite blatant about his anti-transgender activism, and the fact that the nature of his activism is anti-transgender is stated clearly and repeatedly in the reliable sources, in a very directly analogous manner to how the fact that Spencer is a neo-Nazi is all over the RSes covering him. We're talking about a man who has been both banned from Twitter and warned by police for transphobic harassment. Loki (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Warned by police: Come on. Stephanie Hayden - who calls herself "litigious" and was recently forced to admit in court that she is currently suing so many different people for "hate crimes" and harassment that she didn't even know how many court cases she had going - called the police because he misgendered her and called her by her previous male name when they were arguing on Twitter. A patrol officer was obligated to respond and said "just stop tweeting about her".. Are you really comparing that to Spencer saying that the US needs to be "ethnically cleansed" of Jews and black people, while encouraging people to salute him the way they saluted a man who murdered six million people? And yes, Twitter banned him for saying "A man can't be a woman". You have every right to be offended by that. Other people have the right to agree with it. But it isn't even close to Richard Spencer quoting Joseph Goebbels, the architect of Jewish genocide.in Europe. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Socionics

Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources [96], [97], [98]. There is a long-running conflict over socionics in the Russian Wikipedia. Almost all supporters of socionics were permanently blocked. --Q Valda (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here are two editors that remove RS: ThesariusQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Sounderk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — they seem like sock- or meatpuppetry (like in ru-wiki) intended for violation of WP:3RR rule. --Q Valda (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Q Valda, can you link to the blocked accounts on ru-wiki? Seeing that they are blocked and why would help your case. But yes, the two accounts you link to here are WP:SPAs, and ThesariusQ especially looks like a sockpuppet (if not that, a meatpuppet), in terms of appearing out of nowhere when needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Blocked accounts of socionics supporters:
      • ru:Участница:Валентина Мегедь
      • ru:Участник:Женя Гавриленко
      • ru:Участник:Smyslovik
      • ru:Участник:Murad250977777
      • ru:Участник:Gennadiy Frolov
      • ru:Участник:Staruwkastarik
      • ru:Участник:RVR246
      • ru:Участник:Aleksandr Bukalov
      • ru:Участница:Юлиана лемешева
      • ru:Участник:Prolisock
      • ru:Участник:Irdims
      • ru:Участник:Prometeus-Z
      • ru:Участник:Gelios1
      • ru:Участник:Olly k2
    • --Q Valda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Two more editors with the same modus operandi: Igor RD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [99], and anonym [100] – [101] – [102]. --Q Valda (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC) and one more Echidna1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [103] --Q Valda (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Gennadiy Frolov has the exact same userpage formatting as ThesariusQ with the weird sub-heading with the username, I think it's clear that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

QuantumBorg [104] edits [105] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in ru-wiki [106],[107],[108],[109]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [110]. Тhey seem like sock- or meatpuppetry.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

QuantumBorg edited exactly once on the 14th. Q Valda has previously edited the article in 2018, and resumed recently on the 29th. I don't see the problem there - as opposed to the pro-fringe editors who all rotated in and out in the course of a day to game the WP:3RR rule. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie has it right. I address this here: [111] And ThesariusQ is themselves the subject of an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits — wrong. There is consensus in ru-wiki about pseudoscientific nature of socionics. Here are diffs on some edits from different people (including admin) — [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129] --Q Valda (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points.

1) Consensus on ru.wiki has no bearing on en.wiki

2) non-consensual

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Don't mock users who clearly don't speak English as their first language about their word choices, it's obvious what they are trying to say and you have contributed nothing to the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Point 1 of my comment explicitly added to the discussion. And I added point 2 to lighten the tone of my comment, so it wasn't just "you're wrong." I apologize if it came across as mean-spirited, as that was not my intent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What goes on at ru-wiki is of interest here in an advisory capacity, however, especially since socionics is mainly a thing only in post-Soviet nations, and Q Valda is talking about ru-wiki to rebut ThesariusQ's claims that ru-wiki found it is not pseudoscience. I understood "non-consensual" to mean "against consensus". Crossroads ^-talk- 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed block

ThesariusQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock/meatpuppets Sounderk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Igor RD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Echidna1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked.

• 1. At this SPI, Sounderk and ThesariusQ were "possilikely" to each other. Igor RD was "possible". Igor RD and Echidna1000's behavior makes them obvious meatpuppets at best. There's also an IP. The SPI is presently awaiting administration and close after CheckUser.
• 2. Above, unusual userpage formatting was pointed to by Hemiauchenia to show that ThesariusQ is almost certainly Gennadiy Frolov, one user of many who is indeffed on ru-wiki. [130]
• 3. Here, ThesariusQ pointed to a comment by a "neutral participant" on ru-wiki, but Q Valda showed this is by another of ThesariusQ's socks. [131] (As Q Valda well put it, they are "part of [the] pro-socionics puppet-show".)
• 4. MrOllie noted above that the sock/meatpuppets were used to violate 3RR prior to Socionics' extended confirmed protection. This is easily visible in the page history [132] on 30 and 31 July 2020.

The above shows a clear pattern of deception on the part of ThesariusQ and their sock/meatpuppets. Ru-wiki has also had a major issue with sockpuppetry and other misbehavior in this area, leading to blocks of very many fringe theory proponents, as explained above. Such behavior is disruption and should be stopped. And ThesariusQ is still continuing to push WP:PROFRINGE views about socionics at Talk:Socionics and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Socionics. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hostility towards tag and prod removers from Ravenswing

Let me preface this by saying I respect the time Ravenswing puts into the project.

That being said, there is a problem. Ravenswing has been prodding articles with longstanding problem tags. While I personally think that in general deletion of articles that have survived for over a decade is unlikely to be entirely uncontroversial, that's not even what this is about. The issue is that when anybody has the nerve to challenge a PROD or tag by Ravenswing, his response may be:

• "something of a garbage deprod there"
• "... but, it seems, you weren't motivated to add any sources or improve the article in any way. Fair enough." (the "fair enough" is obviously dripping with sarcasm)
• "... whoof. You're honestly implying that it takes over ten years to source an article? That does say it all, doesn't it."
• And he just bludgeons the discussion by repeating the same "10 years" argument over and over.

These examples are from this month, but apparently it ain't nothing new: "My, you're not very good at listening or at assuming good faith, are you? (..) For another, if you're going to act like a butthurt newbie incensed that someone has "dissed" HER article" is from December 2019.

I have asked Ravenswing directly in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Ravenswing influx whether they acknowledge that this kind of approach isn't inspiring collaboration. Instead of answering the question, Ravenswing suggested I bring this to ANI.

In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Ravenswing talks to us the way we talk to him! How beastly!" Reyk _YO! 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Aye, thank you. For instance, what Alexis Jazz carefully didn't quote from that bit from last December, on my user talk page, was the bit preceding it, which I invite people to review: [133]. Or, perhaps, some of Alexis Jazz's own comments:[134][135][136] (Just FYI, my actual answer to them, in a discussion based on the deprodders' alarm that I was prodding more articles that had been carrying notability tags for over a decade than they appreciated, was “I certainly acknowledge that "When did you stop beating your wife?" style questions aren't going to get any kind of answer from me. Feel free to take it to ANI, if you're unafraid of boomerangs.” Ravenswing 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the interaction on my talk page (I beleive this was prompted by my Preview (computing) deprod) that Alexis Jazz has already cited, I found this AfD discussion unnecessarily hostile. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly found hostile, in that case, that you deprodded with a rationale that a redirect or merge was more appropriate, then you reverted the redirect, and then claimed that there were useful sources when not a single one of them actually mentioned the subject. Nor, if you were wishful of avoiding hostility, was a response of "Why don't we just close this as redirect and I'll make some improvements to Steven Martini and we'll have an edit war there or whatever" helpful. Ravenswing 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you willing to acknowledge your own hostility? You're eager here to identify it when yours brings out the worst in others. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• oppose any sort of action against Ravenswing. This is just plain old silly. Disagreement can be terse but it isn't uncivil and there isn't any type of disruption to warrant any sort of ban. Praxidicae (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: We do have editors reluctant to challenge Ravenswing's prods due to expected hostility. Isn't that a type of disruption? I do see incivility in these interactions. Am I imagining things or being overly sensitive? ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like they are afraid to be challenged. Doesn't seem uncivil to me. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing civil or constructive about interactions like this, blatant badgering, responses like this, or any of the other stuff that has been presented here. It's evident from this that Ravenswing is attempting to bully anyone who opposes their attempts at deletion. The strawman fallacies are not a good sign either ([137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]). Darkknight2149 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: This sort of thing is unfortunately very common among overzealous deletionists (who almost always have a victim complex as they assume bad faith toward anyone who deprods or opposes them for any reason). Everyone is entitled to deprod an article if they dispute the deletion. Controversial redirects must be discussed. Full stop. If Ravenswing has evidence that this snarkiness is called for, they should present it. But generally speaking, even an "eye for an eye" approach is disruptive. Darkknight2149 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Overzealous deletionist who almost always has a victim complex" is, in my view, more uncivil than any of the recent quotes in the OP. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not uncivil. OZ is something that I feel is aptly applicable here, and "victim complex" refers to acting like the victim after attempting to bully or harassing another user (which is something that tends to happen on Wikipedia, to the point that there is a guideline on that). Darkknight2149 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a policy at all. It's an opinionated essay. Reyk _YO! 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• The comment I was replying to originally presented WP:Overzealous deletion as a policy. That's been quietly edited away. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in case this wasn't obvious from the above. Firstly, it's not clear what admin action is being requested. Secondly, it hasn't been shown that Ravenswing is being any more hostile towards others as they are towards him. The opposite has been shown, in fact. Thirdly, the above support is so mendacious and hypocritical that I can't let it pass without comment. Reyk _YO! 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Reyk: From OP, the requested admin action is, In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I just double checked all of the supposed "evidence" of rudeness from Alex Jazz above, and they really don't help Raven's case ([143], [144], [145], [146]). Each of these diffs clearly show Alex and The Drover's Wife responding to Raven in a calm and collected manner. Calmly calling someone out for being uncivil or bludgeoning a discussion is not disruptive, and it's exactly what WP:UNCIVIL says to do. Likewise, no one needs anyone's approval to deprod an article, and no discussion is even required in the first place. Instead of badgering those who do, Ravenswing needs to either open an WP:AFD or engage in dispute resolution in a less confrontational manner. Harassment in fact disruptive, regardless of whether or not you agree with the prods. Darkknight2149 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Drover's Wife accuses Ravenswing of being a vandal, of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and of marking his territory like a dog cocking its leg. Ravenwing tells him to jog off and he is the bad guy? Really? Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound." - Yes, that's very ironic coming from you. There is absolutely no weight to any of the supposed "counter evidence" against Alex Jazz. So far, no evidence has been provided that The Drover's Wife is casting aspersions either. You can poke the bee hive all day long, but that won't magically help your case. As of right now, everything else makes Raven look worse, not better. The ball is in your court. Darkknight2149 10:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• To say that the case against Ravenswing has collapsed would be to imply there ever was one. At four opposes to one support, it's clear that no action will be taken. This is not surprising: generally evidence against someone must be presented before action can be taken against them, and this has not been done. The ball is in your court. The fact that you treat this as a game says a lot. Reyk _YO! 11:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reyk, as Kvng quoted it, I think the request was quite clear. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Would be better to decide (via RFC) the criteria for prodding. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That has already been discussed to death, and regardless of criteria, it doesn't justify harassment. This is not a content issue. WP:INCIVILITY is defined as "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable", which I think fits the bill here. There are claims from Reyk and Ravenswing that the deprodders were uncivil first, which I don't believe has been substantiated and Raven's statements at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion suggest that s/he is always confrontational. But even if that's the case, it still doesn't justify what Ravenswing is doing - "In general, be non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought he or she was being uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see below) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve." Darkknight2149 22:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think that anyone who, a few lines above, accused another editor of having a "victim complex" is in any position to be lecturing others about incivility. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I should clarify that I didn't say Raven necessarily has a victim complex, I said that harassing other users and then accusing them of their harassment ("victim complex") is a common trend among overzealous deletion. However, I must opine that you are treating this more as a content dispute than an actual ANI report. This thread is not an RFC about the value of prodding/de-prodding. If Ravenswing can substantiate that s/he was attacked first, I believe s/he should do so. Darkknight2149 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: This isn't about the criteria for prodding. While different policy may have prevented part of the conflict, it wasn't the actual issue. If a car breaks down the moment you hit a bump, you could smooth out all the bumps in the road, but the suspension on that car would still need to be looked at. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being direct with editors in any discussion. Much better then being polite & suggesting block/ban reports, just to get someone to stop disagreeing with you. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Another argument over the mess that is PROD - Wikipedia really doesn't help itself with this half-arsed method of deletion where a tag can be removed purely because someone doesn't like it, unlike a speedy tag. IMO there should only be two reasons for removing a PROD tag - 1) The reason given for deletion is either not a valid deletion reason, or is clearly not applicable to the article 2) The deletion reason is valid, but you fixed it before you removed the tag (i.e. you added sources to an unsourced article). If you're removing a PROD tag for another reason ("well, this actually looks notable, but I haven't got time to fix it now"), a far better idea would be to shift the article to Draft space so you can fix it when you can. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I've noticed Ravenswing's hostility too. I shrug it off myself but others are more sensitive. Note that The Drover's Wife, who is mentioned above, has retired, specifically citing Wikipedia's culture of bullying as the cause. That's a shame as they were quite congenial and productive.

Ravenswing's talk page indicates one possible reason for this unpleasantness, "This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia." Per WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:BATTLEGROUND, they should not be using Wikipedia to blow off steam. The remedy is also indicated there, "...work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "You're not acting in good faith: for one, you don't tag obviously experienced users with newbie warnings because you're feeling passive aggressive. Stop tagging articles that you have no intention of ever helpfully contributing to with tags that add nothing to the article and serve no purpose except to say "Ravenswing was here" so you can see your "work" marked on articles. These tags serve exactly the same function and rationale as someone graffiting a wall in real life, and they will be reverted." That's from The Drover's Wife; it's the beginning of the exchange you claim you read. Reyk characterized that eloquently above, but if that's your definition of gentle flowers wilted by "bullying," then I don't know what to say. Ravenswing 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hang on here. Curious, I went to The Drover's Wife user page to see what was what. And I see this: "Wikipedia has always had a hardnosed culture, and as someone who's pretty tough I've managed to get through it for a lot of years. It's one thing if people exchange hard words in a content dispute, as long as the point is ultimately to resolve that dispute, find an outcome people can live with, and move on. Bullying for the sake of bullying, over a resolved content dispute, on a level I've never experienced in all my years on Wikipedia, because someone feels like that's a thing those around them will accept, is a very different matter. When you're then threatened for speaking up about the influential bully's conduct, it tells you all you need to know about the culture you're dealing with." This is for an incident in April, several months after our own dispute. And you're inferring that I'm the cause? Ravenswing 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, for some reason a lot of inclusionists seem to think they can badmouth people all they want and everyone's supposed to nod sagely like they've just dropped a devastating truth bomb. But if you backchat they get all flustered and think they're being hard done by. Reyk _YO! 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reyk, most of your recent activity is spent being condescending and generally standoffish. You were recently called out for it at WP:Proposed deletion (by someone supported you) and your most recent accusation of "hardcore inclusionists" turned out to be objectively false. If you believe that these unnamed "inclusionists" (whom may or may not exist) are badmouthing you, I can only speculate that's the primary reason. Darkknight2149 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not one of those links you just dumped goes anywhere relevant. Try again. Reyk _YO! 19:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think I was very clear - "your most recent accusation of "hardcore inclusionists" turned out to be objectively false." But thank you for continuing to demonstrate your battleground mentality. I rest my case. Darkknight2149 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• You "rest your case"? That you think this is a court of law says a lot. Actually, I don't think you will "rest your case". I suspect the pompomendacious sermonizing will just go on and on and on. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• The subject here is Ravenswing and so extensive quotes from The Drover's Wife are not relevant. Ravenswing's own statements are better in communicating the issue:

  "My Rant of the Month: Turning on the flamethrower (7/20)
  An occasional column for rants of mine that I wanted to memorialize. For past rants, see my Rant Archive.
  ...
  But here's where I cross the civility line, and I don't really much care.
  ...
  what I feel for you is utter and deep contempt.
  — User:Ravenswing 02:19, 1 August 2020

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If those quotes are not relevant, then neither you nor the other two who raised her as an issue should have done so. Unless you're seeking to confirm Reyk's assertions? That being said, your routine hostility in deletion discussions is pervasive, never mind your assertion here [147] that you're justified because you're "protecting our content." Ravenswing 15:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction as nothing has happened that warrants sanctions. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unlikely to see anything come of this - Some of the diffs above show comments from Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. ...And some of the diffs above show comments towards Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. A couple notes before this thread is inevitably closed without action: (1) Don't bother asking people why they deprodded. Ideally they'll use an edit summary or leave a comment on the talk page, but beyond asking for the most basic reason, just don't bother. Been there, done that. They're not obligated to elaborate and I've never seen someone restore a prod they've removed. It's just meaningless conflict. You don't like it? Change the PROD rules. The only way I can think of that might show evidence of abuse is if we could generate a list of someone's deprods and show that some extreme number find consensus to delete at AfD, but that's hard to do and I'm still not actually sure people would support a sanction on those grounds. (2) Arguments appealing to the essay Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion (or otherwise sounding alarm bells about deletionist bogeymen) tend to quickly lose me. There's no actual argument there other than "I don't like it" plus an assumption of bad faith. (3) back-and-forth between two editors is not WP:BLUDGEONING. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction whatsoever. Could Ravenswing act more civil & adjust his 'Tone' probably, but I don’t see any dire transgressions to warrant any sanctions. Celestina007 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Apparently it's pretty hard to write out "a PROD can be declined for any reason, so if you're giving other editors stick about it you're doing it wrong", but there we are. I wrote, anyway, and Ravenswing can take note that one administrator asked him point-blank to step back and stop getting in other editors faces about de-prodded articles. Is it frustrating when a crap article gets de-prodded for no reason? Of course. Is that a reason to go snark at the person who did it? Never. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• No worries, that's a lesson already learned. Ravenswing 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• This. Darkknight2149 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you Mackensen, and also thank you Ravenswing for acknowledging this. If this results in a more productive and collegial environment, my goal for this discussion is achieved.

As a note: I am not a veteran deprodder. I may have been around for 10+ years, but mostly on other projects. It is technically possible that my deprod of DICE (band) was inappropriate. I don't think it was, there are some sources (and I provided some links), most are not in English (which complicates referencing) and the name of the band makes it difficult to find sources. So I think that warrants a discussion. But regardless of whether that was right or wrong, it wouldn't be an excuse to snark at me. If a deprod is "wrong", just open the AfD and if really needed, explain calmly to the user why the deprod was "wrong".

Also one more note on the "10 year" argument, an example that just happened coincidentally: I just added some pictures to EqualLogic. These have been available on Flickr for over 14 years and were very easy to find. Never uploaded here until today. Some things just take over 10 years. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• In looking at this ANl, I have notice other deletion-related problems; among them is the excessive use of redirects, instead of merges or a search for additional references. As I am not going to ask for action on this , I omit diffs, but some that I reverted as samples of the problems are on my user contributions page this evening:. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. When someone edits a lot, occasionally, among the many civil comments I have seen from Ravenswing, people may get angry and be a bit uncivil, including me and pretty much everyone commenting on this discussion. It's not great, and it's certainly something I've got better at the more I've edited Wikipedia, but we all make errors and there doesn't seem to be any history of attacking lots of other editors, maybe just not ignoring uncivil behaviour but hitting back - which probably isn't the best way to deal with it most times, but is understandable. Ravenswing has been working on the backlog at CAT:NN; it's a slog, difficult to judge, leaves you open to quite disheartening attacks from others and accusations of being an 'overzealous deletionist'. I appreciate the fact that Ravenswing is doing this valuable work. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boleyn: I don't think I provoked Ravenswing. My deprod was neutral, and Ravenswing responded by snarking at me on my talk page. This eventually resulted in some back-and-forth arguments, but I didn't provoke Ravenswing. It is true we all make mistakes, and generally those are forgiven when acknowledged. As Ravenswing commented "No worries, that's a lesson already learned." this appears to be resolved. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Darkknight2149 has posted links to his/her own interactions with Ravenswing, so they are not exactly an uninvolved editor. His/her proof that Reyk is an overzealous deletionist is a single instance where Reyk posted his/her approval over a lengthy comment by Piotrus. None of the cited texts include instances where either Ravenswing or Reyk resorted to personal attacks or attempts to intimidate others. I have my doubts that the incivility levels ever exceeded the typical heated argument. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

1. I'm curious to know when I called Reyk an overzealous deletionist, since the instance you are referring to above was actually the reverse - Reyk complaining about inclusionist boogeymen, and me pointing out that his most recent claim of "radical inclusionists" was immediately proven to be empirically false.
2. I have only ever interacted with Ravenswing once, which is linked above, and it wasn't heated or all that confrontational. Most of what I am responding to is what others have linked in this thread and my first impressions from their contributions, which would make me uninvolved. Likewise, I think Reyk's aggressive behaviour in this thread alone speaks for itself, but it just so happens that this is not a report on Reyk. Darkknight2149 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction. Ravenswing is a good productive mature-minded editor showing impatience. That's all I see. Anybody who has worked the AfD queue knows it can be a test of patience, dealing with the same grade of shameless self-promoters and gibberish merchants who try to sneak stuff into the encyclopedia. No way is this issue chronic / intractable / urgent. (THAT SAID, there's a good point above: no reason to engage with anybody who removes a PROD. They're not going to put it back.) I'm certain this discussion will be warning enough to make the point. --Lockley (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Comment I too have seen Ravenswing cast aspersions and get worked up over tag removal. It seems they take it personal and then dig their heels in even as the article they tagged in improved. I will not waste my time gathering diffs because Ravenswing will not be sanctioned here. Often Ravenswing's WP:BEFORE is lacking when sending an article to AfD. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? For my part, I don't have to work at finding diffs for your own uncivil behavior. Anyone at ANI can just scroll down to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aspersions_at_ARS to find several examples, including redacted personal attacks. Ravenswing 14:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• the PA was was a joke - I added the template in myself. You should take some of the advice given here. It is not personal when a prod is removed - but I have felt your scorn myself. On the AfDs I make policy arguments and improve the articles, sometimes it seems to make you angry. And you sometimes do not do a a thorough before like on Burry's. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• We are all doing our best, and even though I have had some scrappy feelings about Ravenswing's intentions, I was wrong on one of my prod removals. I think it should be noted here that editors can work together for the good of the project. Talk:C4 (Colombia) Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

serious issue with another user

here is the story:

basing on the experience I acquired about sources, writing a gay porn bio myself, I decided to get rid of all the not notable gay porn bio (there are so many, believe me). So, I started reading them, checking out the sources and when I found one that wasn't notable I put an advice on my page AlejandroLeloirRey, I left a message on the article's discussion page to ask if people had more sources and I looked for more sources myself. if after one or two weeks I couldn't find any significant source I nominated the article.

Anyone can see the result of my job here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats

everything was fine until @Gleeanon409:: entered into a discussion, since then he kept following me around accusing me to nominate with out doing WP:BEFORE. I asked him to check my statistics to see that my nomination are pretty reasonable but most of all I asked him, politely, 1000 times, to argue the sources and not me. obviously he kept accusing me in any discussion (more than once per discussion). the first time he accused me I also left a message in his talk page to ask him if he wanted to help me out to find better sources for articles before I nominated them but he never answered. I asked for help on the teahouse but no one could help me.

So, how does this story end?

I can't simply stand his personal attacks no more, so I have insulted him. for this reason I will be banned from wikipedia. obviously, for our community telling a person he is an A.H. or to F.O. is way worst that stalking a person for weeks pulling his never to the point he is ok with being kicked out as long as he gets rid of its stalker. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I just saw that an admin here said he (Gleeanon409) should have been blocked for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#More_eyes_needed_on_Patrisse_Cullors --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @AlejandroLeloirRey: You're required (see above) to notify other editors you're starting discussions about at WP:ANI. Another editor has done this for you since you forgot, but keep it mind for future reference. You should also try and provide WP:DIFFS which are examples of the types of behavior you're reporting. "Diffs" are like evidence and if you don't provide any evidence, administrators are not going to go digging through Wikipedia to find it for you. You should also probably take a look at WP:AOHA because someone examining your contributions is not automatically considered "stalking" or "harassment". That's another reason for providing diffs; they will help administrators see if this is really a case of WP:HARASS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: thank you for helping me. examining my contribution is fine as long as u do not keep accusing me of the same things again and again in different discussions, especially after other editors told u that my behavior is perfectly fine. I will look for some examples. thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: ok, these are the first examples I could find. as u can see I explained him why his accusation are wrong more than once and I asked him to argue the article not me more than once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Barry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raging_Stallion_Studios

and this is the last one (notice that in this last one i offended him and swear at him and because of this I had a warning so I deleted my messages). As u can see Gene93k told him to discuss the article and not me also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Kincaid

I don't care for having him blocked but please, I need an administrator to tell him that what he is doing is not good and he needs to change his behavior: argue the article nominated not the nominator. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• TLDR - Gleeanon409 has been accusing AlejandroLeloirRey of making disruptive AFD nominations, e.g. [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]. AlejandroLeloirRey's AFD nom stats show 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I encountered the op through watchlisting the LGBTQ article alerts, specifically their string of AfD’s targeting gay male porn actors. As I’ve previously stated elsewhere I have no issue with removing the ones that no longer arise to Wikipedia standards, bravo for eliminating crap articles. But their goal seems to be to systematically remove them all or at least as many as possible. (See their talk page for evidence of this.)

Where I sharply disagree, is with the OP’s tactics where they apparently don’t follow WP:Before—specifically searching for and identifying sourcing—and treating AfD as clean-up. Also their being combative towards those they disagree including being rude and dismissive, and repeatedly violating WP:AGF all while arguing and repeatedly filling the discussion with WP:TL/DR walls of text frustrating the entire process. Additionally they exhibit a breathtaking inability to use logic in their targets: The world’s largest gay porn production company Raging Stallion (RS), a principal of RS and Hall of Fame winner, another principal of RS and Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame winner. Much of this seems to be an odd vendetta against Wikipedia for trying to delete Carlo Masi.

pinging: @Kbabej:, @Ipsign:, @Chris7179:, @Toughpigs:, @Bearian:, @GoldenAgeFan1:, @Britishfinance:, @Cardiffbear88:, @Sharouser:, @QueerEcofeminist:, @Theroadislong:, @Kleuske:, @Sulfurboy:. Please feel free to comment.

WP:VOTESTACK???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a vote. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing ???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this bundle of edits of particular interest. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Since porn bio has been deprecated things like being in the Hall of Fame of whatever prize doesn't prove notability itself anymore, this is why I don't take that parameter into account when I nominate an article (I told him 1000 times). About the text wall, we both showed to have that problem more than once. I am trying to do it less (it is not an excuse but English is not my mother tongue). about my swearing and offending message I got a warning for those, I removed them and I admitted I wrote those message right from the begging (see above). pluse, I wrote them today, when I lost my nerve and finally lost control. I know I shouldn't have and I apology for that but I have been stalked for quite a while now. moreover, 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April (about 10 nom per month) should convince anybody to stop following me around accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations. For all the other accusation I can't see where they come from. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm unclear as to why I was pinged to this. Granted, I've had to take a leave of absence due to working in a field involving the COVID outbreak, so I might have totally forgotten how I'm involved. If you could clarify my involvement or what level of comment you need from me, that would be greatly appreciated. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You’ve interacted with one or both of us on the associated afd’s, if you have input to offer it would be welcome, if not is fine as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, Such mass pings are not acceptable as it is canvasing, usually I would have refrained from commenting on such pings but here I will point out to few issues I feel of some importance.

• I was part of the Carlo Masi afd debate and I still think that article should be deleted as it was created with clear promotional intent and by the user who has connections with the subject of the article. they have confessed it on their talk page too. the link is here Special:Diff/951412768
• Edits on 8 wikiprojects all of them only on the Carlo Masi Page.
• Blocked on commons and itwiki for socking. [[156]] sock was created to upload Carlo Masi's photos.
• Here, they started series of AFD's in revange of afd of Carlo Masi.
• They are only editing pages related to pornbio's and nothing else.
• Definitely the language they are using on talkpages and their continuous haunting to anyone coming in their way is not acceptable at all.
• All of it forces me to suggest at least a topic ban on the concerned user and for a cross-wiki promotional activity, ideally they should be globally blocked. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I pinged those who seemed to have interacted with the OP, across the less than ten AfDs at issue, I felt it would be votestacking to only invite those on one side.
• I find your report compelling and certainly hope someone can find a path forward. A global block might be appropriate given the interactions I’ve seen. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409's "stalking", as shown in Levivich's list of diffs above, is just commenting on three of Alejandro's AfD discussions, and chiding him for not following WP:BEFORE. Two of those AfD discussions (Rod Barry and Raging Stallion Studios) were closed as keep; the second one was even withdrawn by Alejandro. The third one (Tim Kincaid) also seems headed for Keep. It is possible to get a decent hit rate on AfD nominations and still make some mistakes. Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack.

I believe that Alejandro is a bit zealous in wanting to delete as many gay porn bios as possible. He argues a lot with people voting Keep, and often refuses to accept other people's opinions on sources. (See WP:BLUDGEON.) I think that the process would be smoother, and get more positive results, if Alejandro would simply make his case for deletion in the nomination, and then allow the discussion to proceed without trying to dispute every Keep vote. If Alejandro could do that, and Gleeanon could participate in the discussion without making sarcastic comments about BEFORE, then the world would be peaceful once more. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: "Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack" correct, when u say it once or twice not when u say it 1000 times in different discussions, especially after I showed u my stats that proves I do WP:BEFORE. u know I am right, I really expected more from u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that once again Alejandro is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and blowing this far out of proportion. As far as I can tell, Gleeanon criticized Alejandro a total of three times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

not correct. I gave tree examples od discussions where Gleeanon409 criticized me for the same reason multiple times in each discussion... that doesn't sum up to three in any system. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my interaction with Alejandro at the Raging Stallion AfD, I asked twice if a WP:BEFORE had been done, and Alejandro responded with "Is this a trial?" I think Toughpigs' suggestion for Alejandro allowing the discussions to proceed without bludgeoning other editors would be good advice to follow. Also, I reminded Alejandro in the Raging Stallion AfD not all gay porn bios are the same, and BEFORE should be completed on every AfD nomination at the very least. --Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: Please ping me if mentioning me or replying. I will not be watching this page. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbabej: the conversation we had is here for everybody to read RS. I was being personally attacked by Gleeanon409 (as usual) and u started personally attacking me too. I had to explain my actions once over again (this is why I end up being accused of text walling) this is why at the end I told u that I was not on a trial. u drop it immediately, so I was (and I am) fine with u. As a personal note, I asked u politely to add the sources u found to the article but u and Gleeanon409 made a big fuss of it, like if I was asking who knows what. So at the end I added the sources myself (after asking u the permission), I asked u kindly to double check what I wrote as my english is not good and u never answered... that is not the best conversation u had. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, asking if you have done a BEFORE is not a personal attack. I would encourage you to read the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section on WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Asking if you've followed policy, which it certainly seemed you did not, is not a personal attack. As for you asking me "to add the sources u found to the article", that is not a requirement of AfD; as Gleeanon stated in that AfD discussion, only the existence of RS needs to be found, not that they have to appear in the article. I would encourage you to read WP:BEFORE, which states "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbabej: Asking me once is not a personal attack, asking me twice, after in the same discussion I was asked 10 times and I already gave a long answer is pretty much different. are we here to improve wikipedia? than if I find better sources I add them. Is that a requirement? may be it is not but if it improves an article I do it. the point is the fuss u and Gleeanon did about it. I asked you politely to do it, and u reacted like if I asked u to give me a kidney so I did it myself. the problem here is the attitude. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I would politely suggest some introspection as to how you interact with other editors here. Before, in this very discussion, you stated "so I was (and I am) fine with u". Now you are saying "the problem here is the attitude." Nowhere, even once, in the Raging Stallion AfD, did I personally attack or make accusations against you. I simply reminded you about the steps for an AfD nomination and if they had been followed (which they obviously had not). Calling people "r*******", swearing, bludgeoning, and refusing to listen are not acceptable behavior on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I am so tired of this way of reading in a distort way what I say and having to explain you again and again. No, u didn't personally attack me. No, I don't have an issue with u (this is why I reported here Gleanon and not u) and finally no, I didn't like ur attitude but that doesn't mean I couldn't handle it or that I automatically I have a problem with u. I believe u had a bad attitude in that situation, this is it, not a big deal. not a big issue, not a big problem, not a personal attack and not something I would report here. u simply reminded me the steps before AFD 2 times, after Gleanon reminded me 10 times and after I answered him about it 1000 times and spite my stats tells I am nominating reasonably... all in the same discussion, nevertheless, u left me alone after that discussion so I am fine with it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Alejandro, a little over an hour ago, you said that you would stop bludgeoning the discussion, but here you are again. It seems like you can't help yourself. I think that this is a problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And one minute after I posted that, you changed the timestamp on your previous post to make it look like your promise to stop bludgeoning was posted after this. This is not good faith behavior. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

if u check u will see I have to make many changes when I write because my english is not that good and after I read what I posted I need to change it. I didn't change the timestamp, I simply added something to the post. if I changed the timestamp than it was not intentional. Since Gleeanon409 called u all to speak against me I became the subject od the discussion and if u are the person that people talk about it is hard not to answer, especially since my words are changed, misread and lies are told. that said, all of you are talking ill about me... accusing me of? nothing but bad nomination, even though my stats show i am a good nominator. why don't we speak about the reason I started this post? because of my stats Gleeanon409 has to stop accusing me of bad nominations and start talking about the articles I nominate not about me. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are making this about you. You keep talking about your amazing 77% deletion rate, which is not impressive. It means that you're wrong about one out of four times, and since you tend to nominate a batch of about four articles at a time, that means you're getting something wrong pretty much every time you make a batch of nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: ok, let's make this obvious. do u honestly think I am making disruptive AFD nominations? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that your bludgeoning behavior indicates that you are very personally invested in deleting as many gay porn articles as you can, and your insistence on having the last word makes it difficult to work with you as a colleague. This report that you made at ANI, turning three instances into "1000" and trying to get Gleeanon sanctioned, is certainly disruptive. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: I was 99% sure u are unable to openly lie. so, if I am not making disruptive AFD nominations why Gleeanon keeps accusing me of doing so? about the number of times u r confused: those are 3 EXAMPLES (it is not exhaustive) where he repetitively (more than once each time) accuses me of disruptive AFD nominations. that doesn't sum up to 3 in any system. I know u r an honest person and u gave me good advice in the past and I don't forget it, I only want him to speak about the articles I nominate and not about me. plus, yes, I want to delete as many not notable porn bio as possible. I am not nominating bios of death people because i feel weird about it but I wish someone did the same I am doing with straight porn also and with any other nice. what I would like to achieve is an academically speaking reliable wikipedia and to do that we need articles to have reasonable sources. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting through. Yes, I believe that your behavior is disruptive. Yes, this problem is about you. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: I see. than I really should be banned from wikipedia. people here should help improving wikipedia not being disruptive like me. u will see, an admin will read all this and I will be banned at the end. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: just before I get banned: if one out of 10 articles on gay porn bio are not notable (10% is a lot but if I assume less my argument is even stronger). u said that out of 4 nomination 3 were good and 1 was bad (u r counting as bad also the not consensus but still). this rate with a random nomination has a probability of 4!/3!1! (1/10)^3(9/10) = 0.36%, now I did this 10 times in a raw, so the probability that i nominated randomly is of 0.0036^10 (this is an approssimation correct calculus is 40!/30!10! 0.1^30 0.9^10 ... so, math says: no, I didn't nominate randomly. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, here you are displaying advanced mathematical equations and Carlo Masi—the article that seems to be the heart of all this—is a mathematician. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ah, ah, ha advanced mathematics? this is something that any Italian would do in high school. it is called a binomial distribution and it gives u the probability of having m-good results out of n proves when the probability of one good result is P... no, this is not advanced math. at least in italy this is average education in math (liceo scientifico=scientific high school) --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable. Your English skills seemed to improve exponentially here. Ironically while discussing math. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ok, I don't know how this works but, should I ping people who can talk positively for me or just let the facts and the examples here above talk for me?. is this a voting process? Once again, "77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April" proves I am not making disruptive AFD nominations (why are we even still talking about it?). Could I have done a better job sometimes? of course, like anybody else but this doesn't mean I didn't do WP:BEFORE. do I argue too much with people (text walls)? yes, just like Gleeanon409 does. But at the end of the day we are not here to decide if I am perfect because I am not, we are here to let know Gleeanon409 that he should argue the article nominated not the nominator and stop accusing me of something I obviously don't do, just to pull my nerve and provoke a reaction from me to make me kick out of wikipedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe I’ve been pinged as I have contributed to some of these AfD debates. I have some sympathy for AlejandroLeloirRey because I also nominate a number of articles for AfD, and there are some editors who throw around WP:BEFORE whenever they find any source. Highly frustrating. And I can see why they find some of Gleeanon409‘s comments aggravating. However, its undeniable that AlejandroLeloirRey has made some poor nomination choices, and have bludgeoned editors who make Keep votes. This needs to stop. And there needs to be some action taken against this comment. Saying that an article looks like it’s been written by a “r******* 10 year old” is grossly offensive language. However the editor thinks he’s been provoked, this offensive language is completely unacceptable and I hope some action will be taken against this comment. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You left out the part in that diff where he calls Gleanon, who showed admirable restraint, about every other possible swear word. Setting aside the stalking charge, which seems to be false, the incivility here is stunning. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree ThatMontrealIP. We all know that AfD can get heated at times but the level of incivility and bludgeoning from this one editor is completely unacceptable and action needs to be taken. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: told me I am WP:BLUDGEONing this "discussion" (is this even a discussion? I thought an admin would have looked at the examples I gave, listened Gleanon and took a decision) so I am not going to answer anymore to the army that Gleanon called to defend him here. even though, after the army call I become the subject of the discussion so it is hard not to speak. let me just ask the adimin to look at my stats to decide if I was making disruptive AFD nominations and than to look how many times I had to defend myself from this accusation by Gleanon. thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• AlejandroLeloirRey I can’t speak for others but I’m certainly not part of Gleeanon409’s “army” - from what I can see, each editor has made an independent comment based on previous AfD interactions. Sadly your comments in this thread alone, and your disgusting language used against Gleeanon, seem to have proven the point. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cardiffbear88: I had more than 20 gay porn bio deleted, of course I have many opponents. I also created a porn bio which gave me even more opponents. what have I been accuded of so far? lets' summaries it: 1) nominating as a revenge because carlo masi was nominated. fist, can u read my mind and know what is in there? i explained more than once I want to get rid of all the not notable bios as I wish wikipedia to be academically reliable and that is possible only having a certain type of sourcing. 2)creating carlo masi profile as a promotion and to be connected to him: i send him some messages on FB months ago before creating his bio just to be sure he didn't mind and he answered. is that being connected? lol. promotion? that article has the best sources in the world and each thing reported is taken from a very very very reliable source. we have reliable sources deep covering him for years from porn to theater to university to his weddings. 3) WP:BLUDGEONing: when a message is directed to you is still WP:BLUDGEONing if u answer? plus, my opponent does it just as much as i do it... if not more. 4) the most important: making disruptive AFD nominations: my stats tell u I am not doing it. now, can we talk of how much my opponent kept accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations in any discussion repetitively ? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey none of this reply actually addresses any of the points that editors have tried to make. The notability of various gay porn bios is actually irrelevant in all of this. What’s frustrating and upsetting is your grossly offensive language towards Gleeanon and your aggressive bludgeoning of anyone who disagrees with you. Can I please politely suggest that you try to take this feedback on board, take a deep breath and then move on with your life because this discussion isn’t going anywhere. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate ur message. I explained that for my aggressive messages I was punished with a warning and I removed them, I explained I wrote those message when I finally lost the grip after asking Gleeanon to stop for the 1000 time. Could u give me an example of me being aggressive apart form those specific message we just addressed? so far so many people said a lot of things about me but I am the only one who actually gave a link where u can double check that what I said it is true. about bludgeoning I will try to let people tell their opinion without interfering but when I will be nominated I will answer as I believe it is fair to answer if they are talking with or about u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment of all the people who have been involved into the discussion so far ThatMontrealIP and Levivich are the only two who has not been pinged by the opponent. when I will be banned i will like to know (if possible) exactly the reason why. Of all the accusations I received I didn't see any evidence, apart from my swearing at my opponent which i have admitted, apologized and deleted from the very beginning and for which I received a warning--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If there is ever an ANI Hall of Fame for threads, I nominate this one.   // Timothy :: talk  02:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hold my beer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to give it back?   // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright, if you're looking for uninvolved editors to voice an opinion, allow me. I've been very active at AfD over the years, and it is not an area of Wikipedia for the thin-skinned. People are going to disagree with you. People will disagree with you for stupid reasons. People will vote based on the most superficial of glances at the article. (And it's NOTHING like it was back around 2005-2008, when Keep closes based on "It's useful," "It does no harm" were common.) Since it's common for people to look out for AfDs in areas in which they're interested, if you go after a particular topic, you're going to see some of the same people -- for instance, I'm alerted with every ice hockey- and Massachusetts-related AfD. Heck, at any time in the last decade, an ice hockey AfD might get me, DJSasso, Resolute, Patken4, GoodDay, Alaney4K and a relatively small handful of editors commenting.

  That Gleeanon shows up for AfDs in a topic area s/he's interested in is not some personal attack on you. Even if it was, it wouldn't have warranted that vicious attack. Your best move right now is not to do what you've been doing in those AfDs -- and what you're doing here -- and argue out every comment and every point. It's to say, simply, "I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again." Full stop. Ravenswing 05:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: for my swearing messages where I called him name I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again. For everything else I am fully right. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, you're likely to find out how far that will get you. Ravenswing 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am not 100% sure of what that means but I think u r telling me that this debate is concluded and I should move on. also that if i keep writing it will be considered disruptive. as i am sure u r giving me advises for my good I will take it and move on and stop answering. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears that I am late to the party. Personally, I think some of the actors nominated are notable, but it's hard to find reliable sources, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – AlejandroLeloirRey, buona sera. O, piutosto, buon giorno. You asked above, "So, how does this end?" Here's one possible way. I think we can wrap this up, *if* you can agree to a condition. Maybe you are hot-blooded IRL (= "in real life") and you yell and scream, and then it all blows over, and everybody forgets about it. Knowing the culture, a little bit, I've seen this, and sometimes all the Sturm und Drang (whoops, wrong intercultural metaphor!) doesn't mean anything. Here at en-wiki, there are some cultural expectations, and one of them is this: you can't yell and scream and name-call, and then forget about it and go have a beer together like you are maybe used to. Or rather, yes, you can: once, maybe twice maximum. But if you keep doing that, you will be blocked or banned here. So, here is my proposal for you, and it's a two-parter:
  • First, do you think you can apologize directly to Gleaanon, recognize that it was a mistake to act/talk that way, and say you are very sorry for it, and really mean it?
  • Second: can you say here, publicly, in this forum, that this will not happen again, neither with Gleeanon, nor with some other editor?

I am not an admin, but if you can make these promises, sincerely, convincingly, then I think this will go away, and you will not be blocked. But you know yourself best: if someone getting in your face a week or a month from now, maybe even calling *you* names, is going to make you explode, then *don't* make any promises now, because it will just make it worse for you later. So, this is a time to look inward and reflect, and think whether you can really do this or not; are you capable of it: to never scream and yell at someone again, even when they provoke you? This might be a real change to what you are used to. I hope you can. If you make the promise, don't disappoint me, please, because I'll be the first to vote for you to be blocked if you do. But I hope you can do it, and then we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia. Sto contando in lei. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I already apologized to Gleaanon, I can do it again if that makes any difference. Second, no, I will not do it again. third, I am a bit disappointed in u not recognizing that also Gleaanon should be asked to discuss te articles and not the nominator. forth, this is the first time I feel like I am part of a racial discrimination (joking, but not too much) the whole introduction about Italians is pretty much inappropriate. thank god, I really don't care for being Italian. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlejandroLeloirRey:, sorry, Alejandro, it's such a long thread, I must have missed that. Oh, well, was just trying to make you feel at home; I just picked up on something you said about yourself; sorry if my "hello" fell flat. I'll leave you be; thanks for your comments, and all the best. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, hi, don't missunderstand me, I appreciate u took some time to read all this and give me ur advice. as I said, I shouldn't have ever lost the grip and swear at Gleaanon. that said, I would appreciate if we recognize the facts that most of the incidents are caused by frustration and if a person is intentionally frustrating a conversation than he should be told to stop. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Alejandro, I appreciate your follow-up, and I understand. And you're probably right; the trick is, there are two different pieces to it, and you own your behavior (and they own theirs) and even if they're in your face, and nobody tells them to stop, you still have to remain calm anyway and not get frustrated and lash out, otherwise you're both wrong. It's difficult, and it's not natural almost, so it's kind of a learned reaction. You have to basically stay calm in the face of outrage, and not blow up, and just report it appropriately. If you can do that, then you retain the high ground with respect to the policies and behavioral guidelines, and you will end up in the clear. I really do wish you the best, and hope this works out for all concerned. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment nothing to see here. I participate in many AfDs both regarding discussions on notability and regarding deletion sorting. I think that the OP needs to toughen up and the subject of the ANI needs to ease up. I want to remind you that we are all working for free. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps. That might be the best we can hope for, however this doesn’t address in anyway the main underlying issue that OP is causing grief in AfD’s even if most people don’t care about gay adult film actors.
  In fact OP has doubled-down and five(!) week’s after the last AfD has re-targeted J.D. Slater for deletion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Gleeanon409: me and u both want the porn section of wikipedia to look good but we have two different point of views. I believe that if we keep any porn bio people who will read them will just conclude that porn is a joke and no porn actor is really notable, u on the contrary want to have as many porn bio as possible. it is a matter of point of view. another thing, I am an academic and to me it is very important that the sources are very reliable. I use wikipedia for my researches sometime and fortunately in other area wikipedia is more reliable. If I was a sociologist I couldn't use wikipedia for a research about porn, because most of the sources are ridiculous. if u want to talk longer and exchange point of view about porn bio let's do it on my page so we can let this discussion carry on without interfering. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t have any particular view on Wikipedia’s coverage. Nor do I have aspirations to survey it at all.
  Another area where we sharply disagree is I feel it’s abusive to waste other editor’s energy discussing obviously notable subjects for deletion which you seem quite comfortable. I also, regardless of subject area, would use common sense to not, for instance, try to delete articles on the top production company in that field, nor those who have been honored with the top awards in their industry. You obviously feel a different route is appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I put this link everywhere, also on my page for you to see: https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats , u can see with your eyes that the largest part of my nominations are very rationales, having being engaged into an housecleaning it is normal that sometime I nominated people who were actually notable, but if u took a second and looked at my stats u shall see I am not wasting anybody's time. I am writing on your page so we can let this discussion follow without our interference. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment my two sense, both AlejandroLeloirRey and Gleeanon409 are in the wrong. Gleeanon409 shouldn't have been repeatedly calling out AlejandroLeloirRey's BEFOREs. Since doing so in the way "inclusionists" do it is clearly an intimidation tactic. That's just intended to push the nominators buttons and doesn't serve any purpose other then needless finger pointing. If someone is actually doing a bunch of bad nominations, repeatedly attacking or calling them out in their AfDs isn't the way to deal with it. Also, Gleeanon409 mentioning this ANI and AlejandroLeloirRey's supposedly bad judgement in the J. D. Slater nomination. Which wasn't a good way to deal with this either.

That said, I gave AlejandroLeloirRey advice on the AfDs process a while back. Which included telling him to wait six months to renominate an article, because it helps avoid the accusations he is receiving here about having something against gay porn actors. Considering that he ignored my advice it's clear he is unable to listen to constructive feedback. I think his inability to is reflected in how he has responded to feedback here also. I don't think he has a specific thing against gay porn actors like some people are accusing him of, but his overall behavior about things is disruptive IMO. Especially the constant bludgeoning. Which isn't justified by his AfD success rate. As someone who has problems with bludgeoning myself, I've find it extremely helpful to just not revisit AfDs after the initial nomination. Which I think he would benefit from. There's zero point in revisiting them anyway. Outside of that, the appropriate action for this IMO would be a slap on the wrist for both of them. Since they are both in the wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I listened to u about re-nominating J. D. Slater but I also asked the admin who actually closed as no consensus the first nomination and he told me there was no need to wait. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions at ARS

• 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is continuing to re-insert personal attacks at WP:RSL#Lessons learnt after they were reverted by me. Another editor reverted my removal and advised me to simply redact the offending portion, which I did, but 7&6 once again undid my redaction to reinsert the personal attack. In this case, the attack was the casting of aspersions on "the usual suspects" who showed up to "stealth delete" an article. This was an assumption of bad faith on all the participants of the various AFDs (three in total I think; the actual situation was a bit complicated).

This further goes against the general principle of focusing on content (or even process) rather than contributors. And it's not in line with the ostensible purpose of the project page it was posted on, which is for improving articles at AFD to the point where they can be kept, not for kvetching about an outcome you missed and didn't like.

I'm requesting that the attack (and yes, it's an attack) be removed, and for this to be kept in mind in case there are any similar problems in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.

If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Or it could be argued it is a good thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't make WP:POINTy comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with these edits, alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what happened. The article Yoast was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to Moz (marketing software). Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- GreenC 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  @GreenC: Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have WP:DRV for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a big nothingburger, in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at WP:RSL for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. Your fifth edit was a refactor of your fourth refactor of the comment, after you were warned for edit warring. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't see much different from something like I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant, or No thanks to you and this wasted exercise, Keep your mask on and your head down (while at the same time reprimanding another editor for an ad hominem). All in a days work. ——Serial 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I talked about process only.

There was no WP:PA.

Unlike User:Deacon Vorbis who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.

He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statements like He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:

1. "Stealth deletion is for real. "
2. "The usual suspects voted delete."
3. "An agenda fulfilled."
4. Restoring the above, twice (with an assist)
5. Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella." - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
6. "There are those who want this series of transactions kept secret. The Star Chamber will brook no contempt."
7. "He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress."
8. "That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you." - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just another example of the ARS types being allowed to say what they like about other people, while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Let's be clear: when you badmouth someone and everyone knows who you're talking about, it's still a personal attack even if you don't mention their name directly. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have any examples of this? For years you have insulted the ARS everywhere you get a chance to. And no one knows who he was talking about, no one went there to look at all the names and try to figure out who these people were. Dream Focus 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Right...^ like that time Reyk called me a pathetic loser. you have been quite insulting. Why not post an article on the ARS page and lets work together? This animosity is quite uncomfortable. Lightburst (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Here are four recent examples of AFDs in which (1) 7&6, LB, and DF all !vote keep (twice joined by AD), and (2) at least one or more of them accuse the nom and/or delete !voters of violating policy in one way or another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination). There are many, many more like this. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The first one has ten keeps and no deletes but the nominator. The second one has 9 people voted keep, not just us. The third had six keeps and no deletes and the nominator withdrew their nomination. A lot of people voted in the fourth one. What's your point? Where exactly did someone accuse someone of something that wasn't true? Post some links. I certainly don't do that. Dream Focus 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's just talk about one behavior: accusing noms/delete !voters of, e.g., not understanding policy, failing to perform a WP:BEFORE search, etc.:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall
   • 7&6: "No compliance with WP:Before."
   • DF: "Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion."
   • LB: "obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator"
   • 7&6 again: "Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers"
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot)
   • AD: "The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article." and "The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination." which aren't uncivil or personal attacks, but are still comments directed at the nominator.
   • 7&6: "And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III (I'm thinking of changing my username to this)
   • 7&6: "Proving WP:Before ignored."
   • LB: "Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace." (If a pile on is "ouch" then why are you piling on?)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6 (emphasis in the original): "WP:SNOW Wikipedia:Speedy keep broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT ... Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on."
   • AD: "So, [delete !voter's] case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory
   • 7&6: "Rather than doing the AFD wrecking bar/crowbar — AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG — you might try a different tool I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement. Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers."
   • 7&6 again: "Proving there was no compliance with WP:Before. The article creator's WP:SPA status is now an irrelevancy. Argumentum ad hominen fallacy."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room
   • 7&6: Same stock line about TAFI, "misbegotten nomination", etc.
   • 7&6 again: "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey
   • LB: "[delete !voter] was canvassed to this AfD." - this is an amazing statement, given that in every one of the AFDs on this list (and many more), LB, 7&6 and DF voted !keep, often joined by other ARS members.
   • DF: "you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this" <-- that's what ARS does!
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building
    • LB: "I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary S. Cox
    • The closer, Spartaz wrote, "I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight."
    • Followed by User talk:Spartaz#Cary S. Cox:
      • LB: "You had a disturbing statement in your close. ... I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. ... I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, ... If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD."
      • 7&6: "Oh yes. You've admitted your bias. WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. ... You need to rethink your bias. ... I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. ... But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses. ... And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list? In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles."

These are just some examples, and I'll note they have much in common. What's my point? My point is this ANI report has merit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the McWhorter article. I WP:HEYd that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... Cecil G. Foster, Clayton Kelly Gross, Dean S. Laird, Distinguished Flying Cross Society, American Fighter Aces Association, and an article about an acrobat Andrii Bondarenko. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had this to say about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ANI about you...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. Considering how frequently I see Levivich's edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on wikipedia solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes in the hatted section. Dream Focus 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:

12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination)

• LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
• 7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
• 7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. Dream Focus 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:

  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta - Stuff 7&6 said:

  • "WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
  • This exchange is great:
    • Cavalryman (the nom): "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
    • 7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
    • Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
    • 7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
  • To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
  • To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
  • "That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
  • "As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
  • "Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
  • To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
  • "CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"

  That's all from just one AFD in July. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's bad and wrong. If they didn't, that's also bad and wrong. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". Dream Focus 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the NYT in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU General Data Protection Regulation - link. Searching is not as easy as you might think. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush and Narky Blert: I have just written Wikipedia:How to access US news websites for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut WP:EVADEGDPR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexis Jazz, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have been pinged so I will give my 2c, the above mentioned AFD was a particularly robust discussion, but I wasn’t particularly concerned by any insults thrown at me. What I have observed is during an AfD (or Merger) discussion, Thirteen bombs articles with clearly self-published and unreliable rubbish sources as well as clearly irrelevant or erroneous information cited to reliable sources. If another editor raises this issue or removes these sources, Thirteen reverts then either refuses to respond to any discussion meaningfully or denies what is clearly articulated to them, this can clearly be seen by their interactions with me during Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Livestock guardian dog and Mountain dog, the above linked AFD and Talk:Ratonero Murciano#Quality of the sources as well as Thirteen’s interactions with Peacemaker67 at Talk:Hamilton McWhorter III#Unreliable sources which they chose to take to User talk:Peacemaker67#Fix it Hamilton McWhorter III. I am unsure what the solution is, but this kind of behaviour is clearly not constructive. Cavalryman (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Wikipedia. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was declined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.

I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Given the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality of the original comments that prompted this thread, as well as the subsequent ones listed by Serial and Levivich, along with the general WP:IDHT response to a behavioral complaint with not only a refusal to admit that something might be wrong, but also making more of the same kinds of comment, I propose:

7&6=thirteen is banned from commenting on anyone's behavior (explicitly or implicitly, broadly construed, including, but not limited to, speculating on motives) in any discussion or edit summary involving article deletion. They may still contribute to deletion discussions, WP:ARS, etc., as long as comments are focused on articles, sourcing, and so on.

• Support as proposer. Tweaks to the language are certainly welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support- this user's snide and erroneous aspersions are becoming habit. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. It is easy to find cases of DV getting into slanging matches with other editors such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There was nothing uncivil and there was no PA. This is Deacon Vorbis getting all worked up and engaging in an edit war. DV is upset that there was a warning for their edit war. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis for any sanction. No personal attacks. Simple statement of fact. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary privilege against use of such arguments.

If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a WP:Boomerang. WP:SAUCE.

The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.

No reason for a Prior restraint. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. Dream Focus 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Darkknight2149 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you suggesting that we get rid of topic bans? Darkknight2149 05:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  No. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ——Serial 13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See WP:Thicker skin sanction. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

−

• Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to game discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. (For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism). Darkknight2149 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The bloc/tribal voting is kind of helping prove Deacon Vorbis's case for him. I don't think that qualifies as "irony", but it's still pretty amusing. --Calton | Talk 12:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. Nothing, other than the standard bloc voting that has always been ARS's stock in trade since it has existed.
• Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Coming from you and the other ARS tribalists, that's pretty hilarious. Thanks for helping me make up my mind here on how to vote. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we all noticed the edit warring Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list and came here. Dream Focus 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. Dream Focus 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. WP: TOPIC BAN states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Wikipedia users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply I stand by what I said. WP:Before is something that can and should be implemented before making an AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.
  

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep."
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Per the closer: " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory Per the closer: " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot) Per the closer: "The result was keep."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III Per the closer: "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room Per the closer: " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was keep."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey Per the closer: " The result was delete."
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building Per the closer: " The result was keep."
    

They don't like the comments because they were true and effective.
This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on the above "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD" and "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." I'm still not sure this sanction will be effective though. ^Lev!v^ich 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Gosh, @Lightburst:, maybe someone should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is bed time for me. Zzzzz. Apologies I find it difficult to have so much animosity directed at the ARS, and 7&6 does as well. Constant accusations, and even an admin calling us ARSHOLES... it is not your fault and you have never been WP:UNCIVIL so apologies to you if I offended. Have a good night, I am going to unfollow this sh&t show and edit articles. Makes me happier than this thread. lol. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Constant accusations? This thread has dozen of quotes of accusations by 7&6 and their response -- just above -- was that because the articles were a keep, "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers ... They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." And you're saying it's ARS that is the target of the accusations? Where in those 14 AFDs in which 7&6 makes accusations against the various noms does anyone make any accusation against ARS? Nowhere. ^Lev!v^ich 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sure 7&6 is defensive just like I am tonight. Remember when you thought I gave you a PA and I struck it? But you will not...says a lot about you Lev. You rub your hands with glee when drama starts. Maybe 7&6 is spoiling from a bunch of "jerks" or "a&sholes" not doing their due diligence before AfDing. 7&6 is a net positive to the project. I have been a part of many saves and dyks with him. He may be a acerbic but he makes policy and guideline arguments and he is an expert at improving the articles. If you want an article whipped into shape, ask him to help. check out Bertha Boronda I did this a while ago and asked him t help. It is a winner now from his editing. Anyway...you guys talk amongst yourselves....I am out. I will go write some more articles. The project needs 7&6 - not sure it needs...? Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Go to bed Lightburst, you're not helping anyone or anything, even with your coy .... ——Serial 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gracias (Personal attack removed) Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You mean this one from January? I'd forgotten all about it. Must've been distracted by the recent ones: ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ^Lev!v^ich 03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, I am finding your claims that your being here is distracting you from building the encyclopedia hard to swallow. You and Thirteen teamed up in the above mentioned AfD to fill the article with completely unreliable sources, as well as utterly irrelevant information and equivocation intertwined with a little original research to blatantly WP:REFBOMB. And you did it together, working as a team. Most charitably it could be described as attempted WP:GAMING, I would argue it was WP:NOTHERE. Neither of you did a single thing to establish the subject’s notability, when called out both of you refused to discuss the issues, instead you chose to cast aspersions.

You wonder why there is so much animosity directed at the ARS? It’s because some of you deliberately disrupt legitimate attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and you do so as a team. As Thirteen’s comments in this thread attest, you see some AfDs as contests to win. Such an approach detracts time from those that ARE HERE to build an encyclopedia. Cavalryman (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Very strange claim @Cavalryman:. You are a difficult person. I see you turned the article in question Ratonero Murciano back into a stub when your AfD failed. Nice. You generated no consensus do so...and thanks to you unilateral move, the article sucks again, just like when we found it. A clearly notable subject that you nominated without a before... and after the article was referenced, and built, up you withdrew. Next you waited a short, while and stripped out everything - going against talk page discussion. You removed: origin of the breed, appearance section, health, the See also section, the further reading, and 12 of the 14 references. Such a shame... and again, it does not serve the readers. So is there animosity directed at ARS? yes - and quite a bit comes from you. The article was a keep in that form - the talk page generated consensus not to make those changes, and you destroyed the article anyway. Congrats. Oh, and I see you changed the name of the page - also unilaterally. We saved the article because it was notable, you made a mistake..yet now you are still grinding over it, even after you have ruined it. congrats. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As to the Ratanero article, it was "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412" and the nominator was User:Cavalryman. And after he does that he maligns the sources, and removed them. Doing that by indirection he could not do by direction. And y'all thinks this is fine behavior? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I made this comment when Cavalryman was deleting things during the AfD: Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst. And it looks like I was being prophetic... the evisceration happened after the AfD concluded and the article was name changed. I am sure none of this makes those who refer to me as some sort of problem and or (Arshole) will think better of me, however it should raise your eyebrows. I mean, what are we doing here? Are we building an encyclopedia-or diminishing it. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Can either of you point to a single thing you added to the article that does not fit the above description? I note Thirteen is continuing their belligerent attempts to introduce clearly unreliable or irrelevant "sources" [157] whilst they still have not responded to any of my very clear attempts to discuss their & Lightburst's unreliable and irrelevant contributions, both during the AfD [158][159] and afterwards [160].

Further, as I clearly stated multiple times during the AfD, if reliable sources could be presented I would gladly withdraw the nomination, Neodop did so [161] and I immediatly withdrew the nomination [162]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour [163] after again being called out above, I await the arrival of Thirteen's !vote. Neither have given any response in the preceding TP section about their "sources". Cavalryman (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Getting consensus is the opposite of battleground, - here is an idea, which I do not think is my own. Lets not display WP:OWN behavior. We do things by consensus, like we do during AfD. You are acting alone in opposition to consensus. Consensus is a policy. It may be messy and not as quick as doing as you please, but it is policy. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, with a caveat If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost)" If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't). Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation, and any admin who treats it as one should not be closing them. Black Kite (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The examples provided by Levivich and Reyk illustrate a pattern of assume-bad-faith accusations that are not positive contributions to the consensus-building process. There are occasionally AFDs that should not have been nominated in the first place, but "SNOW KEEP" and "should not have been nominated" !votes should not be showing up in discussions that have already received a range of responses. Likewise, "No WP:BEFORE Compliance" is thrown around way too much; perhaps the nom didn't have access to all sources, wasn't impressed by the sources they found or maybe they just overlooked something. It's also concerning that 7&6 uses "Keep" outcomes to justify this behavior "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective" (they're not) as if that makes it all OK. Regardless of the good work done by ARS, we need to address the battleground-style personal attacks, conspiracy theorizing and refbombing. Articles that have been improved should speak for themselves with no need for these aggressive tactics at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

These were keep votes because the articles should be kept. And the unwillingness of editors to do their homework before trotting out an AFD is problematical. Additionally, most if not all of those articles I helped build and source; and if the sources were available to me, and resulted in keep, the ends and means are coextensive. We were building a better encyclopedia. And as debates go on, it becomes apparent that they are a WP:Snow candidate, which I might note. Indeed, the AFD nominators withdrew several of the articles complained about above.

As to the perception that this is a battleground mentality, I only used the word "losers" to make plain the conflict of those who appear here, and acted in an outwardly hostile and unbending manner at the AFDs. Indeed, there are those editors who boast on their talk page about the number of article the helped delete.

The primary goal at WP:ARS for me was and is always article improvement. If I didn't think that the article should be a keep: I would have said so, or I would not have participated in the discussion.

That you can blink away an Admin telling an editor that he is an "ARShole", with the support of others, says a lot. We are all volunteers here.

The confluence between my votes and the outcomes is because the articles deserved to be kept, and should not have been nominated in the first instance. I choose my articles to improve carefully. I have been told that I had an 87% rate where I was with the majority and the outcome. I do not personally know if that was (or is) true, as I do not scoreboard.

Finally, I have managed to take many articles from AFD to DYK and appearances on the main page.

Thank you for you consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I recommend all parties involved get away from the keyboard for a while & clear their heads. Wikipedia will still be here while you're gone. It's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, a good time to do something else for a while. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This was the beginning of this brouhaha.

Yoast

It may be kept; it may be deleted later.

Kept. Per the closer, "the outcome was is now inevitable."

Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't take my words out of context to justify your battlefield approach and to purport a view to myself that I do not ascribe to. Dial it down. It's rude and childish and should really stop right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you and put in the context. Spartaz I was not trying to make you take sides here. You ought to consider carefully the use of your attack adjectives, as I don't think I gave you cause for that reaction; but I have broad enough shoulders that I can bear the weight. Sorry for any offense given; it was not intended as such. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you. Except you didn't. Spartaz said "the outcome is now inevitable". You transformed that update into something that was always the case, "the outcome was inevitable". BTW, though I'm sure this will just be filed under "sour grapes from losers", perhaps a promotional article about a search engine optimization product kept on the basis of a download count and coverage in how-to books is not a stellar example of ARS's benefit to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote. Sorry for my error, as you are right about the timing. It should have read the Keep "outcome is now inevitable" File this under good faith errors and apology tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, there’s a lot of blame to be shared and little to gain by blocking everyone who’s stepped over the personally abusive line. ARS would be wise to caution its members about staying cool and not focusing on other editors, BUT the deck does seem stacked against them for dealing with tendentious editors and accusers who constantly poke at their efforts to identify and “rescue” articles on notable subjects. If anything ARS seems to hone in on problematic patterns of deletion that do need further attention. And BTW, it’s all largely thankless work done with a deadline. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head, there is a lot of muddy water stirred up in this discussion but this is clarity. -- GreenC 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Watching this circus play out, I am strongly considering changing my vote to support sanctions on both sides of the fence. There is plenty of WP:BATTLEGROUND to go around here (some of which is bleeding into other sections), and the deletion/re-creation topic area in general seems to breed a lot of toxicity. Here we have the works - battleground/tag-teamy bickering, uncivil back-and-forths, personal attacks, WP:LAME edit warring over someone quoting a personal attack in a civil context, people using alleged tribalism to try and get certain votes dismissed, etc etc. There are a few individuals here that have replied persistently (and forcefully) enough that they would be better off leaving the conflict and doing something more constructive. Darkknight2149 00:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and sanctions. While I think that the "inclusionists" or ARS people sometimes save articles that probably shouldn't have been nominated, most if not all of the time they (including 7&6=thirteen) treat AfDs as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and unfairly attack nominators. Whatever their percentages are, it doesn't justify the constant personal attacks. Which they have been repeatedly asked to desist in. I don't see any of them, including 7&6=thirteen, taking responsibility for their bad behavior or doing anything to curb it. Maybe 7&6=thirteen apologized in this ANI, but I don't think it means the behavior will stop. Especially since he has mainly blown the whole thing off at the same time. Although I think we could look through anyone's AfDs edits and find instances of them attacking someone, the problem with 7&6=thirteen and other "inclusionist"/ARS people is that it's a specific, targeted, and tactical way of doing things, like Darkknight2149 points out in the comment above this one, and needs to be dealt with as such. So, I think a topic ban/sanctions is appropriate. Since I don't really see it changing otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang

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

---

User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment on the ARS page: (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Then DV reverted their fourth edit with a fifth edit. DV was warned about their edit warring and then came to ANI, to complain about this comment that does not rise to this level. We have now all spent valuable editing time about this nothingburger. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- silly retaliatory nonsense. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Some suggestions

ARS seems to be a reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars. I think ARS could materially improve their image if they were to refine the process for selection of articles. Am I alone in that view? Specifically, if there was some kind of gate that excludes articles with promotional and likely paid contributions, prioritises under-represented subjects (in the style of Women In Red), and includes a rationale for rescue, which some of the better nominations do (e.g. Roger Treat: "American sportswriter, mainly in newspapers. Wrote a monumental history of American football and was an advocate for racial integration in sports").

I'm concerned that right now anyone who has a pet article that's at AfD can just list it, and have a reasonable hope of attracting a group of editors who will only vote one way. A refinement to the selection criteria would make this less like an end-run around WP:CANVASS, which is how ARS is often perceived right now.

The constant lameness obscures the fact that parties on both sides of these perennial disputes are sincere and committed Wikipedians who are trying to improve the project. I see little evidence that the partisans are spending much time trying to understand each other's perspectives, which is a shame. Guy (help!) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about WP:ARS is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.

You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. WP:AGF is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.

Serial AFDs are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, Joost de Valk. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. ^Lev!v^ich 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, A subject with which I am familiar - and I agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.

I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. Darkknight2149 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an undelete and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as WP:BURDEN but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's been my finding over the years: that ARS is far less about bringing articles to a viable standard than to Thwart The Nasty Deletionists By Any Means Possible. Quite aside from those who obviously don't believe that notability standards should exist, it's too often a matter of throwing up obstacles, or complaining about more prods/XfDs than their numbers can oppose. What I see far less often is the surest way to shut the deletionists up: source the damn articles. Ravenswing 00:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions. Collaborating to improve the encyclopedia is the mission of the project. And your efforts are decidedly in the other direction. Your statement is an aspersion ...apparently aspersions only matter if they are not leveled against the ARS. This whole wall of unrelated text should be hatted. The ARS have saved a few articles that you have wrongly tagged, and you should thank us. Here is another notable subject that you failed to investigate before tagging. Getting mad that ARS improves the encyclopedia and saves content with RS is outrageous, indefensible and ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You accuse Raven of casting aspersions and {{rpa}}'d Iri's "ARSholes" comment below, but you have yet to say anything about 7&6's aspersions and personal attacks, which are the subject of this thread. ^Lev!v^ich 01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions You misspelled "accurate and concise history". --Calton | Talk 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a very simple rule. Criticism of inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism by inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no love at all for the ARS—I believe I was the first person to use the term "ARSholes" to describe their tag-team—but I'd strongly oppose any attempt to deem particular classes of articles more worthy of saving than others. (The most important article is the article on whatever topic you happen to be looking up; it's not for us to condemn readers for not reading more or writers for not writing more about topics we happen to consider under-represented.) FWIW I think their impact is minimal and at most a slight nuisance; every admin who works the deletion backlogs knows to disregard all comments from the ARS regulars unless they're making an actual valid point rather than the more typical variations on "keep, it exists", in the same way we all know to disregard the usual "delete, I haven't heard of it" regulars like TPH. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I think the problem is that it's open to gaming. Any spammer can list their article for ARS to "rescue" and have a squad of obsessive inclusionists mob an AfD to protect what is in the end often advertorial. I am also extremely disappointed in the quality of sources that are sometimes being added: the result of ARS efforts are often to provide superficial referenciness that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you're familiar with WP:RSN.

As currently constituted, ARS gives an extremely strong impression of believing that nomination for deletion is prima facie evidence that the article should be kept. And that contributes to the drama. If they want the drama to stop, they could show signs of being less inclined to go to bat for obvious spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day by multiple processes including speedy deletion, prods and AfD. The ARS gets involved in very few of these -- only about 1 article per day, I reckon. It would be good if the articles nominated for rescue were those with the most promise but there's a chicken-and-egg problem with this – you often can't tell how promising a topic is until you've done a fair bit of work on it. Consider a topic like Burry's, for example – my most recent nomination. I had a quick browse for sources and my intuition was that the topic had promise. But it's an American topic, while I'm British, so I listed it for rescue in the hope that American editors would pick it up. This seems to be working out reasonably well. In other cases, a comparatively no-hope topic will be listed in desperation, hoping that the ARS can perform some magic to save it. I usually ignore these myself as I have better things to do. But you really can't tell till you try and I am often surprised what a thorough search for sources will turn up.

Anyway, if Guy or others think they can do better then they are welcome to try. The ARS has hundreds of nominal members but few of them show up up to do anything at all. The real problem with AfD and related activity such as AfC is that they are dying for lack of attention and effort. The bickering doesn't help. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I am happy for AfD to run its course, I don't see a need for a flying squad of militant inclusionists to rescue articles based on zero selectivity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I spend a lot of time in AfDs and in article rescue, Here is my record. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's been my observation as well, Guy. What I would love to do is be able to trust the work of ARS regulars, but I can't: just in the last week, I've seen a myriad of "Hah! You lazy bastard, you didn't follow BEFORE, here are several sources!" that turn out to all be namedrops and casual mentions ... when they reference the subject at all. See enough of them, and you just can't help but feel that the editors who resort to that are acting in deliberate bad faith, hoping that no one actually examines the evidence. Beyond that, a couple have made clear their belief that the entire deletion process is illegitimate and that notability guidelines are optional at best. As may be, but sorry, this is the encyclopedia you've got. Ravenswing 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ravenswing is the editor who proposed that Burry's be deleted without any discussion or examination of the evidence. That's not working out well for them ... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• (scratches his head) That's not working out well for me? Since when was this a competition? I did my research, I found no sigcov (using Burry's as a search term instead of "Burry," which other editors seem to have done), and other editors made the save. This is a win all around. But if you insist on keeping score, according to AfDstats, a full forty percent of your votes at AfD go against the consensus result. (I've got a 93% match rate, by contrast.) Sounds like you could stand to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards, and not view AfD/prod as a war zone. Ravenswing 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Ravenswing Apparently you do not accept that whether (or not) there was sigcov is a judgment call. Indeed, going back into the history of 137 year company (well before the internet) has its own unique set of problems. The subject matter an intrinsic relationship with the ability to find WP:RS. To be sure, these can lead to WP:AGF disputes on that issue. And Your mileage may vary. That you think that a statement that you got it wrong WP:Before is a "personal attack" — and not a defense to an AFD — suggests you need to reevaluate your perspective. To be sure, this is about improving the encyclopedia, and we ought to recognize that goal in everything we do. But silencing those who have a different analysis and conclusion is, IMO, bad policy. See you next time, I am sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That "I think a statement that I got it wrong is a personal attack" is entirely in your own head, not in mine: obviously I did, in that AfD. That I'm somehow "silencing" those who disagree with me is also entirely in your own head: if I somehow have supernatural control over what you and your cronies type, I'm sure mucking that up. I've nominated several hundred articles for deletion at AfD, and even with a match rate around 94% on that, 6% failure means I've gotten some of those wrong, or that I'm simply outvoted. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you're not. (Sorry that the argument you were wanting me to make wasn't the actual one I was making, but eh.) Ravenswing 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• A suggestion that would forestall any claims of not following instructions to perform searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion would be to link to such searches and comment on the results in deletion nominations. I don't see what would be so difficult about that, as it only involves copying and pasting a few URLs that the nominator would have to hand anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG

User reported - RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Diff of ANI notice[164])
Reported by - NewsAndEventsGuy
Sanction sought - Community-imposed site ban
Basis - WP:CIR
Summary - RTG's contribs demonstrate disruptive editing by refusing to answer simple questions, gaming consensus through stonewalling and gaslighting, and making personal attacks, etc. In RTG's own words (July 2020) [165] "I feel like I've had a fresh argument somewhere on the site every week and contributed little in material terms...". Like the tide, these things seem to roll in until RTG's energy is spent and the drama drains back to sea... until next time. The project has gained little from our forbearance, but has spent a fair bit of energy dealing with RTG's disruption and their contributions' lack of competence in collaborative editing and WP:CONSENSUS process. Since WIkipedia is neither a WP:FORUM nor WP:THERAPY, it is time for the community-at-large to ask RTG to pursue other interests. Ordinarily I'd suggest a temporary site-ban, but in this case RTG already made a RAGE QUIT followed by a 4-year quasi retirement. Immediately upon return RTG resumed an almost monthly disruption, so it is time to just part company. If you have trouble reading RTG's talk page due to the floating image, modify your common.css file with the code in the final collapsed story below.

Apologies, for the large byte count in this report. These long-running low-intensity CIR-disruptions are hard to demonstrate with convincing brevity.

2014 IBAN then wages war with admins

RTG had some troubles in 2009, but I'll start with the minefield that led to RTG's RageQuit and 4-year semi-retirement. In 2014, RTG earned an IBAN prohibiting interactions with Ryulong, who was later indeffed by ArbCom in unrelated proceedings. This drama spans multiple venues so I'll present it by date AN/ANI-#1 started November 9, 2014 (22:14) Without going into the earlier history, Ryulong filed at ANI seeking an IBan with RTG. The complaint includes claims of "pestering". A small sample of the background diffs can be seen by just looking at RTG's comments at Ryulong's talk page November 11, 2014 (16:39) RTG does not comment in the ANI thread. Instead, RTG's first response was in a previously-declined thread at the EW noticeboard. Someone else had reported Ryulong a few days earlier and on Nov 10 Admin Bbb23 declined to take action against Ryulong. RTG was not a party. Nonethless, the day after action was declined, RTG chose to respond to Ryulong's pending IBan request by tacking on a comment later described by Bbb23 and another editor as a "rant".[166],[167]. In US, people shock monkey. On Wikipedia, monkey shock reader. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC) AN/ANI-#2 started November 12, 2014 (16:45), One day later RTG filed a separate retaliatory ANI against Ryulong. This thread provides several WALLSOFTEXT that provide a good sample of the offtopic ramblings from this editor. Novemeber 12, 2014 (21:41), Bbb23 added a thoughtful comment "RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant...I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting... the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility." Novemeber 13, 2014 (01:20), RTG replies to Bbb23 with a bitter WallOfText under edit Sum but of course treat this post as though it might be from a banned user seeing as I am so dumb and not very happy isn't it, thanks RTG's remaining comments in |that ANI thread are mostly back and forth bickering with Ryulong, which is ironic, since in the walloftext addressed to Bbb23 he said I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering. November 14, 2014 (15:48) Richard Yin adds call for a boomerang at RTG November 18, 2014 01:06, Drmies closed ANI#2 as not consensus. Meanwhile.... AN/ANI-#3 On November 13, 2014 While AN/ANI-#2 was still open (and right after posting the above-quoted bitter walloftext to Bbb23) RTG opens yet another thread, this time at the Admin's noticeboard. RTG says I need help. I am not getting it from ANI. The bullying is making mew feel sick. I do not want to interact with anyu of the contributors again. But I cannot let them control the site contrary to its goals and purpose. (bold added) Within six hours multiple eds and admins advised taking a break. RTG then made his/her only other comment in that thread, with edit summary "nightmare" and the content just a wikilink to a medical condition called Dark triad. It is unclear if RTG meant to say (s)he suffers from this condition or was accusing admins of suffering from it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC) An hour later thread was closed with consensus that RTG should take a break. While RTG's short-lived cry for help was pending at AN, RTG opened yet another plaintive complaint, this time implicitly assailing admins generally, on the talk page of a failed proposal for an ombudsman (apparently to deal with crappy admins) After Drmies' closure of AN/ANI-#2 on Novemeber 18, for about 12 hours all the threads were closed. And then.... VPump started November 18, 2014 (16:23), Unhappy with the admins, RTG posted a WallOfText at VPump(policy); its hard to make out but seems to want to create an ombudsman position to somehow rein in crappy admins. (Full thread) AN/ANI-#4 started November 18, 2014 (19:21) Three hours later, admin Drmies, who closed AN/ANI-#2, reopened it via a separate thread at AN (not ANI) after seeing new info. In part, Drmies commented "I have plenty of problems with Ryulong's editing, but in these threads and in some of the linked conversations RTG is even worse..." This builds to a final edit series before a long WP:rage quit in which RTG says, in part, "...See, I don't always make sense, and I believe in nice-to-be-nice, that philosophy is misunderstood... I have a type, and usually that type does not illicit frustration. Usually they are busy and move along in the face of such mistakes in their direction, but sometimes... just sometimes... one of them looks right at you and moves their head without moving their eyes. It makes you want to hit them worse. Ban me all you like...." (bold added)

2015 to end of 2018, four year retirement
Apparently RTG took the advice from AN/ANI and took a break, because for the next four years RTG barely edited at all.(Contribs 11-19-2014 to 1-1-2019)

February 2019, Blocked and CIR suggested over Village Pump and the Witch Trials

After four years, RTG really returned to regular editing on Jan 19, 2019.[168] Not even a month went by before drama and controversy again consumed RTG, this time, at the Village Pump. February 3, 2019, RTG started a fairly incoherent thread at the VPump for policy. See the full thread titled "Protect the reference desk from democratic closure debate" RTG edit warred over multiple closures (diffs in the 3RR linked below) The thread was finally closed by admin Izno with the admonition "Enough WP:Drop the stick". strikeout added by me, after Izno mentioned (s)he was not an admin at the time NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Along the way... USERTALK RTG was warned about EWing over the closure(full thread) by admin Galobtter who said in part " Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, and failing to listen and "get the point" - that your comments are more suited to an essay than a proposal - is WP:disruptive editing." to which RTG answered the admin "...Don't leave any more text here. I don't know what you want, and it obviously has nothing to do with the content of my suggestion." RTG was warned again by Guy Macon. RTG's response elicited an "uhoh" from EEng (full thread) 3RRN GreenMeansGo reported RTG to 3RRN on Feb 4 [169] In the 3RRN complaint, RTG replied with a great example of just not getting it. [170] ANI While the 3RRN was pending, RTG went WP:Forumshopping by filing a separate ANI over the same issue. The visible thread is archived here but much of whatever RTG posted was so unhelpful it was RevDeleted [171]. As this unfolded Davey2010 attempted a Nonadmin-closure and later giving helpful advice at RTG's talk page and received contempt from RTG for his troubles.[172] Davey2010 eventually gave up and called for indef per WP:Competence is required saying "*I tried and failed - Given the user really isn't getting it I support indeffing as per CIR." (see full archived thread, as pinpoint diffs seem to have been caught up in rev deletes) BLOCKED February 4, 2019 (17:35), RTG was blocked for a day by admin Floquenbeam RTG protested on his own talk page by starting a thread "Blocked without notification".  ::*RTG asked for review which went no where. In the course of discussion RTG asked ... Do I seem unclear or out of control? [173] Admin Floquenbeam replied, "Yes, you seem to be both of those things..." [174] Denying the unblock request, admin IvanVector said in part "... if you wish to raise an issue about editing at the village pump, please do so without attacking other editors or alleging a grand conspiracy against you." [175] AFTER BLOCK Feb 5, 2019 (18:11) In the first hour after the block expired, RTG told us all off by rearranging the references at Witch trials in early modern Scotland... his one-and-only edit at that page.[176]

March 2019, RTG and Village Pump (again), 2nd ed raises CIR concerns
VillagePump-#2 RTG's interactions with Sitush in this thread including its various subsections prompted the latter to raise concerns at RTG's talk page in thread "Coherent". Sitush seems interested in RTG's ideas but notes, "that no-one could even understand (RTG) is more of a problem. Competence is required..."[177]

June 2019, WP:REDACT war

At the Photography Workshop, RTG offered advice, and after others commented, altered the original comment. Begoon reverted twice, pointing to WP:REDACT.[178],[179], but could RTG convert their changes to WP:REDACT format? No! Instead RTG re-reverted saying ...No, that's fighting talk. You've been going through my contributions looking for ammo. You didn't find enough so you are looking for a fight. All you've had to say here is, people talk too much for you and, you don't care who is right or wrong so long as you can put any disagreement with your friend down as an insult...[180] More of same at [181]. Note RTG's paranoid claim that Begoon was going through RTG's contribs "looking for ammo". As near as I can tell, their only prior interaction was earlier that day at Plastic paddy when Begoon made this simple revert. RTG wraps up this particular battle saying I haven't even read your comment....It is obvious you have only contributed to this to be confrontational. When they talk about dropping a stick, this is the stick you should drop. You are only holding it because it is a stick. I don't want your stick, boy. You haven't even faulted my advice. Step back. No. Step all the way fricking back behind the line and stay there...[182]

November 2019, WP:IDNHT battle with an arbitrator
In Nov 2019 RTG took arbitrator and Joe Roe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to task over the arbs doing housekeeping edits, as they are authorized to do [183]

December 2019, Edit warring and WP:POINTY essay changes over the Reference desk

In December RTG asked a question at the Ref Desk and edit warred[184] over others closing it. (final closing diff with full thread) RTG then took the fight to the talk page in "Battleground" (full archived thread). Meanwhile, Jasper Deng added a thread to RTG's talk, first warning of 3RR vio and then alerting to related ANI filing (3RR (full thread) and eventually launches an ANI proceeding ("RTG_and_RDMA" from archives) In this episode, other eds' observations of RTG include "...If you actually have a question you want answered, I recommend you devote some energy to communicating the question clearly -- performative rambling is not a good substitute" Joel B. Lewis [185] "...I tried to follow this thread - alas, could not find a sense of humor in it. And not only a sense of humor, but actually little sense at all..." CiaPan [186] "...Multiple mathematicians have clearly stated your question is ill posed. Enjoy the WP:Boomerang/" Jasper Deng [187] Those are just a few sample quotes from a few involved eds. As a sidebar to this flap, RTG took his indignation to our essay on WP:TAGTEAM, edit warring over a highly WP:POINTY addition[188]

Feb 2020, IDNHT at In the News

RTG took issue with In the News' blurb of the Irish election[189], starting a (thread to complain ) which is long on repeated WP:IDNHT from RTG and was finally resolved when when frustrated editors started a survey (full results), and the returns were 100% against RTG's view. "We have basically a single editor who seems unwilling to accept years of accumulated precedent and consensus regarding what we cover and how..." Ad Orientem [190] "The OP should understand what all the people above are explaining to them and there'd be nothing more to do here. – Ammarpad [191] "The problem this allegedly solves is one that only exists in the OP's head..." Iridescent [192] "there's no need to change what we do just because one editor seems unable to accept the explanation and consensus from the discussion above" Amakuru [193]

April 2020, Topic-banned from COVID for one month

The ANI thread is "Tendentious behaviour at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019", in which at least four admins tried to correct RTG's views of MEDRS sourcing. 21:27 April 11 above ANI started 21:31 April 11 warning issued [194] by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 22:09 April 11 RTG's parting salvo in the ANI after repeated filibustering included an obsessive "...I for one will get what I want...". Alas, this was not his parting salvo in the war. SIDE-BAR #1 at WP:AN 22:16 April 11 RTG makes inappro post at Talk page for WP:AN ...I am not interested in arguing with a brick wall, but I will leave this grafitti here on the other side of the wall, however much of a boomerang that may seem to be, thankyou 22:17 April 11 El C reverted this is not helpful and goes outside the scope of this talk page, anyway SIDE-BAR #2 at Talk:El_C 22:22-22:43 April 11 RTG takes it to El C's talk page (full thread), saying ...You really need reactionary behavior to resolve a dispute? Your next move, as I see a new message, will be to blankly tell me to shut up... 22:25 April 11 EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tbanned RTG for 1 month [195] SIDE-BAR #3 at Talk:EvergreenFir 22:25-22:59 April 11 RTG rehashes it all in thread "This is a mistake", eliciting from El_C I am the uninvolved admin overseeing your contributions — you cannot wish me away. And you must refrain from innuendo. I won't warn you about that again. SIDE-BAR #4 (the only one RTG did not start) RTG attacks uninvolved admins admin Acroterion, supported by admin El_C, warns RTG about filibustering and NPA vios but RTG throws it back in their face Why even bother if not to be inflammatory, EL C?[196], RTG blocked.[197] RTG responds to block notice you are just trying to provoke me. You've examined it and realised it too was a provocative incident, revolving around trying to prevent me creating a discussion on the Village Pump[198] El_C warns against tendentiousness and possible talk page revocation during block 1:03 April 13, RTG, as soon as the block expires, goes after El_C how can you be a Wikipedian and a Leninist at the same time [199] SIDE-BAR #5 at Talk:EvergreenFir 1:26-6:26 April 13 in thread "Topic ban from Covid", eliciting helpful outside advice from OhKayeSierra I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach to editing if you wish to edit constructively on this project, especially when there have been numerous other editors that have already asked you to as well. and EvergreenFir added I feel like the entire issue is being missed. The primary source of disruption was your behavior...What prompted me to give the t-ban was your behavior immediately following the ANI closure. You were not dropping the stick. You behavior toward El C was poor. You were warned by Acroterion to stop but you did not and they blocked you for it. Now, immediately after your block expired, you decide to antagonize El C further ([200]). I am not convinced by any means that you will cease this pattern of disruption... but RTG doubles-down ...You can put a halt on me Evergreen, but you can't tell me not to disagree with untrue claims like edit warring. That's the hinge here. Honestly, I have no interest in this fussy nonsense... Side Bar #4 resumes and ends 23:28, April 14, El_C says sorry, but I am not interested in engaging in polemics with you at this time 08:36 April 15, RTG mass deletes SIDE BAR #4 (thread "warning") saying ...if i had realised it was more of a personal/private support that you couldnt easily detail, i'd have deleted the whole lot of you... [[201]]

April-June 2020, "straight out lies" at Planet of the Humans (part 1/3)

On April 29, 2020 RTG nominated Planet of the Humans for Did you know?[202]. and withdrew the nomination on June 4 with a personal attack saying "it does not look like the article is going to be treated without a blatantly errored bias twisting (straight out lies)" (bold added) [203]. Between these dates, RTG made no article edits and only used the talk page for all of four days, (RTG talk contribs), during which time RTG ignores a call for WP:DR via WP:RFC. Slatersteven observed "we are going round in circles, and not producing RS but engaging in OR. time for some new voices, I suggest an RFC."[204] which RTG deflected saying Whoah! Did you just avoid me?[205] Meanwhile, on May 10 Femkemilene began editing the article [206] and on May 12 expressed doubts about the DYK nomination, saying the movie asserts WP:FRINGE views and "has been found ... rife with mistakes".[207] Full disclosure, F and I are both active members of WP:WikiProject Climate change. June 4, without ever editing the article or attempting dispute resolution, RTG withdrew the DYK nomination accusing unnamed editors of "straight out lies"[208] Then a couple weeks later... June 20 01:39 RTG reverts Femkemilene ("F") dubiously saying this is not a clarification[209] June 20 12:31 RTG ignores F's call to do WP:DR via WP:3O with POV accusation this isn't even complicated. The problem here is perception and neutrality[210] June 20 12:33 RTG reverts F with NPA vio saying Fabricated statement clutching at the maximum negativity possible, right?[211] June 20 13:10 RTG ignores F's second offer of WP:3O [212] June 20 14:08 RTG ignores F's third offer of WP:3O with WP:BATTLE attitude ...Will you reject and evade it immediately because it does not fit your view of accuracy? * * * If you are wrong... will you admit it?[213] June 22 10:10 RTG ignores F's fourth offer of WP:3O, with an NPA vio calling her opinions a totally rubbishing endeavour[214] June 22 10:57 Femkemilene gives up on talking to RTG saying "I'm going to sign off as well as previous editors interacting with you. Your prose is very difficult to follow, and in combination with a misunderstanding of the science, it's really difficult to get anywhere."[215] June 22 17:45 RTG didn't like that "Misunderstanding of the science"... another cop out simply leaves the discussion without concession. I haven't misunderstood anything...[216] Alas, this was not the end of this drama.... read the next one...

June-July 2020, RTG follows Femkemilene to Global warming (part 2/3)

Long before RTG's prior conflict began, Femkemilene had started doing the heavy lifting prepping Global warming for WP:Featured article review.[217] F discloses at her user page she is a PhD candidate in the field. Until the events described below, RTG had never visited the article or its talk page. June 20 13:25 Frustrated with RTG at Planet of the Humans, F issued the climate change DS alert to RTG [218] With hours, RTG makes their first-ever appearance at Global warming with an edit[219] F later called POV and reverted[220] June 22 22:06 In a thread long on pontificating ramble but short on RS, RTG complained complained that we didn't cover two greenhouse gases the way he thought we should and that the article didn't touch on Global warming potential even though at the time (this version), the article included a piped link to a redirect going to that article, i.e., [[carbon-dioxide equivalent|equivalent]]. On that basis RTG said Sorry Femke...it doesn't qualify as a featured article if it doesn't include this information [221] June 27 06:08 F points out the piped link already existed [222] June 28 20:25 RTG also objected to FAR because there is no See Also section [223] June 29 08:40 F points RTG to WP:SEEALSO, says we don't need one[224] June 29 08:49 In typical IDNHT, RTG just announces they'll add Global warming potential to SeeAlso anyway [225], and he does at 9:02[226], which F reverts at 9:25 saying its already linked [227] and RTG edit wars it back in at 9:36 [228] July 02 17:17 RTG adds Shutdown of thermohaline circulation to SeeAlso, which F reverted at 17:35 [229] and at 17:47 RTG, to his credit, at least starts a thread to discuss it (full thread). This thread is where I first really encountered and engaged with RTG. [230]. In this thread (full thread link above) RTG Opening post, misrepesents his own RS (where he says slowdown of the Gulf Stream is beyond theory now but the source only says that's an expected outcome but there is uncertainty if it is already here July 2 19:10 enages in WP:OR/WP:POV the average temperature of the earth changes little... but it has long been told that it only takes a couple of degrees to destroy the whole thing, which doesn't match the sources. A couple of degrees means change, not "destroy the whole thing". July 2 19:18, fires off a paranoid NPA vio I've given maybe 3 or 4 minor points of improvement which would significantly increase the dissemination of the topic on this article. Each of them has been exploded into a large debate....The idea of the same people supporting cut-down elements of a topic, and also opposing a see also section entirely, on a wide ranging controversial topic... gives me nothing but suspicion... July 3 03:34, Uses WP:GASLIGHTING to make another personal attack while saying he's not saying it.. are you confused? Probably, after all, that's the whole point of gaslighting. Now, I'm not interested in being childish, but there is extensive talkpage content here now, the idea of having no see also section, is the dumbest thing I have ever read up in here that isn't purposely designed to be dumb. and also You must have gone to some effort to keep a see also section off this article...It is like you are trying to guide people off the site. Hum. Ding. Generally repeats walls-of-text to filibuster But most importantly, fresh off his failed DYK nomination for Planet of the Humans, RTG declares his opposition to Femkemilene's major project You can be sure, I am in opposition to this being a featured article.(July 2 19:18) When I asked him to redact some of the personal attacks at his user talk, I got three separate walls of text in response, including a fictitious quote, and rife with attacks and paranoia, and odd statements that are hard to parse. Perhaps the most bizarre of RTG's rant was the claim page editors are trying to sow climate skepticism to increase Femkemilene's post-graduate job prospects! Seriously. some of your main contributors to the global warming article are budding to publish work on the issue... The larger the body of global warming skepticism, the more need of their work. Not quite the attack you may have expected, but it is certainly a founded suspicion That's from the last paragraph in the wall of text series in the thread "Please revise a problematic comment". RTG closes the thread contemptuously saying Maybe it will fix itself. Maybe you can just burn... something else? July 7, After endless going in circles over the SeeAlsos, I suggested RTG seek a change in the MOS if he couldn't let it go [231] And so the story will continue....

July 2020, Filibuster, Sanction-gaming and forum-shopping over the MOS (part 3 of 3)

On July 21, RTG seems to have taken up my gauntlet to change the MOS guidelines about WP:SEEALSO. He didn't notify me, or editors at Talk:Global warming where this seems to have started, nor editors at WP:FAR who he seems to complain about. Alas, his quasi-complaint/proposal was vague in the extreme. See full thread "...or_not_see_also..." (this link is the version at the end of July) He found a single supporter and argues with everyone else, pointlessly, eliciting remarks like "I don't see the point of this request... Calidum [232] "The request, such as it is then, is hopelessly unclear as to what change is actually wanted" Bkonrad [233] "Unclear alternative it all sounds a big vague. I would need to see some draft text, ideally via a test diff..." (from me) [234] My comment was July 24 at 12:33; Seven hours later RTG gamed a personal attack by posting this nonspecific salvo on his user talk Don't be a little shit when you realise it isn't making the intended target feel good. Catch your breath, sit down and give them a bit of understanding. It'll have the desired effect on you both, whereas crossing the line from little shit into angry little shit is going to get you both in trouble. And later at a more opportune time, you can be a little shit again...[235] "What specific change do you want to see made to the wording?" Nikkimaria [236] Each editors' expression of confusion resulted in replies from RTG which shed little light on the purpose of the discussion. Notably, Nikkimaria's question about specific wording changes elicted a long handwaving.[237] So I followed up repeating N's question So again, as Nikkimaria just asked, What specific change do you want to see made to the wording?....[238] and RTG used WP:SANCTIONGAMING to accuse me of being the disruptive one Don't keep your foot on me. You are the one being disruptive. You are specifically, above all here, being purely disruptive. Your original reply here shows that clearly. You cannot wait to abuse SNOW and template with total disregard to the value of the output, which is the only thing up for discussion here. WP:BATTLEGROUND. You seem to feel like you are placeholding for editors like Ser Admantio... [239] Ser who? I never heard of that editor... but, whatever. More importantly, while this was all underway, RTG forumshopped with more of the same to Jimbo's page, (full thread at end of July). I did not participate and I'll just let you review that one on your own if you feel compelled.

RTG's inane floating monkey messing up his talk page Struck because this minor issue distracts from the major issues above

And finally, consider the annoying floating monkey image on their talk page (if it gets deleted, you might be able to see it in the latest version as I write this paragraph), which violates WP:SMI by making the text difficult to read and edit. Set aside the fact that if you know the magic css code [style*="position:fixed"] {position:relative!important} you can neutralize the interference, at least for yourself. Instead, focus on RTG's response to Guy Macon's ANI proceeding (full archived thread). RTG posted a rambling off point 3-edit series [240], [241], [242] in which RTG describes their own behavior saying "...I ranted on a bit...I haven't been so "angry"(angry?) in years"...parenthetical in original One commenter said they were tempted to call for a boomerang at RTG over something else, and everyone explicitly or tacitly agreed the image created trouble, though some thought the rest of us should ignore WP:SMI and just "suck it up". Hearing all that, any collaboration-minded editor would have deleted or anchored the image, but not RTG! Sixteen months later when I raised the same complaint RTG just gave me the middle finger, with a touch of gaslighting weirdness.[243]. In the big picture, the trouble caused by the floating monkey is trivial, but dealing with RTG's aggressive tendentiousness is not. UPDATE - I intended this as character depiction, but substantively its pretty minor and it seems folks are focusing on this instead of the serious protracted chronic issue, so per Floquenbeam's suggestion in the subsequent discussion I've struck it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So take your pick. These stories show an editor who consistently applies IDNHT tendentiousness in disputes, and is generally unable to work together in a collaborative consensus endeavor. We should ask RTG to do something else with their time so we can be more productive with ours. It's time for a community-imposed indef ban.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE - As the discussion is unfolding, some folks are suggesting TBans. Please specify whether you mean "global warming" (which might be taken to mean the page global warming) or whether you mean the broadly-construed topic "climate change" (as defined by arbs in WP:ARBCC). Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What has caused this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Click "show" in the greenish collapsed bars to read each installment. "the cause" is long running chronic issues as painfully detailed. I personally ran into this issue in the chapter when it moves to our article on global warming. you were mentioned in the earlier chapter, about Planet of Humans NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I saw those, I wanted to know what the ur0gent matter is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair this board also handles chronic, intractable behavioral problems which appears to fit this report.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I stand corrected.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well. As to the most recent offence, I don't think the monkey is particularly egregious, and if inanity were an offence we'd lose half our editors  :) it might be where I got my floating Clint Eastwood from, and no-one threatened to C-ban me. Although I think Vanamonde came pretty close  :) ——Serial 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You missed the point... your floater isn't used to obscure your talk page to make communication and collaboration a lot more difficult. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

[[244]] It caused me zero issues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, I'm just guessing you have the suppressing code in your common.css file. When I disable that line in my own common.css file, RTG's image floats about obscuring the talk page once again. But as Floquenbeam says below, that's a really trivial issue. The chronic disruption and noncollaborative approach hopscotches from venue to venue, chronically but at low intensity so its easy for few to be buggered except the ones dealing with it at the timeNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I find it quite a strain, on both the talk pages of SN and RTG. El_C 13:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, for reasons that might make a good psychology thesis subject for someone, if you list 10 serious problems, and 1 non-serious problem, people will focus on the non-serious problem. When they decide it is not a serious problem, they'll say "this all seems to be non-serious". I think the floating monkey complaint is harmful to your case. I suggest this: [245]. I'm mentioned in the third box above, I'll see if I can find time to comment more fully later. But I have thought for some time that RTG should be sitebanned, but lacked the will to do the work to assemble all the diffs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s often a subset of the bicycle shed syndrome. “Inane floating monkey” is eye-catching, at the beginning or end of a list of thing that have to be opened, and straightforwardly understandable. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I came here just to say WP:BIKESHED. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that where Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson lives? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was when there were two kshedsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the fact that it is being presented as the most recent in a chronological list of cases? You're correct that it weakens the case; the adage re links and chains comes to mind. ——Serial 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good point F, maybe I should not have collapsed the part where a few hours after I asked for specifics RTG made a gaming attack (not naming me and on his user page) saying Don't be a little shit when you realise it isn't making the intended target feel good. Catch your breath, sit down and give them a bit of understanding. It'll have the desired effect on you both, whereas crossing the line from little shit into angry little shit is going to get you both in trouble. And later at a more opportune time, you can be a little shit again...[246]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia. In the real world, if you present 10 problem and 5 of them are found to not be serious, everyone will focus on the 5 that are serious. On Wikipedia, if you present 10 problems and 1 of them are found to not be serious, most people will call for your head. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A case of "Go ahead, RTG...? [247]. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to comment about the floating monkey. I wrote "It's a small thing, so 'suck it up and live with the annoyance' is a perfectly acceptable answer, and the answer I got was "Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say", which as promised I found to be a perfectly acceptable answer. Bringing it up now as justification for a community-imposed site ban is, in my opinion, an example of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  I just read the rest of the sections. It looks like community-imposed site ban is something worth discussing, but I am not ready to make a recommendation for or against. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• RTG being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive literally goes back for years (here he is back in 2009 arguing that the white supremacist British National Party wasn't a white supremacist group because the source said "indigenous caucasian and defined ethnic groups eminating from" not "white"). He actually seems to be being marginally less incompetent than he used to be; he at least seems to have eased up on his habit of treating Jimbotalk as his personal jotter pad to note down whatever thought happened to pop into his head. This type of editor, who unquestionably makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place for most people with whom they come into contact and who doesn't add any obvious value anywhere, but who hasn't actually broken any explicit rule, is a type we've always struggled to deal with. I don't really like the idea of indefs for being incompetent or unpleasant unless the incompetence or unpleasantness (in this case, both) reaches such a level it's having a demonstrable disruptive effect on other editors, as WP:Don't be a dick blocks almost invariably get immediately lifted (it only takes one sympathetic admin). Would a ban from global warming at least calm the immediate problems? ‑ Iridescent 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(A) I'm not just selfishly interested here, but community interested. As RTG wears out the welcome in one place he takes the show on the road and buggers others. No one else should have to deal with this.

(B) But if that ain't gonna fly, Topic bans should be where he has been mostly recently active Manual of Style and Climate change, both broadly construed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think a community ban is a bit drastic right now (I see your first and second comment and appreciate it, Guy Macon). And Iridescent, you have a valid point though I am not sure I agree about the ease with which NODICK blocks are lifted. But you said something I was thinking too--we might could start with a topic ban on global warming, since their behavior there, which shows a high degree of IMAFACEBOOKEXPERTTOO, is not acceptable. I am hoping it's not caused in part by misogyny.

  I was looking at RTG's contributions, and they do produce article content and DYKs and all that--but I just made some edits to Toxic Beauty, which was on the front page, and 1400 people watched it on 4 May 2020, but it was tagged almost immediately for neutrality issues. Those problems should have been caught by the DYK reviewer (ha), but an editor of so many years should not have written this kind of prose (check the opening sentence, and the first sentence of "Content"). So I do think there are problems here that are larger than just behavioral problems on global warming or whatever. Whether they are big enough for a ban, I cannot judge right now. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies:, what was wrong with that prose? "Toxic Beauty is a 2019 American documentary that seeks to raise awareness about exposure to dangerous substances from naturally unsafe use and inadequate regulation of commonly trusted beauty products such as baby powder." and "Based on three years of research, Toxic Beauty challenges an attitude of silence around carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting substances found in previously approved and popular cosmetic items in the US cosmetics market." It's all accurate. In fact I've just noticed that the article now says "alleged", but you tell Johnson and Johnsons who are out of pocket to 4.7 BILLION in damages just for the TEST case...? Following your other edits... "Challenges" is less neutral than "addresses"... and I should be site banned for that sort of issue..? ~ R.T.G 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:RTG, if you were planning on a defense, you picked up the wrong manual. You were told, on the talk page, about why another user (Therapyisgood) tagged the page, and you responded mostly jokingly. Pity Therapyisgood didn't respond, even more a pity that you didn't edit the article. "Naturally unsafe use" isn't even proper English, and it was quickly tagged as needing clarification (that is, being incomprehensible or meaningless), and the sentence as a whole states, in Wikipedia's voice, that these things are indeed "naturally unsafe[ly] use[d]" and "inadequate[ly] regulate[d]", which remains to be proven. A court case does NOT constitute scientific proof that any of that is the case. If you think it does, after so many years on Wikipedia, CIR applies. This "culture of silence" thing is also opinion, and just as vague as "naturally unsafe use", of course. It makes me think that if, for instance, you get topic banned from one area, you should not enter an area like WP:MEDICINE.

  The next CIR problem is that I didn't say you should be site banned, and so your reading skills here are lacking at a critical moment in your Wikipedia career, and it's the kind of carelessness that makes support for a site ban appear more reasonable. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good grief, "naturally usafe use" is perfect English. And the reason the court case won was that the talc was found to contain asbestos over half a century ago by J&J themselves, the sceintists studying the talc, who were then silent about it..? The proof was their own. They simply covered it up, J&J, imagine that. 5 billion damages just as a test case. Want to feel sick? They might absorb the whole thing. Sorry... Anyway, "challenges a culture of silence" is totally semantics and tone, not obvious malintent. Totally accurate and sourced and polite. ~ R.T.G 22:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN is good.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• I meant per Drmies.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Minor point of order: I was not an administrator at the time of my involvement above. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

original report redacted and annotated accordingly, sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The CIR issues also span to communication, which is not only hostile (as shown in previous diffs), but just plainly very difficult to follow. Sentences are overly long and full of commas subclauses ([248]), or contain random catch phrasing ([249]). This means engaging is quite the time drain. I think RTG does not have the necessary competence to engage in climate change (f.i. insisting that global warming potential be added to global warming's see also section, before understanding what it means, as evidenced by this diff on the science reference desk). A topic ban from CC is warranted imo, and I'm not against a fuller ban either. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm I've blocked for many things, but never for too many commas (I don't quite get your point). But the second diff is the kind of thing I was thinking about too--the more or less random stuff that aims to suggest knowledge but fails. That's what I meant with "Facebook expert"--the kind of person that says "oh masks can't stop a virus cause a virus is too small" without realizing that a mask blocks the droplets that the virus travels on. I think this global warning/climate control topic ban should be a first step. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies, given your own comments about [{Toxic Beauty]] and RTG's earlier Covid Tban, would you entertain expanding the scope of a Tban to include all science topics, including but not limited to medical and climate issues? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • NewsAndEventsGuy, I noted something similar above before I saw your comment, so yes. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • That wasn't phrased well. I wanted to say that the sentence was overly long and broken up, making them difficult to follow. Bit ironic to complain about communication and not communicating well myself . Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • It's all good, Femkemilene. :) Drmies (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I washed my masks this morning actually. I would point out what others have though, using the same mask repeatedly or for a long time may be detrimental... Change them often and disinfect them between uses. A medical instruction will tell you to wash your hands, then remove the mask, then wash your hands again, but hey, I'm just going to shut up now. ~ R.T.G 20:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
          • That might be a good idea. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Support CBAN per OhKayeSierra below. The wall of text of the defense displays the incoherence this started with. Pearls like saying that naturally unsafe use is 'perfect English', not understanding that 'challenges a culture of silence' is problematic in wikivoice, and 'I did nothing wrong' don't give me any confidence the disruption will improve. Just looked back at the mess that is planet of the humans, whose factual accuracy section has been robbed of all context, and misrepresents the spirit of the sources. R.t.g. says it's 'fixed'... Femke Nijsse (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• In US, people shock monkey. On Wikipedia, monkey shock reader. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• That's a very well-behaved money-- an astronaut, no less. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced in the efficacy of a TBAN, as problems seem to have migrated from topic to topic. And TBANs seem to create their own sets of problems. Unless User: RTG can fully address these concerns in a convincing manner, I doubt anything short of a CBAN would stop the disruption, even though I do find the monkey endearing. Could it be user lacks basic compatibility? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  per Eggishorn below, an regular non-CBAN block for CIR would be the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• After reading through the above, a TBAN seems like an ineffective remedy because of the history of jumping from topic to topic. A topic ban tailored to the areas of disruption (including some of the stuff at RD and Jimbo's page not in the OP diffs) would cover "science, philosophy, politics, and the operation of Wikipedia" which would leave, I don't know, KPop articles? A CBAN is, OTOH overkill. While trying and disruptive, RTG is not showing irremediable behavior nor apparently driving other editors away. Driving them to distraction, certainly. Driving them to disengage with a topic, definitely. Driving them off the project entirely, though? Maybe I missed something and there was an editor that left but I don't see it stated anywhere. (Not that "driving other editors off the project" is the standard for CBAN discussions but it is an aggravating point to be considered.) An ordinary admin CIR indefinite block seems called for. If RTG can convince and admin somewhere down the line that they won't treat Wikipedia like their personal on-demand therapist and debating platform, then they could possibly return. If a CBAN is implemented, then a full community discussion to review a CBAN might be necessary at some point down the line which seems like a waste of editor time. Goldilocks solution, anyone? see below Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• RTG response: Okay there are 13 apparent issues.

1. Okay, Ryulong was the most aggressive long term tireless contributor turned newb biter and profanity communicator the site has ever seen. 100s of thousands of edits, largely based on the aforementioned. Ryulong, the double dragon, is banned forever. Contrary to the impression User:NAEG is trying to portray, I believe if I said an uncensored "eff you Ryulong" now, it would be my most egrarious addition so far, notable by the lack of actual egrarious diffs by me. I have since turned against people using psychiatric diagnosis as a tool of argument, so I digress on that, but to give context to my linking dark triad, I don't recall much reaction and there was a reason for that... Ryulong was a true blight on the site, attacking and belittling all who did not elevate their aggressive ownership of Asian gaming articles. If I was a significant part of the huge row that took Ryulong down, I deserve one of the medals. And, "rage quit"? Isn't that one unfounded accusation? Again, truly nasty diffs please, not just speculation by others.
2. A BATTLEGROUND statement with no basis other than to say the most attacking thing about the most benign thing. There can be no clearer mark of bad faith.
3. "The Witch Trials"? Again... what is this complaint about? Well, the issue with the VP at that time was when the big argument was going on about closing the ref desks. I hadn't used the site much for a couple of years. Nobody even was trying to detail what exactly a ref desk is. I was almost infuriated that they could be closed because we couldn't handle some heated discussions. I checked as deeply as I could into what a ref desk is... it's a part of a library where you find books which have the information you require and they have been an integral part of Wikipedianness for a long, long time. I opened a thread to ask the community to protect the ref desks and perhaps other projects, that they couldn't simply be closed on a whim. That if they were going to die out, given that they are so important... just to let them fizzle out then. Well, some of the main protagonists for their closure stuck a template on my request immediately. I got into 3RR saying leave my talk posts alone. As an editor, I get to make a proposal at the VP. All of the resulting furore was directly that I would not stop demanding that I get to make a proposal at the VP without being insta-harrassed. If I cannot say that... well I just did again... and neither does it seem to be egrarious this time to say so.
4. Again, Sitush attacks newbs from Asia (I've no connection to Asia BTW, but alas...) They came to my talkpage to do nothing but belittle me in the strongest terms and accuse me of being a threat to them. Note the lack of diffs about where it came from.
5. Someone asked the graphics lab how to edit details on a photograph. Their enquiry was ignored. I tried to explain how to edit the tiniest details on a photo as to fully restore the particular photo, that would be the most difficult task. I regular editor said that the clone tool is much more effective. I said, not for pixels, and I think pixel editing is relevant to the request. Now let's not forget that nobody else appeared interested answering the request anyway, like someone asking how do you edit an article... For disagreeing, this editor Begoon said I should just accept what I am told with an edit summary that they were shaking their head, literally saying that it did not matter what the question was, just not to have a different answer to the other editors answer... Then I edited my response to the OP adding spacers and the most minor of copy edits, to make it more digestible. User:Begoon started edit warring with me, over rules designed to prevent an editor changing their comments, even stating in an edit summary "as it deprives replies of their original context"... Here is one of the edits[250] and th other [251]. Changed the context? No. The editor was just looking for an argument, that I would dare disagree with their friend, in an inconsequential way. Suddenly User:Begoon turned up on articles I was editing. I was so egrarious as to point out the obvious, given their aggressive reaction to me, they were looking for ammo to have a fight. I am still stunned they didn't find enough, as I expected some sort of extensive nit-pickery like this current post seems to be.
6. Yes I contacted an arb about simply deleting anothers talkpage comment without any sort of recourse. As it happened, it was the worst. It was a noob saying something like, nobody seems to know I am here can I just ask for a response? So I ticked User:Joe for that a bit. Not a habit. Didn't take much of their time. Broke no rules. They should have guided the new editor, it wouldn't have taken two minutes. Don't bite noobs, please...
7. RTG asked a question at the refdesk and got teased at length and wasn't happy about it. What again is this complaint all about?
8. The response was 100% against my request, yet it is the single most perennial request on that talk page. Again, load of comments about people saying they aren't interested, in an individual thread. The problem with my interaction, was again?
9. I was insta blocked for pointing out that I was within the guidelines invoked against me... I wanted to find a way to bring an understandable description of how the coronvirus affects the body, a description which did not seem appear in the news and media for a week afterwards. What can be more provocative than that? The above complaints go on and on about that incident, but in fact it was isolated and short and caused no disruption.
10. I stand by ALL OF THAT. Let's have it out in detail. Certainly it was a battle. They were totally rubbishing the movie on bad sources. It's been almost entirely fixed now. Did User:NAEG care to elucidate on that? There were straight out lies from the sources, and poor representation of them.
11. Now we are at the crux. I went from a global warming article to the global warming article itself. I entered several minor suggestions on the talk page (this was about the promotion of burnable fuels as "green" energy long debunked, but not on Wikipedia...) So I asked to improve that and to link related articles better. I was put down at length for every kind of improvement, right down to the point where User:NAEG takes up against me for asking that there should be a see also section in the global warming article. User:NAEG invoked the MOS guide for see also sections. Some time later... a bunch of featured articles appeared on the main page at once, in a topic that interests me. None of them had a see also section. At least nothing substantial. Given the early problem with adding see also to global warming. I researched the see also guidelines extensively. It turns out that the intention of the guideline has been skewed in a way which has been warned about and complained about for ten years. Response to the complain has been less than mediocre. So I attempted to open a debate about it. User:NAEG opened a lengthy reply to the thread, all about focusing attention on me..., if course percieving me to be prepossessed with them over the dispute on the global warming article. User:NAEG is provocative. User:NAEG singled out an editor in good standing who agreed with me about the see also, and templated, their talkpage alone... which they also did during the argument at the global warming article... And to cut a long story short... Depreciation of see also as a sign of a quality article must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It is a navigation tool with no valid replacement. HOW ON EARTH IS THAT GASLIGHTING??? And, YOU CAN BE SURE I AM OPPOSED TO THAT BEING A FEATURED ARTICLE. Yes, I am. Am I banned now? And to cut short, User:NAEG says above, "When I asked him to redact some of the personal attacks at his user talk..." and they got a response... what personal attacks, and let's have it out in detail about that response if you like because it is actually a valid concern. Global warming is, or has recently been, suffering from expertitis and popular bias.
12. Included above except... I made an edit to my own user page which said something like, "If you are going to be a little shit, try to be a bit more understanding about it". Now, I invite you to read the stuff on my userpage, then come back here and tell us it is some sort of personal attack page against User:NAEG...?? What the *bleep* is the nature of this complaint again? Yes I did eventually and openly give up on what is obviously a harrassment. How dare I go from arguing that there should be a see also section to arguing that there shouldn't be less of them, unless it is some sort of attempt to gaslight one user or another..? (I'm really not happy with that response but a spade is not a shovel, even if you don't like catch phrases??? *bleepity bleep bleep bleeeep*)

    Sarcasm is rare effective in text, struck. Obviously not a case of harrassment, that I edited my own userpage. ~ R.T.G 19:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

13. My little monkey friend...
14. Site ban me? Topic ban me from all science articles? Because I'm not afraid to discuss or to support things which others tend to disagree with? Usually ditors are brought here with diffs showing that they are attacking others, vandalising, or otherwise breaking the site. I disagree sometimes, and I talk too much...
15. I'll try to respond to the furore but let's face it, I'm not popular with the in-crowd. Thanks for taking the opportunity to point that out at length. ~ R.T.G 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why my numbering attempt has failed. Apologies. I will try to figure it out and fix it. ~ R.T.G 19:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fixed. ~ R.T.G 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RE numbering, try removing the blank lines between paragraphs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Consant invokations of comeptence, and not one diff about it. Therapy? Thanks very much. No I've changed my mind. I've made my responses to the initial complaint. If anything truly egrarious comes up, I apologise. As for any more nit pickery... I am not going to fear people in high standing, and if that insults them, and they expect me to accept their insults like accusations of attacks when there are none and so on, gaslighting when there is no such thing... no editor can be expected to take that naturally as suitable for them. However I am just going to note that where I am accused of claoiming the BNP is not a white supermacist group, the word spremacist does not appear on the page. In reality, I complained very clearly, that the source did not support the statement they are "whites only". Do I really have to defend such accusations at length? ~ R.T.G 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RTG, your #4 makes no sense to me. Not unusual when reading your stuff but this one affects me. Where are these attacks on "newbs from Asia" and who is the "they" to whom you refer? Me or the newbs? - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I must apologise if I seem to compare you to Ryulong, which would be totally unfair... but after your response to me that time I did check if that was the case and as I recall there were some agressive and protective items. You certainly bit into me on first interactions. ~ R.T.G 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RTG, you do not have to apologise for seeming to compare me to Ryulong because you didn't, you know you didn't and you're just deflecting by suggesting that now. If you are going to make sweeping statements along the lines of Again, Sitush attacks newbs from Asia (which is also in the present tense) then I want to see some diffs, not I did check and as I recall .... I'm not aware of biting you on first interactions, either, leaving aside the fact that WP:BITE refers to newcomers, which I very much doubt you were at the time of our first interaction. Please provide the diffs for this, too. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You just popped in to tell me that you noticed someone claim I am incoherent most of the time, and would like to take the chance to agree... How can I not follow that with a sarcastic remark? Directly after which you say, "Bearing in mind my most commonly edited topic area, that really is saying something." Now, that is a comparison to your claim that I am incoherent. You are saying, "And do you think you are incoherent..? You should see the noobs on these Asian articles..." but if I took you for someone who is openly disrespectful at that point, well that's my fault or something... (Look, nobody says it better than the guide, it's a list of tangentially related topics. Not simply siblings or categorically related, but sensibly related... closely similar and related topics for further reading. It's like a form of trivia, but a more informative form of trivia. It's like trivia for learning the subject, rather than for trivias sake. It's intellectual trivia. There's nothing non-quality about see also, and if you would entertain them, even I could write a diffusing guide to tolerating empassioned vs non-empassioned calls for see also items. It's about how branching the topic is, how easy it is to navigate the significant items from the rest of the article, and how concise the list is. Am I crazy? Yes of course I am crazy.) ~ R.T.G 05:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't parse your response at all. I rather think this is a big part of the problem and for that reason I think you need to go, sorry. If you can't communicate in a way that the average reader understands (and I'm probably a bit better than average and regularly have to deal with near-gibberish) then you're not suited to this place because reasonably clear communication is essential to its function. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think a WP:CIR/WP:TEND indef block by an admin is a better solution than site banning at this time, per Eggishorn. It's unfortunate that RTG didn't take my advice to reconsider their approach to editing constructively on the project and following WP:BRD when working with other editors (especially in controversial subjects such as COVID-19), but not unexpected. While I'm convinced that there's an established pattern of disruption/WP:TEND-like behavior in topics that they edit (with their response above serving as an object lesson of the issues at hand), I think a site ban might be a bit overkill at this point. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am now in favor of a site ban, given how much RTG has been bludgeoning other editors in this thread. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Checklist for WP:TEND 1. Yes. Twice. Both times for defending my own talkpage comments from being edited, not for pushing a bias. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Sort of, yes. 6. No, not really but always open to that. 7. LOL, no. 8. No. (inadequate occasionally, not to push a bias or anything like that, I don't recommend it) 9. Yes. 10. No. 11. No. 12. No. (what?) 13. No. But I do complain when little to no weight is given at all. 14. No (but for User:NAEG, I didn't take up such an offer during some of their issue). 15. No. 16. No. 17. No... Fix society, no. Make Wikipedia articles accept when society is fixing itself, yes, of course. 18. No. 19. No. 3 ... minor yeses and a couple of greys out of 19. That's a little over 86%. B flat. Okay I think I'm busy now. I've upset people but, almost exclusively over content and guidance issues that I believe in, and I do not give up easily, but I always give up. It's not my mission to pursue anyone, or to die hard on anything, which is generally what this sort of complaint requires. I'm sorry that User:NAEG is afraid of me, or angered or amused by me, but they should be if they are going to harrass me and people who agree with me. It is true I have been trying to return to this last year and a half to editing the site, but to be honest, I do feel like there is an ominous wall of cronyism and protectionism falling over the site far too soon. I am sure I have left that impression in various places on the site, but look at the things I am trying to promote. See also for instance. Nobody bloody answered it yet for ten years. It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to depreciate them in quality articles. The guide is simply trying to prevent wild and irrelevant see alsos. The coronavirus source... the guy is a surgeon. An expert in anatomy. People said he wasn't because he has a slimming surgery channel on Youtube. People couldn't ust say no, they had to quote guides which, strictly, didn't support them... Um... There's another couple but they are all picky little items, mostly that would be good improvements, that a bunch of big shots sat on, and I complained about it. Look, I'm after making an accusation on this Sitush editor who does thousands of edits. I'll never be able to find the diffs to back it up. If that was what I am doing normally, it would clearly be in the diffs of the body of complaints above, and it would have come out many, many times. Often it has been claimed that I am making attacks and stuff, with little or no evidence of such and nobody ever gets in trouble for that. I am that type. Well, depreciating see also is a mistake. Practicing exclusion on global warming is proving counterproductive. I would argue about that at length, and I did, and it is long over, but there is the matter of a stick... ~ R.T.G 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TEND isn't a "checklist". It's a supplemental information page to the disruptive editing behavioral guideline. It is meant to describe warning signs of what tendentious editing may look like, but it's by no means a "checklist" nor is it all-encompassing in any way. I'll also note the final sentence of the first paragraph, which says On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. I think that your actions (from what I've seen so far) fits the bill for a majority of the warning signs described on the page, not necessarily all of it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

THe above wall of self justifying wall of text leans me towards a site ban.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Given how much RTG has been bludgeoning other editors in this thread, I think that it has served as an object lesson of their incompatibility with the project and tendency for disruptive editing. I've struck part of my above comment accordingly, since I'm now in favor of a CBAN. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed. For once I don't have a particular issue with the main reply being a wall of text (given the length of the original complaint, it seems reasonable to expect a lengthy response), but I do definitely have an issue with the general "I disagree with everybody else, so everybody else must be wrong" attitude. What does it for me above all is the gibberish response to Sitush. The general tendentiousness of the "if a court said it that means its true" nonsense, and the "technically you're wrong, I didn't say that neofascists aren't white supremacists because they actually describe themselves as caucasian supremacists, I said that neofascists aren't a white only movement because the source actually says they restrict their membership to caucasians" spectacular point-missing, could both be considered (albeit with a hefty dose of AGF) to be someone who's genuinely trying to be helpful. A post this incoherent on a thread raising concerns about competence, not so much. (Looking over RTG's recent contributions, I also see this gem, posted after their first comments on this thread so at a time when they were aware their contributions were under scrutiny. For someone who's been here for 12 years—a significant proportion of which they've spent haranguing people over how Wikipedia functions—to be saying something as cluelessly incorrect as "Wikipedia is published without copyright" beggars belief.) ‑ Iridescent 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I say again, if you look at the diff Iridescent posted above, the 2009 complaint was not about whether the BNP are a supremacist group. It was specifically about whether a source supported the phrase "whites-only". It is quite clear in the post. The particular article was at that time experincing argument after argument. If my inputs, which seem to have amounted to many, were so bad, why was there not a single complaint back then? ~ R.T.G 22:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• What about context? Are any of you realising this is all on the back of something I am proud of? The OP lists the interaction at Planet of the Humans, to imply I did something wrong... The OP writes how the DKY failed, implying that I cause problems at DYK or something (and such misrepresentation is "gaslighting" by the way, all he needs is for you to accept the right I am proud for is one of the wrongest wrongs, and any reasonable person is forced to toy with the idea that the world is not as it seems or worth caring about, and that is the sort of thing... just look at User:NAEGs talkpage heading, BATTLEGROUND..), as though I somehow caused problems at DYK for the article given that it failed to recieve the DYK it should have deserved. Planet of the Humans was abused beyond belief, following false reactionary bias. I argued, for what seemed like weeks... by which time the DYK had failed... Damaging the public apearance of a well known figure about whom there is a significant article, because they would dare point out, that what is known about failures to mitigate global warming, no longer comes into the public awareness... That we are burning more stuff, and more polluting stuff, and reporting that as no longer burning fossil fuel, to a public which does not search deeply, which barely searches at all, even though it doesn't seem to know who to chastise next... So I almost single handedly spent weeks debunking, not repeating and disrupting, but at several pages length, responding, researching, challenging all arguments after carefully evaluating them. The article has been (almost entirely) fixed now. Naturally, finding such an atrocious abuse of Wikipedia, I checked out the global warming article. I complained about a similar issue there, and I made some suggestions about better linking other resources on the site, for best dissemination. Then I realised there wasn't even a see also section on the article, and much to the horror of all who attend FA, depreciating see also was never intended in the guidelines and is detrimental to miss it from the sites navigation tools, simply for the conciet-pursuit of never, ever writing a guideline, without individual concession to wether the guideline is finished yet or not. I've done nothing wrong, and User:NAEG who was convinced by journey between the global warming movie article and the global warming article represented a pursuit and harrassment, because they OWN these articles, they are working very hard on owning these articles and they deserve to. Well I did nothing wrong but eventually, when NAEG was following me from post to post in a single thread when people would ask me to clarify, I pointed out their harrassment. The relative areas are here, Talk:Planet of the Humans, Talk:Global warming, and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#...or_not_see_also.... After pointing out there, MOS/Layout, that the harrassment was obvious, as they had spent their whole opening post, weeks after our interaction, to draw attention to me and away from discussing see also guidelines, expressing no opinion. Eventually, frustrated that I wasn't taking bait, they began to hop from post to post underneath me, grinding discussion to a halt. They even singled out an editor who agreed with me for a provacative warning template which was not applied to other contributors equally at the same time. I called it out, "don't keep your foot on me", that it was obvious they were harrassing, and not addressing the suggestion. Then they came here, and did this, as though I have done something wrong to provoke this issue. ~ R.T.G 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you chose to post a jeremiad that can be summarized as, "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" in a thread that also includes statments such as this: Consant invokations of comeptence, and not one diff about it. I am looking more and more at striking my recommendation above. There is a long tradition at ANI where CIR concerns provoke long posts that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified. Good to see the tradition is being upheld. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason you call this a long complaint of woes, is because you are already decided. The reality is, it is only about one page describing the full set of incident leding to the OP above. Rather than damage my defense by posting it, if I don't post it, there will be no defense to damage. Either you've evaluated it and decided it must be lies, or you believe that my only response in a situation like this should be to grovel as I am obviously not a person that should have access to this site. I'm getting bitter now. ~ R.T.G 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: Either you've evaluated it and decided it must be lies, or you believe that my only response in a situation like this should be to grovel as I am obviously not a person that should have access to this site. Let me put this a little more bluntly: casting unfounded aspersions against other editors and needlessly replying to every person that comments on this thread isn't helping your case at all and is actually serving as a clear example of the tendentious behavior that prompted this thread in the first place. Ultimately, you're going to have to convince the rest of the editing community that you won't continue to be a disruption to the project. That being said, I still stand by the advice that I gave to you in April, which was I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach to editing if you wish to edit constructively on this project, especially when there have been numerous other editors that have already asked you to as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The OP is pursuing me for doing nothing wrong. Nobody so far gives a shit about that... The response above does not seem to give a shit about that. So either they didn't read it or dismissed it. Instead they want me to grovel, regardless if I have been behaving myself. Some other editor decided they would check through any previous problems I've had and light them all up, after failing to light me up, and I am expected to grovel, as some kind of reasonable expectation of me, because everything I do in this world is a fricking insult... Look at how the OP has opened the thread, invoking THERAPY and loads of stuff. It's a total attack, barely any foundation in most of the drop down issues, and I did nothing wrong to instigate this, only contribute to the encyclopaedia. Sure there is no need to check. All you need to do is vote, because that's more fair and everybody can't wait to get along, you know, like in American politics. It's great. Thanks everyone o/ ~ R.T.G 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support CBAN, as proposer This latest comment is more WP:GASLIGHTING. To rebut just one fact, the reason your DYK nom for Planet of the Humans failed is because, as BlueMoonset said [252], you failed to jump through the hoop of reviewing some other article (a DYK-nomination requirement called quid pro quo). And as detailed in my OP, the reason you said you were refusing to do the QPQ was because your chosen article was infested with "straight out lies", thanks to the work of other editors. But you never sought WP:Dispute resolution to win consensus for your desired changes. Instead you did what I set out in the OP. And here in this thread you are inventing a different version of reality. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Get off my case, HERE IS THE CLOSURE OF THE DYK:- [[253]] Quote:"This latest comment is more WP:GASLIGHTING..." yet NAEG is the one lying here again, NAEG is the one providing the gas to light. It was becuase I was putting the Planet of the Humans article through DYK, that I was made aware of the issues of neutrality. I am trying to improve the site, whether I do it the easy ways or not, I am trying to do it in good ways. This guy is just being disruptive for disruptives sake. My actions realted to this DYK I am proud of. How can I be gaslighting others by describing my own experience truthfully? ~ R.T.G 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Your own diff shows the edit summary for the prior edit, and it says in relevant part, marking for closure; QPQ not forthcoming... (and the reason why was linked via this diff in the complaint). A characteristic of WP:GASLIGHTING is "projection of one's own foibles onto others"...and despite your own diff you say I'm lying about it? okaayyyyy..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Look, I'll tell you what it was about, not the other way around, seeing as I am the only one who can truly say. Both the QPQ and the neutrality were an issue for the DYK. What has it to do with you or this complaint here? How on earth does your paranoia with me after the bullshit non-discussion on the global warming page set the stage for this grand prosecution? You are trying to belittle and shut me down permanently. What was it I was trying to do again? Oh yeah, defend a bit of accuracy so that I could do a DYK, improve the linkage in and out of the global warming article, and correct one of the more ancient misconceptions about the guidelines, all narrowly within the same set of purposes. And here we are, at your whim. Where is everyone from the discussion that led you here? Well let's, nevermind that. To safeguard you from ever being wrong again (which was my fault totally), let's see that I am banned from... well... wherever you'd like. And while we're at it, wherever anyone else would like too. I edited something about World War Two recently. Why don't we just call it a spade, and ban me from anything related to this world. And while I'm there, why don't you go off and fetch me a nail for every mistake I've ever done... ~ R.T.G 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• To answer your question Where is everyone from the discussion that led you here? one of the eds from the Planet of the Humans fracas up above is "leaning" toward a site ban and another called for at least a climate change topic ban but explicitly said they wouldn't oppose a "fuller ban" either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, that was months ago. What did you, the OP do, directly before you did this? Didn't you follow me to the see also guideline and do what you could to prevent discussion? You are just following a line of paranoia and harrassment, I promise you, I've checked it. There is absolutely nothing to set the stage for this grand prosecution. You've been invoking THERAPY at me, you should go and invoke DENIAL on yourself. You were wrong about several things with me, but you can't handle it, because you see me as an inferior. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• The diffs linked in the opening report of how I asked you for specific desired text changes and you fired back with the "get off my back""don't keep your foot on me" tirade [[254] was somehow me "prevent(ing) discussion"? OK, whatever you say. I'm not going to reply to your fantasies anymore, RTG, though I may address the community at large or other participants here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Look, the discussions are there for all to see. I was persistent, and eventually Planet of the Humans got fixed. I went to global warming and spent a few days trying to reason. You accused me of making aspersions and bad faith because I said, swapping out internal links for external links, guides people off the site. I got a little bit annoyed but I still didn't step out of line. I just gave up with it. Weeks later, I brought a valid discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#...or_not_see_also... about see alsos growing and unapproved depreciation. You tried to make a farce of the discussion. Eventually, I pointed out you were obviously making a farce of me instead of letting us discuss the issue, and I dropped it. The thread went completely cold. I left Wikipedia alone for a few days. Then I dropped a sort of closing statement to that discussion, trying to affirm the value and place for see also in Wikipedia (because, for anyone else, that's the sort of thing the dicusssion was about). Then I went off for a couple of days again. I get an email... you have messages... And here we are to prosecute me. It's all there for anybody to see, I was behaving myself and doing things which, even if you don't agree with, are valid inputs to the site and bound nobody to anything. I'm not doing anything wrong for this rehash. I shattered some real world eyewool, to reverse an atrocious abuse of a Wikipedia article caused by reactionism in sources, and this is part of the harrassing I've recieved as a result. And anyone who says that is anything more than me describing my own situation for the world to see is about 3 football pitches beyond any sort of good faith. That is exactly what is happening here, even if you skew it around to a slightly different perspective, I've been behaving myself, so this whole thing is BATTLEGROUND bull**** that I am not responsible for. I've said it already, I am prepared to accept anything I've done wrong before, I am practically avantgarde, nothing else would make sense, but this specific waste of ANI we are posting in now, is not my fault. This guy is trying to be clever about how he is doing it, but certainly showing signs of harrassing me, whereas I am not misbehaving myself at all. ~ R.T.G 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• CBAN It is pretty clear from the well sourced and formatted report that RTG needs to consider other activities. The behavior in this thread alone is pretty egregious. --AdamF in MO (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've seen enough. I pointed out a few obvious errors above, errors that were caught not just by me but also by other editors, and the response is "you're wrong"--and yet they're saying here "I am prepared to accept anything I've done wrong before". Really. I think not having RTG around would be an improvement. And if this closes for lack of momentum (who wants to read all this?), let's get at least a topic ban for ALL science-like articles going--and science-related material (scroll up for their ridiculous argument that a court finding constitutes, essentially, a scientific fact). Drmies (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• CBAN Drmies is being far too nice immediately above in even potentially restricting a ban to "ALL science-like articles going--and science-related material"; far too much evidence has been given of lack of competancy in other areas (the example from February of this year over at ItN, for example, is stunning though not science related). In the end, even if one doesn't wish to pursue the OP's substantive and substantial links and diffs, sufficient evidence has been given within this very thread to sustain a CIR block. The community has given a reasonable amount of time to this editor, but enough is enough; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• CBAN in case it is not clear from my comment of 06:02, 4 August 2020 above, I think the tendentious streams of consciousness, coupled with bizarre applications of the language, are enough to indicate communication patterns incompatible with this project. I realise there are other issues as well as this but no need for me to pile on with them. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN The editor has some contrary opinions and we do not block editors for that reason. We also do not block them for being defensive or even for being wrong - we have better options to deal with disruption. I am going to be contrary and say that I do not have a problem with this editor sending up a wall of text (above) when they are beleaguered here. A CBAN is far too harsh for the offenses which are outlined here. Per WP:BLOCK and WP:CBAN blocks and bans are to stop disruption on the project, and yet this feels more like a punitive action for someone who is sometimes contrary. In addition...some of the words used to describe events in the OP's statement are also unnecessary inflammatory characterizations: "war" "battle" "lies" and "filibuster" I would not characterize the editor's behavior with the same language. The death penalty is not appropriate here. As Iridescent has rightly asked in this thread: Would a ban from global warming at least calm the immediate problems? That should be our concern, stopping disruption on the project; not a death penalty. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting that "lies" was in an RTG quote.... and "Filibuster" is the shortcut to a section in our Gaming the System essay, WP:FILIBUSTER. But yes, I chose to use "war" and "battle" in making subjective characterizations elsewhere, so I'll own those. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lightburst: Speaking of word choices, "death penalty" seems kind of overboard here; if you're complaining about "war" and "battle" (and "filibuster"?) because of the imagery it provokes, "death penalty" is worse, no? All we're deciding is whether RTG can participate on one website out of the whole internet. There are dozens and dozens of more appropriate places for him to soapbox to his heart's content. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just to be clear (I imply it way up top) I think a CBAN is the best result here. I think there's consensus for one (at least one early commenter who disagreed with a CBAN changed their mind). My concern with even a broad topic ban is that - based on the in-depth evidence compiled by the OP, over the course of many years - they will just switch to another topic. The problem isn't the topic, it's RTG's relentless insistence that he is right, everyone else is wrong, and that it is vitally important for all of us to realize that at length. If anyone can think of a way to get it to stop short of a CBAN, by all means, go ahead. But how do you craft such a restriction? And what evidence is there that RTG is willing to even consider changing their approach? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam! You are usually right...and it is indeed good that I stopped short of using the word "draconian". I stopped myself. As a person who has been in ANI, I see the end of WP as a death penalty metaphorically. I looked through many positive contributions of this editor, articles, edits, disambig pages created. WP:CIR is not the issue at all in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hmmmm.... then why is it unreasonable to you that the OP considers this behavior akin to a war or battle, metaphorically? It's not that big a deal, I suppose. But I'm puzzled by the idea that the OP is being inflamatory, and you aren't. I'm not sure WP:CIR alone is the best criterion either. I think it's way overused around here, by almost everyone, and the OP isn't really to blame for that. But I do think years-long history of bludgeoning and obfuscating discussions and soapboxing - and most importantly, in this very thread, zero indication that they accept this is wrong and will stop it - is a valid reason to ask them not to participate anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A serious report like this should be factual, and not use inflammatory language wrongly characterizing behavior as "war". Additionally the editor is competent, so the OP is also incorrect in that characterization. I am simply one opinion and I think it is a Death penalty just like the Death penalty (NCAA). Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

OP's reply It's indeed a serious report... which part is fantasy instead of factual? Please point to the part that is not, in your mind, supported with links and diffs to policies and evidence? Looking again at my use of "battle" and "war" in the title bars to the collapsed stories in the OP... note that WP:BATTLE or WP:EDITWAR apply to the stories where I used those words in the title to the collapsed stories. If you think otherwise, please tell us why. I think wikijargon must be part of my speech pattern now. And re "competent"... sure, RTG's noncontroversial edits like redirs and disambigs are, so far as I am aware, well done. But see the third item in the list at What is meant by "Competence is required"? "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies.... the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus...." The diffs in the OP and this thread should be all the evidence anyone needs to sound an alarm on that one. RTG's skills would be best suited, I believe, to a more individual-focused work environment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Particularly the part that brings the OP here, "personal attack" for saying the article contained "straight out lies", after clearly arguing for maybe two weeks about sources, that they contained straight out lies, suddenly it must have been a personal attack tosay so, because if you can call out "personal attack" out without having to prove the attack has taken place, you'll get someone banned off this site forever. Here is an example of the sort of arguments I was making... "The film claims the carbon footprint of renewable energy is comparable to fossil fuels" instead of "The film compares the carbon footprint of renewable energies to fossil fuels"[255] The only thing relevant to compare renewable energies carbon footprint to is fossil fuels. That's what renewable energy is compared to, documentary or not, such comparison is the standard and tweaking the wording to make it seem as though the film has done something unique and wrong is negative bias. To say so, I must have been making personal attacks and ANI will stomp all over it regardless of the basis of the report. Of course, even defending myself is bludgeoning. Wikipedia says, "A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations." Thanks for the support, but it is obvious, I ticked of an arbitrator once, ~ R.T.G 18:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - based on the 2020 stuff in the OP and their posts in this thread. Following an editor from a dispute in one article to an FA they're working on, and objecting to that FA based on a lack of a "see also" section, and then unapologetically doubling down on that here... that's enough for me. That is somewhere between outright harassment and sustained battleground conduct, actively making the project worse in a way we should not tolerate. Playing well with others is a requirement for participation here (or, it should be). ^Lev!v^ich 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I've just gotten power back since shortly after posting my last comment above, thanks to Hurricane Isaias. I see that things have taken a turn for the worse and withdraw my earlier call for a simple block. RTG's behavior in this thread has risen to exactly the type of disruption I previously said we lacked evidence for. Well, they've provided all the evidence needed since then that they cannot accept input from other editors or even make a pretense of graceful disagreement. They are not suited for a collaborative editing environment based on their own words and actions here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As part of the basis for this report by User:NewsAndEventsGuy says, "Ordinarily I'd suggest a temporary site-ban, but in this case RTG already made a RAGE QUIT followed by a 4-year quasi retirement." The phrase "personal attack" is used many times. Here are all of the diffs used to show I am making personal attacks[256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263]. Not one personal attack except for one response where User:NewsAndEventsGuy claims I am making "aspersions", and I said the only aspersion I can think of, would be that since some of the editors are budding authors in the topic area, and the article guides readers off the site, a conclusion can easily be made. That was a closing comment, as I dropped the argument and left the article alone, months ago. Is that a valid item for report at ANI? This comment is presented as sanctionable, quoting complaints by the closing admin that a statement which includes "Ryulong is brought to this page many times per week and even 15rr does not illicit an admin intervention," is an incoherent rant for which the sanctions requested cannot be determined. [264]. Another diff of my *abuse* is stuff like this, "I appreciate peoples situations, but I am not the one, and Ryulong did pursue me from which I was spurred to investigate, and I found what I found, and I don't believe perpetuating it is fair either from Ryulong, or from anyone else."[265] Notice that around supposed "RAGE QUIT" some diffs are carefully picked out, like this one topping the list at my supposed return from "ragequit", posting on my own userpage in quotes the age old doctor-patient joke, "I think you're crazy", "I want a second opinion..."[266]. The whole section following my "RAGEQUIT" is about my making a suggestion at the village pump, a year and a half ago, and being templated off instantly, "Close as pointless"[267]. Of course there is going to be an arguement after an action like that. The only input I made as far as I recall was to the proposal at VP, and my own talk page, complaining that I should not be interfered with if I want to post something to the VP. There was no kind of issue beyond that. User:NewsAndEventsGuy rounds that section out by claiming this is an attack on the community in general -> [268]. After that a section about User:Sitush posting attacking comments on my user talk[269]. When User:Sitush started to "BLUDGEON" a request for Wikipedia to support a political banner at the Village Pump, I bludgeoned them back a little bit, and they came to my talk page to post a complaint that I am mostly incoherent. Nice. Next is "WP:REDACT war". A "war", concerning like 5 or 6 edits. I answered an enquiry at the Graphics Lab, how do you edit the details in a photograph. Another editor said that the cloning tool would be more effective. I said, not for pixel sized editing, which the enquiry seems to be about. For that amount of disagreement, another editor started edit warring with me and complaining that I should not disagree with their associate. There is absolutely nothing for me to be ashamed of in any of that. It covered less than ten edits by me and it ended with me making a statment to the effect that the opposing party was holding a stick against me and to step all the way back from me. That was the end of it. What was the ANI issue about that again? Next "issue", I complained to arbitrator Joe Roe, not to simply revert others comments, especially a new editor, because it makes the site appear like a battleground. An incident that went on 6 months ago, for minutes... For actual minutes... Joe was so upset that he... completely carried on with his life unphased..? (in fact, I feel like apologising to Joe Roe about that, because he was obviously acting in good faith and I have obviously been burned many times about one editor altering anothers comments, but in this context, this ANI report?) December 2019, I asked for the ref desk to explain a simple mathematics term that is notoriously unexplained in mathematics. I was templated off and ushered out, I complained about that, and was toyed with for days with bizarre technical answers. I complained about the treatment, particularly about the abuse of SNOW and template, and left it at that. The ANI issue is? February 2020, RTG requests broader coverage at In The News, given the massive overweight given to political leadership changes, a perennial request, snowballed out. I made comments such as, "The anniversary of the first moonwalk, relatively recently, was accompanied by a whole week of content from all sections on the main page." (ITN was the only section that didn't participate...) The ANI issue is? April 2020, topic banned for a month from COVID 19. A source I provided was refused. I made a case for the source and was topic-banned, for no reason other than making that case. Sample quote User:NewsAndEventsGuy says is ANI worthy, "...but you can't tell me not to disagree with untrue claims like edit warring. That's the hinge here. Honestly, I have no interest in this fussy nonsense..." April-June 2020, the true basis of this report. That my vigorous opposition to biased reactionary sources is a personal attack, attacks like this->[270]User:NewsAndEventsGuy says of that diff, "RTG withdrew the DYK nomination accusing unnamed editors of "straight out lies"" Which is simply not true. I am referring to reactionary sources which are inaccurate. NOTE: You can call inaccurate sources "straight out lies" if you like. It's not an issue for ANI. Many diffs provided, but except for being argumentative, there as absolutely nothing ANI-worthy about it. I am proud that I got to be the one to dispute the rubbishing treatment the Planet of the Humans article was recieving. June-July 2020, "RTG follows Femkemilene to global warming". For a start, I did not follow anyone anywhere... I followed the issues at Planet of the Humans. User:NewsAndEventsGuy says that I complained that the article does cover nitrous oxide and mehtane emmissions as to better my personal comfort... Global warming barely mentions, or at least at that time barely mention at all, no exaggeration, the most significant global warming gases of which second and third place are nitrous and methane. I said I am in opposition to a widely branching article that departs from the see also feature being a featured article, and I am, and so what.? I added "global wamring potential" and complained that it wasn't covered by the global warming article. So what? I complained that shutdown of thermohaline circulation is inadequately covered. User:NewsAndEventsGuy complains that I said "slowdown of the Gulf Stream is beyond theory now". I invite anyone to read[271]. Where I am from, where the Gulf Stream is directly significant, the weather changes are common knowledge. The idea of a comprehensive article which denies that is ridiculous. It's not an opinion I made up one day. It's just the way the world is. So, what is the ANI issue again? Also, at this stage, User:NewsAndEventsGuy is complaining that I seem contemptuous of them. I am of course contemptuous of them. July 2020, RTG brings it to the attention of the MOS that unintended changes in the guidelines for see also, warned about regularly for ten years, are coming to pass. User:NewsAndEventsGuy bludgeons the thread to death. RTG complains and leaves the thread for three days. Comes back to post a sort of giving up statement, that see also is a really important feature of Wikipedia we should not simply dispose of in disregard of reader utility, and leaves it alone again. Days later, unsatisfied at what they see as an easy target for provocation not aquiescing, User:NewsAndEventsGuy opens an ANI thread to ban User:RTG from Wikipedia forever as a nasty attacking, practically evil contributor, who can do no good. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't parse your latest response at all, and as Sitush previously said, that's a major part of the problem. Brevity is a virtue, and these massive walls of text ultimately detract from the point that I think you're trying to make. Consensus isn't judged by the highest word count. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN because of CIR and unchecked aggression. The many lengthy posts are difficult to understand; the only thing that comes through is "I'm right and everyone is wrong". Wikipedia contributors should display more maturity and ability to self-reflect on their own actions. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• CBAN to put an end to the obvious, long-term, and ongoing pattern of grinding other people's time into dust for no real benefit to the encyclopedia. This is a classic illustration of WP:OWB#3. It's sad when we have to enact a CBAN like this, but sometimes removing an editor preserves the project, and this seems to be one of those times. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Indignant Flamingo: grinding other people's time into dust is even better than performative rambling, which I was proud of. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support CBAN based on the time I wasted reading most of those wall of text rants above, though I admit I scrolled past the most repetitive parts. Bottom line: this editor wastes other people's time, far too much of the time, and is therefore unsuited to this collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User Shadybabs

User reported - Shadybabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction sought - Community-imposed site ban
Basis - WP:CIR

I've noticed this user who has recieved dozens of warnings and a block for engaging in an edit war on numerous pages has been making a string of small vandalisms and intentional overt POV edits. The ones I've detected I've gone through and reverted but I can't keep a watch on all his future edits. What action can you recommend to avoid these future disruptions? He's just deleted his talk page so all prior warnings and blocks have been erased too. You can see some of them below. Many of his edits use the wording "Remove whitewashing". This user seems to be single issue. The list below is but a snapshot. He also told me to stop harrasing him for calling him out on this behaviour

Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadybabs&diff=prev&oldid=970969716

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacking_of_Lawrence&diff=970970087&oldid=967478366</ref>

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Cameron_(Kentucky_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=968033577

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_display_of_the_Confederate_battle_flag&diff=prev&oldid=963242818

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=937197733

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=963226098

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Post-Gazette&diff=prev&oldid=962884738

Alexandre8 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Every user has times when they have different interpretations of wikipedia policy than other users. Some also have differing opinions of what constitutes NPOV vs POV. I personally find whitewashing of controversial or harmful acts and statements as POV pushing. Users are free to disagree, but that doesn't make my edits by default "vandalism". Also note that only a small proportion of my edits have ever been flagged or reverted for these issues. This user has been reverting my good faith edits and is presenting an extremely biased and misleading case against me, hence my accusations of harassment. Shadybabs (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It still needs sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to state that Shadybabs and I have no prior history. Unfortunately I stumbled across what I see as a high number of unhelpful edits or edits likely to be perceived as vandalism. Your deletion of your user talk page which involved a high number of previously disruptive incidents and a BLOCK, led to my suspicion that our interaction was not a singularity. I do not feel that I am reverting good faith edits when the user's main purpose APPEARS to be to change the political bias of every contentious article they come across. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Shadybabs, unless you are able to acknowledge your policy violations and commit to correction, you are likely to face some form of sanction or another, probably of some severity (see: User talk:Shadybabs#Warning: conservative and libertarian politicians are not "far right"). El_C 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• See also recent edit warring to reinstate unsourced content - looking at the history of UK Independence Party, I count five reverts by Shadybabs, between 22:56 on 29 July and 13:09 on 30 July. I don't think I'm over the line on a site ban, but that series of reverts was itself blockable - at the very least, this editor needs to commit to upping their game, and quickly. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • IM had not picked up on the edit warring there, given past issues a TBAn might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have run into Shadybabs myself on both the Cultural genocide of Uyghurs article where he edit warred (and showed a poor understanding of WP:BRD), and the UKIP article where he made 5 reversions in 24 hours, as mentioned above, which he was banned for. In addition he isn't great with Wikiquette, doesn't seem interested in engaging, and unashamedly introduces PoV into articles. I think Shadybabs, frankly, is a tendentious editor. — Czello 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That shifts me to an outright ban.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Czello, for pointing out that Shadybabs was blocked (rather than banned, which is technically different) for the edit warring on the UKIP article. I didn't realise that had happened - Shadybabs has since blanked their talk page, so I didn't see the block notice, but I should have checked their block log before commenting above. The fact that they were already blocked for those edits is relevant, and had I noticed it my comment would have been different. The fact that almost all of their edits after coming off their block were main space reverts, rather than talk page contributions, does not inspire confidence. I hope that Shadybabs will respond properly to these issues very soon, and I'll reserve judgement for a while in the hopes that they give us something to work with, but this is not a good look. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight in my initial report I erroneously used the word "ban" to describe previous "blocks". Apologies if that caused confusion. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What time frame is usually given for a reply on this from the user in question?Alexandre8 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• CIR doesn't seem quite appropriate, but it's clear he's a virulent POV-pusher. (I tend to agree with his politics, at a glance at the diffs, but they're absolutely NPOV violations.) I concur this is poor behavior, and of a sort unlikely to change. At 231 mainspace edits, it's not like we'd be losing a productive editor by dropping the banhammer. Ravenswing 04:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

He's not edited since this initiation. Perhaps he'll reappear in the future. No idea if he's taken heed of the warnings given either. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion he's keeping his head down until this debate is over. — Czello 07:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue at China–United States trade war

I'd appreciate help or advice on an issue at China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The main problem is that a few times now, Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disappeared from the article and the talk page discussion for 1–4 weeks, and then has come back and reverted most or all of the updates and corrections that have been made in the meantime [272][273][274]. I've asked the user to discuss these reverts on the talk page, but they refuse. On the talk page you'll find discussion of several other disputes, but when I asked the user to discuss these reverts, they said "I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits"[275], "You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why"[276], and "You'll have to wait for my explanation"[277]. I first asked for an explanation for the reverts on 18 June, and Flaughtin still hasn't provided one. This seems to be a case of WP:Status quo stonewalling.

It's impossible to keep developing this article when all the additions and corrections will just get reverted in a couple of weeks by an editor who refuses to discuss the reasons for the reverts. I'm not sure whether ANI is the best venue for this issue, but I'd appreciate help or guidance on how to deal with this situation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The admins should shut this request down with prejudice. I can't be refusing to provide explanation for my edits when I have already said I would provide an explanation for them - it's just they will have to wait given the preceeding and proceeding mass purges/battleground edits the other user has made. It really isn't my problem that he/she wants to (or feels entitled to) jump the line and it really isn't my problem either that he/she doesn't read either carefully or at all - that isn't meant to be an insult, it is just meant to be a statement of fact as the debates on the talk page demonstrates. The rounds of debates has to be resolved sequentially, partly because of, again, the problematic edits the other user has made (the mass purges as I have already pointed out), partly for reasons of clarity (there are too many points of contentions to be resolved), and partly for reasons of fairness (this is self explanatory); to do it any other way would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. The issue of my editing pattern is something that I have already addressed; that said, I will going forward do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.

For the record admins should note the irony of this request and how it's (or seems to be anyway) a classic example of an aggressor playing the victim card - this whole debate all started with this mass purge of my edits by the opposing editor here. I could have disregarded his/her edit summary (just like how he/she has disregarded my explanations for the reversion of his/her edits) and taken the issue straight to this noticeboard but I didn't given the confidence I had in my edits and suppporting arguments. The debates on the talk page were and still are moving in the right direction, most of the points of contention have been or are being resolved and majority of them are being resolved on my terms - i suspect that that is real reason why this ANI was brought up in the first place. At this point, the best solution would be if an admin could directly intervene in the debates on the talk page (mainly to prevent a request like this from happening again by expediting the dispute resolution process) or barring that, then do nothing and just let the debate run its natural course. Flaughtin (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I do make an effort to read carefully, and that's why, for example, I object to claims like these ones about GDP that don't match the sources they cite. But back to the issue at hand—I note that Flaughtin still has not offered any justification or explanation for the reverts linked above. Flaughtin's insistence on discussing disputes "sequentially" with weeks of delays (and periodically reverting any new changes to the article) has the effect of making it impossible to make progress on the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Without having looked at the actual material - if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. No one can hold another editor hostage to their whims because explaining their actions doesn't fit their schedule right now. If that's what is going on here, it should stop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Elmidae, that's a good summary of what's going on. The editor is discussing other disputes on the talk page, but refuses to discuss the reverts linked above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae: As I have made clear in my comments above and many times to the other editor elsewhere I am prepared to explain my reverts - the real problem is that editor's sense of entitlement; specifically, the arrogance on his/her part to not just demand that I respond on his/her terms while he/she mass reverts my edits, but to be completely ignorant of the hypocrisy of the demand. He/she demands my immediate and unceasing attention to my reversion of his/her edits; meanwhile I'm supposed to just pretend that his/her mass reversions of my edits never happened. I can understand if an animal accepted those kind of demands, but what kind of self-respecting person would do that? As I've said, going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.

Granger: Well no no you don't read the things I write carefully (or at all) and your arguments on the talk page demonstrates this. For every example that you can find where I haven't carefully read your edits, I can find ten examples where you haven't carefully read my edits. If you want to talk about problematic conduct, then of course it's best if we began with your mass purge of my edits which is what started this whole debate. I've been more than patient with you and assuming of good faith given your initial mass reverts of my contributions to that article and for you to try to play the victim-card here on this noticeboard and rehash your demand that I respond on your terms when you took the initiative to mass revert my edits rests on a kind of arrogance (i.e. arrogance of ignorance) that really, really just scrapes the bottom of the gutter. If you did that with any other editor, your (multiple) mass reverts would have been reverted mercilessly already and you would have ended up at WP:3RR ages ago. I have already said that I will do my best to respond in a more punctual manner and if you are not going/refuse to take my word for it, then that is your problem, not mine. Flaughtin (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your life may not revolve around Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia doesn't wait on you. As Elmidae said, if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. Your edit doesn't need to stay up; you can take the time to discuss this on the talk page. — Czello 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin is acting as though I wronged them somehow by reverting some of their edits in June. But I followed WP:BRD, and when Flaughtin raised 26 separate points on the talk page, I took the time to respond to each and every one. In contrast, Flaughtin still has not explained the reverts linked above, even though it has been a month and a half since I first asked for an explanation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Czello Taking the disputes to the talk page is what I have been doing all along. As for the time issue, as I've said (4 times now), going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia. This is the most reasonable response that I can give and I really don't know how many more times I need to say this.

Granger You didn't just make "some reverts", you made a mass revert. Please don't act like there isn't a difference between the two. Flaughtin (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin is discussing some other disputes on the talk page, which is good. It would be better if they could be more civil and stop accusing me of not reading their comments. Now they're also trying to derail a 3O request that I opened at their suggestion about these earlier disputes.

Regardless, they still haven't explained the reverts linked above. Given that, I think I would be justified in undoing the reverts, but given that the user hasn't acknowledged or resolved this conduct issue, I worry they might just revert again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the user has responded regarding other disputes, but still refuses to discuss these reverts, so I've restored the updates and corrections. If Flaughtin objects, I hope they will discuss the issue on the talk page the way they have with earlier disputes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the above user's revert and explained my action on the talk page accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin still refuses to discuss these reverts, saying I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate).[278] They are insisting we resolve all the other disputes about this article before they will discuss their reverts of most of the updates made during their weeks of absence. Also, after I pointed out their goalpost-shifting regarding one of the other disputes, they said this really is a total waste of fucking time.[279] Could someone please help deal with this stonewalling and incivility? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well this is a new one. Usually you get people refusing to enter a debate because it is clearly always the other person's responsibility to start discussing on the talkpage, never them. Here we have someone refusing to talk because they feel it is their prerogative to start discussion on their terms, and they feel justified in reverting without explanation until it pleases them to do so. Flaughtin, in my estimation you are getting onto very thin ice here. Stop reverting unless you are willing to fully explain why you do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't been reading what I have been saying; if you have then you haven't been reading it carefully. Why do you keep saying that I am refusing to answer what the other user is saying? I have already told you I am going to reply to him/her. It's not about starting a debate on my terms, it's about starting it on the ideal terms. Notwithstanding other reasons, the debate as I have already told you has to proceed sequentially for logistical reasons: there are too many points of contentions to be resolved and many points of contentions to be resolved between the second and third mass reverts overlap. The upshot of this means that resolving the issues in the second mass revert (the other user's revert of my edits) is going to resolve a lot of the issues in the third mass revert (my revert of the other user's edits) anyway. To do it non-sequentially would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. At massive disruption to my real life situation, I am doing my best to expedite the debate as fast as I can - as we speak, I am in the process of writing up the list of contentions for the second round of debate (which corresponds to the other user's second mass revert of my edits) so that we can move on to the third round of debate as quickly as possible (my revert of the other user's edit which started this ANI request). I said I would respond in a more punctual manner and this is proof that I am following through with it. If this still isn't good enough, then that just isn't my problem because I am already doing everything that I can. If my revert of the other user's edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then that user's prior revert of my edits (for which no full explanation was given by the other user) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I just tried again to make sense of the sequence of events in that article's history. You two have been re-re-re-reverting each other for so long that it's become quite opaque to anyone uninvolved. If I were to take a stab at a clean start position, I would say it is whatever Mx. Granger reverted to in this this edit. That appears to be a revert of a substantial change to a previous stable state, and thus the status quo that a discussion should be based on before any further changes are made. It's a long way back, but after that you two start bitchslapping each other and it becomes very muddled. Can't suggest more than that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: We can revert to that version if you think it would help. Unfortunately, it also contains serious errors introduced by Flaughtin (the incorrect statements about GDP) which I didn't notice at the time, but I'm okay with reverting to that version and then using the talk page to move forward from there. The stable version from before the original dispute started is this one. Maybe the best option would be to revert to that version and then use the talk page to discuss the updates and changes that Flaughtin, other users, and I want to make. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Part of the reason the history is so muddled is that three times, Flaughtin disappeared for an extended period and then reverted all or most of the edits made by multiple users in the meantime. Another reason is that on the talk page, all of the points of disagreement have been put together in one huge discussion. In the future it might help to use a separate section for each point of disagreement (on the other hand, with so many points of disagreement that might lead to a large number of sections). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Another option: I am also okay with using the current version, as edited by Flaughtin, as the basis on which to discuss changes. I'm not that concerned about which of these versions is in place while we discuss. My main concern is that discussion actually needs to happen, about all of the issues under dispute. Right now Flaughtin is still refusing to discuss one of the areas of dispute. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger and Flaughtin: I was going to say, if you want to try a structured do-over, then you're probably right that the 3 June version [280] is best - before either of you started on the current sequence. It's a lot of work to throw out, but I'm getting the impression that the situation right now is too tangled to resolve gracefully, and a Gordian Knot solution may be cleanest. - But if you are happy with the current version as a basis, then I'd say it comes down to "reasonable time frames". On the one hand, WP:NODEADLINE - it's not an issue if a discussion doens't happen immediately; the article will keep, and the only problem would be if the current version is so misleading that it can't stand for some days. Apparently not the case. On the other hand, no editor can unilaterally freeze an article for an unreasonable time while they play by their preferred schedule. How about you two try to agree on a timeframe within which Flaughtin should make his comments, and if this blows by, the excuse of "I will justify myself in due time" is officially void? That kind of agreement could also get admin enforcement, I would think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a workable idea. I'm not exactly happy with the current version, but I think the major problems with it are limited enough that they can be resolved through discussion fairly efficiently.

I would suggest that in general Flaughtin should respond within 24 hours. (This is the standard I usually hold myself to, in discussions where someone is waiting for my response.) And now and then, if Flaughtin is unusually busy once in a while, I don't mind for them to say so on the talk page and then take an extra day or two. What I find difficult to deal with is getting no response for days and days and then seeing all the edits made in the meantime get reverted. [stricken as I misunderstood the suggestion]

Importantly, it's not enough to respond regarding some issues but not others. One of the main problems here is that Flaughtin has been responding regarding earlier disputes but isn't discussing the more recent dispute. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Rereading your comment, I realize I may have misunderstood. Did you mean to agree on a timeframe to respond to new comments on the talk page going forward, or a timeframe for when Flaughtin will start discussing the recent dispute? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I was thinking of the latter, as I understood that was the main issue (reverting but saying "I have good reasons but no time to explain them, will happen in the indeterminate future"). Regarding responding to fresh comments, I think one can't hold people to firm timelines there; if life keeps you away from WP, then that's it. I don't believe you could reasonably hold someone to a once-per-day log-in requirement. The usual way this is handled, e.g. here at AN/I, is that if there is an outstanding issue that requires response, an editor is expected to deal with it when and if they do log into WP. Meaning that if they log in and then spend all their time on other wikitasks while ignoring the request for comment (but still expect others to wait on them), that constitutes active stonewalling and is disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fair enough. I suppose if there's another long absence with unresolved discussions I'll seek input on what to do.

As for a timeline—it's now been seven weeks since I first asked Flaughtin to explain their revert, and they have edited many times in the meantime, so I think a response is long overdue. I would suggest that they respond by the end of 8 August UTC (i.e., a little over two days from now). Is that feasible? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I also want to suggest that we start a new section on the talk page to discuss the reverts. I've been trying to discuss them in the same section as the other disputes, but I now think that's likely to make the discussion more confusing, as the reverts don't seem to involve any of the same text as the other remaining disputes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a lot of delay - more than one could reasonably expect others to put up with. If you want to be part of the development of an article, there's a certain expectation that you cooperate within time limits that do not leave everyone else hanging for months; it's not codified but I don't believe anyone can be expected to put up with recurrent multi-week gaps in an ongoing issue. If you don't have the time to work with others at a reasonable pace, you shouldn't stick your oar in to such an extent. Let's see what they say when they next tune in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: User:Flaughtin has responded regarding other disputes but still refuses to discuss the reverts or to give their opinion on the way forward suggested above. See their most recent comment (third paragraph). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan and BLP related to Derek Chauvin

Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following one month after the close here (Dennis Brown: I'm going to assume Geo Swan gets the point, and just close this. No need to summarize what should be obvious.) we have this deletion review. Evidently they have not gotten the point. I suggest that some kind of topic ban would be appropriate. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly support this given more detail about a specific topic ban. Preferably as it involves BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion at the DRV because "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4.", without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread, merits a TBAN from the subject matter at issue, if not all BLPs. This is "not dropping the stick" at the expense of BLP privacy, and it's not reasonable to expect the community to be constantly "on the lookout" for new blpvio attempts from the same veteran editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

agreed when combined with the incessant wikilawyering about it and extreme WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is actually the second time they've tried that manoeuvre, see the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

in which case I would propose an outright tban from anything related to Chauvin broadly construed. If they continue to have BLP violations, that can be revisited. Praxidicae (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting that Geo Swan received DS alerts for BLP and AP2 topics back in June. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• It is way past time that Geo Swan dropped this particular stick. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4" Really?? I'm guessing that Cullen328's warning ("In my opinion, Geo Swan should receive an indefinite topic ban on any content relating to living people or recently deceased people if Geo Swan fails to drop the stick") wasn't clear enough... Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from Deepfriedokra. The above linked ANI thread was preceded by this discussion on my talk page. Having been harassed and doxed, I'm very concerned about Wikipedia revealing PII about people who have tried to hide their PII out of concern for being doxed and harassed.(link) If I am to err, I'd rather it be on the side of not revealing BLP sensitive content. I suppose GeoSwan does not understand this concern. I suppose this all adds up to WP:TENDENTIOUS. WP:ADMINACCT is important, but this has become vexatious. No opinion on remedies as I am INVOLVED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Can someone spell out what exactly the claim is? Are folks saying that GS was trying to get that name back into the history of the article? If so, to what purpose? Or are we saying it was an oversight not remind people about the issue? It all sounds like everyone here knows that the issue is but no one is really making it clear. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Hobit: So it would appear. To what purpose? I cannot say. Just to bring you up to speed, this concerns info about someone who is not the subject in an article, which was revealed in more than one article and revdel'd. GeoSwan has been attempting to get this content back into the encyclopedia. Trying very hard. To get the full flavor, please read my talk page thread and the ANI. It will be clearer then. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

• Yes, the majority of the deleted revisions contain that information. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Hobit, that's how it appears to me. (Like DFO I do not claim to understand why anyone would do this.) --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

edit conflict

1. JBL, doesn't the discussion you refer to concern a separate and distinct issue?
2. Levivich, you write I merit a TBAN because I started a DRV "without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread..." I didn't edit the Derek Chauvin (police officer) article, and I have never seen that article. The arguments for deletion offered in the first AFD were BLP1E and CRIME - which I think we are all agreed aren't applicable now, and FWIW, wouldn't have been considered applicable, if anyone had done an effective web search on June 3rd.

   Levivich, you initially agreed to the restoration of the deleted material, and changed your mind when another contributor made two claims, first, that the deleted material violated BLPNAME, second, that I knew the deleted material violated BLPNAME.

   I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted material violated BLPNAME up until the accusations you took at face value. So, if the first claim of a BLPNAME violation is true, I would have had no way of knowing that. So, your suggestion my request for restoration of the deleted versions was in bad faith is, well, extremely unfair.

3. I made 17 edits to Derek Chauvin, the first 12 were innocuous edits to more fully populate the article's references. On June 13th my last edits to Derek Chauvin did introduce new content - on his career prior to the killing, so, also innocuous and noncontroversial. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

   In your DRV filing, you wrote: Fuzheado closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), justifying a speedy closure due to unspecified BLP concerns, and A10. It didn't dawn on me when I first read that what the "unspecified BLP concern" was because I forgot about this whole issue. But you did not forget about it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   And to be clear: I don't think for a second that your intent was to harass anyone or that you have any bad intent at all. It's not about intent for me; I think that you're strangely oblivious to the seriousness of this BLP privacy issue. It should have dawned on you that restoring something that was deleted for BLP reasons risks violating BLP policy. When you posted at REFUND [281], you wrote speedily closed, justified, in part, on an assertion BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria without mentioning the BLP privacy issue. Thankfully, others caught it, but you're just not being careful enough about this, and this isn't the first or second or third time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)

   • Levivich, the only BLP concern explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was BLP1E. Kire1975 and I both asked Fuzheado to explain their closure. He or she didn't do so, didn't reply at all, until told of the first DRV. Then they implied they would explain at the first DRV.

     I can't remember when I read anything about protecting that individual's name. It was long after I read the first AFD, and long after Fuzheado declined to offer a further explanation of their closure. Your suggestion I should have known what they meant by their phrase "the sensitive BLP issues" is unreasonable. The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago.

     Fuzheado could have said something like, "sorry kids, this is an instance where privacy issues preclude me from explaining my closure. See Meta:Office." They didn't say that at the first DRV, as they never showed. No one else did, either.

     Since then Fuzheado has been pinged numerous times. I honestly thought the reason they never tried to explain their closure was that they were embarrassed for claiming BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

     • After you talked to Fuzheado about the close on June 5, and after you requested the REFUND and it was denied on June 14, a bunch of other stuff happened that culminated in the ANI thread, which was closed on June 30 [282], a little over a month ago, with a BLP warning posted on your talk page. [283] A month later on July 30 you started the DRV of the June 14 REFUND decline, without really mentioning any of this except as "unspecified BLP concerns". [284] The next day, you posted in the BLP warning user talk page thread from June 30 [285], and then you posted in the DRV (favoring undeletion) without mentioning the BLP concern. [286] [287] [288] The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago isn't credible when you posted in that BLP warning thread on your UTP four days ago. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   My pointer is to the part of the discussion between me & DE (not you and DE), which involves the same issue that I've raised here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hobit, Deepfriedokra, and Black Kite:, as I wrote, above, I never edited or read any of the deleted versions. I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted versions mentioned the name of the individual we have decided not to name, prior to the DRV. No one should accuse me of using the DRV to trick the community into putting that individuals name in our visible history.

  I have never employed trickery, of any kind, at any point in my fifteen years here.

  Deepfriedokra, you ask "for what purpose". I can't imagine a more pointless exercise than tricking the community into burying it in revisions from months ago. Any mean spirited person who wanted to use that name to harass that individual would find it orders of magnitude simpler to find it using google. Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith here, there is no point in restoring any of the deleted revisions of the original article.

• Most of them would have to be oversighted anyway for the reason mentioned above
• A number of the others contained unsourced BLP claims and/or simple vandalism
• None of the content was re-used in the current article anyway, so there is no need for attribution.

• Hope this helps. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please, could we review the deletion at DRV and confine this discussion to user conduct?—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've come across Geo Swan several times over the years. I recall his remarkable effort to produce an exhaustive series of articles on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay. I think Geo Swan's a committed, long-term Wikipedian who's interested in transparency as it relates to criminals who're of political interest in the US. I also think he's got a good faith belief that the public benefits of covering difficult topics on Wikipedia often outweighs the harm; and he's had lots of experience dealing with editors who want him to shut up. Personally, I've found he disregards threatening messages with red warning notices on them, and responds well to a civil and reflective conversation.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have extremely limited experience with Geo Swan. I am extremely puzzled by their behavior with regards to this matter. But I do not think the lack of civil or reflective conversation is the problem. For example, Geo Swan never responded to EEng's post here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • JBL, correct me here, you started this review because you had the idea I knew some deleted versions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) included the name we have decided not to include. Correct me here, you regarded me requesting the review, knowing the deleted versions including that name, as me ignoring early discussions where it was decided not to include that name.

    But I had absolutely no way of knowing the deleted revisions included that name.

    I don't go looking for trouble. And I would not have started the DRV if anyone had let me know it contained that name. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• So can we close the DRV and let this issue go now? That would seem to be the logical outcome. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe it's better to leave the DRV to run its course? Closing DRVs early is sometimes fine, but other times it makes a lot of drama.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Black Kite:, as per your suggestion I returned to the DRV, and said I was satisfied by your assurance that Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin didn't actually share any content, and that I was satisfied to withdraw the request and see the DRV closed.
• I am going to repeat I had no way of knowing Derek Chauvin (police officer) contained content we had decided we shouldn't make public, and I would like to extend my thanks to everyone here who extended AGF to me. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• TBH, I did not know either, though the note of the closer at the AfD would give anyone pause. I just WP:AGF'd that the closing admin knew what they were doing. This is why I did not WP:IAR robo-undelete at WP:REFUND. The possibility of unforeseen problems. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  At REFUND I wrote, Not done I don't see why we could not attempt a HISTMERGE, (I do now) but this might not be uncontroversial and this venue is not for AfD's. You would need to present your arguments at WP:DRV for full mulling. And now not only do we have mulling at DRV, but here as well! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions since that seems to be what this thread is seeking. Geo Swan's behaviour appears tendentious at first glance, but when you dig into this, pages were duplicated, deletions were bungled, discussions were fractured, and Geo Swan is just trying to get to the bottom of it and do the right thing. But that's enough now, Geo Swan - many administrators have reviewed this, information that needs to be purged has been (and as much useful content as we can has been preserved), attributions have been satisfied; but to paraphrase yourself: sorry, this is an instance where privacy issues preclude us from explaining our actions (substitute "BLP policy" for "privacy issues"). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions I'm not really sure what User:Joel B. Lewis is trying to accomplish here by tossing AGF completely out the window and proposing a wide topic-ban against a long-term editor with a 15-year uncontroversial history, making a routine request. Obviously there's something deeper in the edit history that most aren't privy to - but to imply there is "behaviour" here seems unnecessary. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions for what appears to be a situation where everybody was acting in good faith but not everybody had full possesion of the facts, but Geo Swan please drop this. To all non-admins commenting here, while usually any editor is welcome to participate here, this is one of those rare occasions where a non-admin who isn't directly involved can't make informed comments, as to understand the issues means reviewing material which for legal reasons can't appear in anything publicly viewable on-wiki. ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, as far as I can see, Geo Swan commented above yesterday that they'd not have started the DRV if it contained "that name" (and I haven't a clue what name that is ...). And hasn't contributed to the DRV for days. We were days into dead horse territory when JBL started this discussion. Both this discussion and the DRV should be closed. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) thinks this is just about the REFUND and DRV, you're completely missing the June 30 ANI and everything that led up to it. What you're missing is that this is the latest of multiple attempts to get this content into mainspace one way or another. That BLP warning wasn't just issued out of the blue. That said, given GS's statement that they wouldn't have opened the DRV if they knew the content was in that deleted page, I agree with BK that the DRV can be considered withdrawn (and thus closed) and we can all move on. ^Lev!v^ich 17:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose sanctions right now, but Geo Swan, you really need to learn when to drop the stick. If you want to see deleted material, go apply at WP:RFA. There is typically a reason things get deleted like this. Asking an admin, one on one, is a much better use of your time if you *really* have to know. Whether you mean to or not, you have a way of generating drama here lately, and that is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am at a loss here as there is no AGF on Geo Swan's part. This diff states [[289]] "If their relationship with Derek Chauvin were the only thing to say about them, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. It is far from the only thing to say about them, but the disruption of the revdel-happy prevents us having a meaningful discussion as to whether the obfuscation was appropriate, in the first place. Catch-22.". They knew the material was concealed and are blaming the admins for being revdel-happy. Geo Swan has zero business editing the BLP space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6A1:86A7:C03D:E61F:B047:AAE7 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There was another discussion that touches on this subject: Geo Swan argued at BLP/N that we should remove an edit filter covering the name of the person in question [290]. That was on 24 July, three weeks after the ANI thread and a week before the DRV request. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Geo Swan really needs to drop the stick. They have been arguing for weeks on multiple pages that this individual needs to be named and that admins are in error for revdeling because the individual's name has been "widely disseminated" while ignoring that BLPNAME also says "has been intentionally concealed."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Great Ghu. I like GS. I have to AGF that GS was not fishing at WP:REFUND. And I don't believe those in conflict with an editor should have a say in remedies. However, this all paints a concerning picture. My judgment on the need for a TBAN may be clouded, but I certainly cannot think of a good reason to not TBAN on Derek and his ex-wife. GS has done a lot of great work for a long time, and I remain puzzled by this inordinate interest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You have to admit though, it's all very odd that even the married name of their independently famous ex-wife is censored, given that it's widely reported and WP:NOTCENSORED. If it was just a new name, I can see it ... but quite frankly, I'm completely baffled by this, and what the implications could be - and too wonder if we've missed something here. I have no idea what GS has been thinking (or why this discussion even continues) ... but I can see that such an odd contradiction in a nation with such poor governance and morals around the issues of racism, would start someone asking questions. We can't start TBANning everyone who starts asking questions when there's no explanation on why widely disseminated information isn't available ... or else we'd better start nominating members of the Censor Board! Though my bafflement doesn't extend to much more than scratching my head ... Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: There is an explanation: WP:BLPNAME. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." (emphasis added). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: If indeed there has been intentional concealment of the married name and no loss of context ... then sure. I'm not sure if either is true. I read further into this bizarreness since yesterday ... and an improbable coincidence jumped out at me. Then looking at surnames, an even more improbable coincidence jumped out at me. And suddenly, I realised what's going on here, and why stuff is being hidden. But as far as I can tell ... it is indeed just a coincidence ... but no surprise the conspiracy theorists are going nuts. But that leads to where I think we've erred. The best thing to do with a nutty conspiracy theory is to shine the light on everything - and the worst thing to do is keep secrets and keep quiet ... because that drives even normal people to be suspicious. Here, we seem to have gone too far with BLPNAME, by completely avoiding highly accessible well reported information, rather than simply having one-sentence that blows the conspiracy theory out of the water with good sources ... you could even do so without naming surnames ... though I don't see what we are hiding, given many incidental references in the article explicitly reference past names. Surely the only thing that should be hidden is their new name ... which if it's publicly known ... I haven't come across (nor have I looked much or care ...). Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh

(non-admin closure) Content dispute moved elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The behaviour of User:Sandbh in a discussion at Talk:Periodic table#IUPAC: an endorsement on group 3 (1988) is concerning me. It appears to involve misreadings of reliable sources, using original research to discredit sources, and selectively using sources. Let us take one case as an example. Now, I am afraid that this will be a bit long, because it just takes quite long to refute a misuse of sources. Landau and Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Quantum Mechanics (1958) contains a note on p. 271 regarding the periodic table. “ In books on chemistry, lutetium is usually placed with the rare-earth elements. This, however, is incorrect, since the 4f shell is complete in lutetium; it must therefore be placed in the platinum group, as in Table 4. ” And this source, among others, was cited by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in a 1988 report (doi:10.1351/pac198860030431) to endorse the idea that group 3 of the periodic table should contain scandium, yttrium, and then lutetium instead of lanthanum: “ ” For reference, the symbols of the elements involved are Sc (scandium), Y (yttrium), Lu (lutetium), Lr (lawrencium), La (lanthanum), Ac (actinium), Ce (cerium), Th (thorium), Yb (ytterbium), and No (nobelium). IUPAC currently even has a project reexamining the matter right now, whose chair is Eric Scerri. And he considers it an endorsement: “ Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988. ” — Eric Scerri This seems to me to clearly support the idea that the relevant body endorsed the form with group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr in 1988. But that is not how Sandbh sees it. First he discredits the report itself. He claims that "Fluck’s saying that group 3 is Sc-Y-Lu-Lr was a personal opinion, relying on questionable sources." But how is it a personal opinion? Fluck is not listed as the author of the 1988 report per se, but rather as the person who prepared the report for publication. Indeed the report is rather headed by the words "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry: Inorganic Chemistry Division". And at the bottom of the cover page it is even called a report: "Republication of this report is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC permission on condition that an acknowledgement, with full reference together with IUPAC copyright symbol (© 1988 IUPAC), is printed. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization." Then he discredits Scerri's interpretation. He writes "Eric seeing Fluck’s statement is a personal opinion, not connected with his role as the Chair of the IUPAC Group 3 project." True that. But Eric Scerri, being on the actual IUPAC Group 3 project, is surely well-placed to know what IUPAC did or did not do in the past. And he's surely a reliable source for that very reason. Sandbh disputes this, saying "No, Scerri does not necessarily know what IUAPC has or has not done." But on what basis? We have to take the source at face value, we cannot try to discredit it based on some supposed behind-the-scenes background that we know nothing about (because it isn't publicly stated) That would be original research. But that's exactly what Sandbh does. He wrote to me in that discussion "You are reading things into this article when you do not have sufficient awareness of the background to it". But what have I read into it? I simply reported exactly what the IUPAC report said and that Scerri said it was an endorsement. Finally we come to what, to me, is the most astonishing part of Sandbh's behaviour. That is with reference to the source by Landau and Lifshitz (the Course of Theoretical Physics) referred to in the IUPAC report. Now, this is not just any other old textbook. It is a classic. We need only look at the Wikipedia article on it to get a sense of the accolades which it has received. Science called it "renowned". American Scientist called it "celebrated". The Soviet government even awarded its authors the Lenin Prize in 1962 (which was the first time it had ever been awarded for teaching physics). But what does Sandbh do? He tries to discredit it. And not by referring to an independent reliable source to do this. By instead referring to his own WP:OR analysis of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 48#Landau & Ligshitz (1958): Redux. He advocates his own view of it that is at variance with what the IUPAC report says. He claims that Landau and Lifshitz supported lanthanum and lutetium in group 3, but IUPAC does not seem to see it that way. In fact he gives no source for his interpretation. Whereas all the sources I found that consider Landau and Lifshitz's statement interpreted it the way IUPAC did: “ Let me point out, however, that we made some changes in the periodic system. Here is Lu; all of your text books show La in its place. We just shifted the whole thing over and started La near Ba then all the rare earths, and finally Lu under Y. From all points of view, a crystallographic, metallurgical, superconducting, melting point in particular—this is the proper way to do it. And it was a mistake in the periodic system—unfortunately mostly propagated by the Welsh [Sargent-Welch?] Company, that La was here and again, everybody copied it. When we published that there was a mistake in the periodic system and La should be where Lu is and vice-versa, we were extremely proud of it until we found it in the Landau Lifschitz book where they had previously mentioned it. In subsequent papers we gave them credit but we didn't know it at the time we came to this conclusion. ” — Bernd T. Matthias (1969): Systematics of Superconductivity. In Superconductivity: Proceedings, Volume 1. “ Placing La next to Hf in the 5d row was merely a convention. If, following Landau and Lifshitz, we put Lu next to Hf, then all transition metals with n = 3 are not superconducting (see Table I). [They show a periodic table with indeed group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu, and La and Ac moved to the f block.] ” — D. C. Hamilton and M. A. Jensen (1963): Mechanism for Superconductivity in Lanthanum and Uranium And finally, that's not even the most astonishing thing Sandbh does in his WP:OR attempt to discredit the source. He draws a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" which is assuredly not what Landau and Lifshitz give. What Landau and Lifshitz give What Sandbh in his own analysis calls a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" As can be seen, Landau and Lifshitz did not even give a periodic table. These tables are scattered across different pages in their book! But Sandbh creates a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" anyway, even including elements on it that were unknown to Landau and Lifshitz as they were only discovered after 1958. To do so, he must read into the minds of Landau and Lifshitz to figure out how they would have dealt with lawrencium with its unprecedentedly anomalous gas-phase ground-state electron configuration of [Rn]5f146d07s27p1 rather than [Rn]5f146d17s2. Not only is lawrencium not in their table, it would require rather more than mind-reading to find out what Landau and Lifshitz would have done, because this configuration was first predicted in 1971 when Landau had already passed away, and first received clear experimental support in 2015 when Lifshitz had also already passed away. I ask: how can this be considered anything other than a misuse of the source? This is not even the only case of misuse of sources in that discussion. There I have referred to several, such as claims about the relevance of gas-phase ground-state configurations for the d and f block elements. Sandbh continually claims these as relevant (without quoting any sources, simply asserting that thousands of sources use them without backing it up) despite the fact that I have already provided five sources refuting the idea. He also selectively quotes Scerri whenever he says something that might be taken to support La under Y: thus, for instance, he quotes Scerri and Parsons to support his idea that Jensen's 1982 article supporting Lu under Y (which IUPAC also refers to in its report above) is flawed, but fails to note that Scerri and Parsons support Jensen's conclusion anyway for other reasons. (In fact, both their criticism of Jensen and their support of his conclusion for other reasons anyway can be found in the same essay in Mendeleev to Oganesson.) Or how he claims that there effectively wasn't any controversy about group 3 before Jensen's 1982 article, despite me being able to find so many sources about it and supporting Lu under Y prior to 1982 (Bury 1921, Shemyakin 1932, Landau and Lifshitz 1958, Seel 1961 and 1969, Hamilton and Jensen 1963, Hamilton 1965, Matthias et al. 1967, Merz and Ulmer 1967, Luder 1967 and 1970, Chistyakov 1968 and 1970, Matthias 1969, Wittig 1973). But in the interest of not taking too much space, I have restricted myself to just the one above. I have pointed this out to him all there, but he does not address my concerns. He simply points to word length and says "​​​It's unfortunate this topic takes up so much wordage. Addressing Double sharp's contributions now takes me so long it's starting to impact my RL obligations." Well, of course it is long. It always takes more verbiage to point out a misuse of sources than to engage in it. And this is not a new pattern of behaviour from him. This topic has been discussed since last December(!) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 42. There it came about because he was planning to publish an article outside Wikipedia about the group 3 issue and asked the other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for a peer review. By far the most active participants were him, myself, and Droog Andrey. There we found much the same thing: misinterpretation of sources, selective quoting of sources, and refusing to change his view even in the face of completely standard texts like Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements contradicting him. In the interest of space I haven't provided specific examples, but I can do so if requested. Because, after all, that is not quite relevant: it was for an external publication. So it spilled on through archives 44, 46, and 48, in which I progressively lost my patience. Since refuting him made me realise more and more about the subject and that Wikipedia's showing of La and Ac in group 3 may not be justified (as reliable sources focusing on the issue are generally against it, and they already form a significant 18% minority in general chemistry textbooks – we must remember that the textbooks are often not quite within reach of current knowledge; an example is how the d-orbital explanation of hypervalence lives on in textbooks despite it having been known to be false for decades), culminating in a first RFC (Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?) Now, I realised that I overreached in my harshness towards him: it was not justified per WP:CIVIL. So I apologised to him on his talk page and withdrew the RFC. (Since I did not know yet that IUPAC had really endorsed the Lu under Y form, it did have a weaker case.) However, despite this, the same behaviour with sources manifested itself again when this discussion was reopened when I found this statement about IUPAC's endorsement. And this time it's not about his external article, but about Wikipedia. I escalate this here reluctantly. I have worked productively with him on Wikipedia in the past, and would certainly much prefer to be doing so again. But this misuse of sources is now affecting a content discussion. Is there anything that can be done about this? Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC) ​Over the course of three posts Double sharp has so far contributed 10,000 words to the relevant discussion at Talk:Periodic table, here. My two responses, which I've tried to keep concise, amount to 1,200 words. His latest contribution here, brings his word count up to 12,000 words, I pity the poor Admin who has to deal with this one. It is not WP:ANI material. That said, I stand ready to assist. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) ​ As can be seen, Sandbh still does not address his problematic use of sources. He only refers to word length even though it simply takes that long to show how problematic it is. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (non admin comment) These arguments approach the length of a PhD thesis over multiple archives. But really it sounds like the RFC opening rather answers the question, the IUPAC have a compromise form at the moment, clearly intended to stop chemists from bickering. Could you both live with the compromise form? PainProf (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @PainProf: The point here is not the form, it is about Sandbh's misuse of sources. But since you asked: I could live with Sc-Y-* indeed. It is shown by IUPAC (even if not explicitly recommended). It's Sandbh who apparently cannot, judging from his comments about it at Talk:Periodic table#A navigation aid for Wikipedia, based on the periodic table (see the end of that section). It is true that I would prefer Sc-Y-Lu as it was actually endorsed by IUPAC in 1988 as quoted above, whereas Sc-Y-* is not explicitly recommended by them. Actually Sc-Y-* poses a little difficulty for the navboxes on Wikipedia like {{Periodic table (navbox)}} which give the 32-column form. There the compromise is impossible. But we can look at what IUPAC does in that situation. Only the 18-column form appears in the most recent 2005 Red Book, but the 1990 one has 8-, 18-, and 32-column forms. In the first two, the compromise is possible, and they show Sc-Y-*. In the last it is not and they show Sc-Y-Lu. But, again: this can also be resolved by switching to an 18-column navbox and showing Sc-Y-* everywhere. I am okay with that compromise. Sandbh, it appears, is not. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I don't really see a major conduct issue, you are holding each other to very high standards, it seems like you've collaborated productively a lot in the past. I really think if you both concede ground you could end this minor conflict quite quickly and get back to that? PainProf (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @PainProf: But I am willing to concede ground. I've stated above that the compromise form Sc-Y-* would be fine with me. It's not my first choice, but I'm fine with it. It's, however, apparently not fine with him. I do think that misuse of sources is a significant conduct issue. We have indeed collaborated productively a lot in the past, and I would like to get back to that, but it really does raise questions about his use of sources. And it is not even a new issue: Flying Jazz pointed it out back in 2013. There is this exchange in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 17: “ Yes, Hill and Holman use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book. Sandbh (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I'll be purchasing Hill and Holman's 5th edition from 2000 and also their 6th edition from 2011 to see what these author's views were and how they may have changed from one edition to the next. This will take time because the texts are so difficult to obtain where I live, but I love chemistry books and I love examining how book editions in general change over time, so I'm excited at the prospect of adding two chemistry books to my collection that are recommended in curricula far away from where I live. Some serious discussions instead of mockery may result from my examination of those editions. If you'd like to answer the question, "Did Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in their "main table" at the endpapers of their text?" with something more specific than, "Yes, Hill and Holman use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book," now is the time. Flying Jazz (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I have a copy of the PT in question. What would you like to know about it? Sandbh (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC) You have given the straightforward and verifiable answer of "yes," to the question, "Did Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in their "main table" at the endpapers of their text?" I'll be verifying your answer by obtaining a copy of their 5th and 6th editions. Until I do receive copies of both texts, I have no further questions for you or for anyone else on this Project, and I won't be interacting here or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any way. Goodbye for now. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC) ” And later it turned out that what Sandbh said wasn't true: “ After nearly six weeks, both editions have arrived at my home from the UK, and neither edition has a periodic table in the endpapers (although it is mentioned in the text). The fact that "Poor Metals" is not used as an element category in the endpapers of any textbook used in any educational program anywhere in the world is precisely why Wikipedia must use it. We must show that our editors are smarter than any textbook editors. This is because the purpose of Wikipedia has changed from serving the reader by modestly repeating the literature to serving the reader by proving to them that we at Wikipedia are smarter and better than the literature. That's why the fact that Theodore Gray uses the category "Other Metals" at his website is actually a reason why Wikipedia should not use it because it allows us to demonstrate our intellectual superiority to Gray. When Gray writes, "There should be a better name for Other Metals" on his website at http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Elements/OtherMetals/index.s7.html , it is actually a plea for help from us smarter people. Gray is telling Wikipedia editors what we should do, and now that we've done it, we can all write fan mail to him saying that we have done what he said we should do. Maybe he'll give us free T-shirts out of gratitude, and in his next book, he'll use the term "Poor Metals," acknowledge Wikipedia, and write about just how smart we are. That's the best way to serve the reader. It goes without saying that we must try to show each other that we're the smartest editor here by telling brazen boldfaced lies to each other in order to misrepresent the educational literature. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ” Indeed, Flying Jazz was not being particularly civil. But his point stands: Sandbh makes statements about sources that do not correctly represent the sources. I do feel that it is a conduct issue as it lessens trust in what he writes on Wikipedia. And it inevitably raises questions about the discussion. Like I said at Talk:Periodic table, I am willing to follow whatever consensus results on this matter. But how much will a consensus based on one editor's misrepresentations of the sources be worth? That's why I saw no choice but to reluctantly go here. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Comment ​​ Another 1,200 words and we do not even have admin involvement yet. I object to Double sharp dragging up ancient history from six years ago. The simple fact is the IUPAC has a project looking at the issue. The project recently conducted a survey of nearly 200 textbooks and found the La form, which we show in our periodic table article, is the most popular form: "Dec 2019 update – A survey of about 200 university textbooks of how group 3 of the periodic table has been prepared by UCLA student Jonathan Wong in association with Dr. Eric Scerri. The survey is divided into searches for each decade starting with the 1970s. A final tab labeled “data” presents comparative graphs." Double sharp posted an rfc to change back to the Lu form, with a 7,000 word supporting statement, and then withdrew it one day later after a particular hostile response from a member of WP:CHEMISTRY. User: Michael D. Turnbull recently expressed an interest in the issue. His personal conclusion, which I support, is "…we should wait as the matter may well be settled by the IUPAC working group within a few more months." Sandbh (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I withdrew it because you suggested it at Talk:Periodic_table#Last_try_at_being_reasonable. I do not want a fight. I am forced into one because you constantly misrepresent and selectively represent reliable sources. You do this yet again in this post, claiming that the La form is the most popular form, without mentioning that the IUPAC data itself shows that its popularity varies strongly by decade. It dropped from 82% in the 1990s to 48% in the 2010s as more and more chemists heard about it. It only considers English-language textbooks. You don't consider the fact that simply searching for "periodic table" at Google Images gives a 2/3 majority for the compromise form * under Y. And you also don't consider how overwhelming the majority for the Lu form becomes if you count articles focusing on the subject. Advocates Lu Advocates La Advocates * Bury (1921) Shemyakin (1932) Landau and Lifshitz (1958) Seel (1961 and 1969) Hamilton and Jensen (1963) Hamilton (1965) Mathias et al. (1967) Merz and Ulmer (1967) Luder (1967 and 1970) Chistyakov (1968 and 1970) Mathias (1969 and 1971) Wittig (1973) Jensen (1982 and 2015) Holden (1985) Kulsha (1999?) Fang et al. (2000) Horovitz and Sârbu (2005) Wulfsberg (2006) Ouyang et al. (2008) Scerri (2012) Nelson (2013) Settouti and Aouragi (2014) Scerri and Parsons (2018) Alvarez (2020) Smith (1927) Trifonov (1970) Shchukarev (1974) Atkins (2006) Lavelle (2008) Restrepo (2017) Cao et al. (2020) Xu and Pyykkö (2016) This is something you have done throughout this whole year, and I dredge up six years ago to show that this is not a new problem. It is a chronic issue. I don't do that. When describing the issue, I admit that a plurality of textbooks show Sc-Y-La, a majority of Google Image results show Sc-Y-*, and most sources focusing on the matter show Sc-Y-Lu. You selectively try to refute the latter two by reading into them and using your own WP:OR analyses while noting nothing at all about the first one. And you called my cited additions to the periodic table article "hack work". I do plan to start a new RFC based on the IUPAC endorsement of 1988. But it will not be a productive one unless you start representing reliable sources correctly and stop questioning a clear statement by Eric Scerri that it was an endorsement. There is no evidence for when the IUPAC working group will settle anything. In the meantime it seems to me that the past IUPAC endorsement is the best place to start. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Sandbh: Forgotten ping, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Isn't this more of a content dispute? This seems to be better suited to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There are volunteers there who can hopefully mediate the issues raised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu: Indeed it's partly a content dispute, but there is also a dispute regarding misuse of sources. What's the the best venue for mediating the latter? Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Double sharp, the link I provided in my previous comment will take you to the noticeboard. The arguments laid out here seem appear much more appropriate over there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Context is important. Compared to the vast mass of the academic literature, effectively zero chemists have lost sleep over the group 3 issue since 1921. The periodic table on the inside cover of the 2005 Red Book does not form a part of the actual red book recommendations. In the preface it says, "Lesser omissions [from the 1990 edition] include…the several different outdated versions of the periodic table. (That on the inside front cover is the current [internal] IUPAC-agreed version.)" Even Scerri has acknowledged this. IUPAC endorsement of the Lu form did not occur. Fluck's 1988 mention of the Lu form was a 230-word afterthought in a 4,300 word paper. The report that the afterthought appeared in was neither expressed as a formal recommendation of IUPAC nor did it feature or include any form of formal IUPAC endorsement. The abstract tells you what it is limited to: "In 1985 the IUPAC Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry circulated for public comment a proposed new notation for the groups of the periodic table. This gave rise to worldwide discussion in the chemical literature. This article reviews the historical process that led to the IUPAC proposals, and discusses them in relation to the response within the scientific community." His afterthought refers to the chosen *-** form as a compromise. That Scerri said, "Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 [Sc-Y-Lu, 32 column] that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988" was a misinterpretation and an error of wishful thinking. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC) As we can see, Sandbh favours his own OR analysis over what the actual chair of the current IUPAC project says about past IUPAC decisions. He also claims *-** is the compromise Fluck refers to in the IUPAC report he prepared for publication, when actually the report never mentions *-** at all. At Tenryuu's suggestion I will head over to WP:DRN. I will start a new thread soon. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu: Started a thread at your suggestion at WP:DRN#Periodic table, so I believe this ANI thread may now be closed. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a request on my talk page from Double sharp [291] about this discussion which I closed. My response is here.
  Obviously, a NAC closure is an inherently weak one, so if any other editor feels this discussion has merit and should be re-opened, please go ahead and re-open it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kevin Deutsch

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

---

Some very enthusiastic editors have crossed the line into personal attacks against Snowfire I've warned them, but somebody might want to have a patient word with FTIIIOhfive (talk · contribs) and LaneyJfromHoward (talk · contribs) about consensus and user conduct to de-escalate the tone. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

what... is even happening there?--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The user we had a dispute with spent days unilaterally placing language in article despite administrative attempts to get him not to. It became a problem and we responded. We are ready to quash the beef with the agreed upon language. Enough beef. Can you help facilitate the reversion? Bevkingcares (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: a related discussion was started over at WT:AN#Kevin Deutsch article editathon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks on display: [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] I think MelanieN had a try at de-escalation, but I'm not seeing that it's working. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's been a few more on other articles as well - the sockpuppets have made additional minor edits elsewhere (after the previous sock was rightly accused of being a WP:SPA) but also edits like [298] which are basically just attacks, as well as section titles like in [299]. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's all the same editor with the same pro-Kevin Deutsch agenda, who's been to ANI before and been site-banned. I've just been waiting on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire to finish up but agree that regardless of sockpuppet status, it's crossed over into full-fledged harassment and threats, and should be banned on that basis anyway (although they'll just create new socks, hence me not pushing very hard myself). The sockmaster clearly has lots of time on their hands and has threatened me with an endless campaign of harassment on the hour if I don't edit exactly as instructed by the sockmaster (he needs me to do it because thanks to his edit warring, the article is 30/500 protected). Darkly hilariously, I actually agreeed and made the edit, but was met only by further abuse, so I rolled my edit back. SnowFire (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve partial blocked the reported accounts for their ridiculous behavior on the talk page. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, we quashing this? People wanna get some sleep. We agreed to the language and we apologize, snowfire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaneyJfromHoward (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not going to get what you want, chief. We don't really like bullying much.--Jorm (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I hear quacking, but suspect it might just be meat-puppetry. Regardless this behavior is absurd and several editors should feel grateful to be getting off with only a page-ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We may need more than partial blocks/page bans. Things really got out of hand at that talk page today. I did some hatting, and I gave a warning to the worst of the group, User:WillieHowardCO67, for personal attacks [300] [301] and harassment [302]. After my warning they apologized and (sort of) tried to reconcile with the object of their attack, but the guns are still clearly cocked and loaded. This attack [303] came AFTER my warning and their apology. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We get it. We messed up. Sorry. It just wasn’t ethically right what we saw but I responded poorly and I apologize. Not trying to bully. I just let my emotions get best of me.WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Looks like you partial-blocked only FTIIIOhfive and LaneyJfromHoward, but check out my comment above: WillieHowardCO67 has been the worst of the three at that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: FTIIIOhfive, LaneyJfromHoward, and WillieHowardCO67 have been blocked as sockpuppets of AlexVegaEsquire. Sockpuppet investigation here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Bevkingcares has also been checked as one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just so everyone reading this knows we are edit a thon participants and activists, not puppets of whoever. But we do support the changes to the Kevin Deutsch lead. And we are allowed to have our voices heard as people about other issues as well. I come in peace to resolve this.Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What you guys engaged in was not an "edit a thon"; your behavior is more like "asshole a thon" and it appears that your voices are... all the same voice. The issue is resolved. You will not get any cookies. You're done here.--Jorm (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong, we are not done, and you cannot call me names! This is why we are fighting white privilege on this website, being called an asshole by a guy named Jorn. Don’t you dare talk to me like that. Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

{subst:ANI-notice}}--Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Highflyingkitty: if this was an official editathon, it would have been advertised on meta and here (or somewhere, anyway); was it, and if so, where? In either case, if a bunch of people all decide to sit in the same room—or combine virtually—with the intention of making similar edits from a similar point-of-view (for example, support the changes to the Kevin Deutsch lead or fighting white privilege, etc), then that is clearly WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Please read that link; it will tell you that Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki., and that, concomitantly, this is a prohibited behavior. ——Serial 16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait so what do we do to make our edits safe? Disclose more? I am being sincere.Highflyingkitty (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok I have read it, thank you. I will enlist others. Highflyingkitty (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Who are "we" again? Is it an organisation? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Highflyingkitty, please read WP:MEATPUPPETRY again, as right after what Serial Number 54129 quoted: While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm. We are a group of community members in the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn working together to improve Wikipedia narratives about POC and stories told about our communities. I helped put our efforts together but we have no official group name. We were inspired by similar work being done by other editathonsHighflyingkitty (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I hate to bring this back up again but I just got sent an email about this from someone claiming to be a journalist. I am posting it here in its entire glory:

Good afternoon,

I'm a journalist with Bronx Justice News working on a story about an incident on Wikipedia this week in which several Bronx residents and other New Yorkers, all people of color, were allegedly banned from editing the site, referred to as a mob, talked down to in racially insensitive terms, and had many of their edits to articles concerning people of color, and issues relevant to communities of color, deleted. We were sent screen shots by one of these editors, a correction officer here in the Bronx, which shows the before and after versions of several articles on issues like lynching, white privilege, and historic Black figures, which these editors attempted to contribute to. It's also my understanding that the Wikipedia page of one of our staff reporters, Kevin Deutsch, was involved in this incident. And another reporter of ours, Sasha Gonzales, was also banned, apparently because she was working off the same wifi or IP address as one of the comunity editors when she made a comment on Wikipedia earlier in the week.

We have also been sent several screen shots showing exchanges between a Wikipedia administrator named Jorm (identified on his talk page as Mr. Brandon Harris), and one of the banned editors of color. According to the editors we spoke with, they were participating in a loosely organized "edit-a-thon" on Wikipedia focusing on articles involving people and issues pertinent to their communities, and had openly disclosed this fact on their talk pages, as well as to administrators. From what I can gather, it appears their involvement in a preexisting dispute about Mr. Deutsch's Wikipedia article immediately preceeded their being banned.

I'm reaching out today to ask whether the foundation, or Mr. Harris, or both, would like to respond to the allegations being made by several of these editors, who are claiming racial bias and racist treatment by Wikipedia adminsitrators and editors, including Mr. Harris. One particular screen shot shows a female editor, who will be included in our story, asking for an administrator of color to mediate the dispute; the last communication she apparently made before she was banned. Could you respond to that allegation, and perhaps provide a reason why an editor of color was not brought on to help these editors navigate the situation? We would greatly appreciate any comments you wish to provide in response to these allegations, as we wish aim to fully capture both sides of this story.

We are also requesting a breakdown of how many white employees work at the Wikipedia Foundation, versus employees of color; what the foundation is doing to avoid incidents like the one described above; whether administrators undergo any special racial sensitivity training (or will as a result of this incident), and any other applicable facts you think worth including about these issues or related ones.

Our deadline for the article on these events is Friday at 5 p.m. EST. Thank you.

Eric Klein Editor Bronx Justice News @bxjusticenews Office: 718-473-9731

This was also cc'd to press at wikimedia dot org. Fun times!--Jorm (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be clear here, despite the name, Bronx Justice News is not actually a news agency or anything. It's just the name of Kevin Deutsch's personal blog. All of the authors/journalists who post to it are just names as best I can tell off a cursory investigation I did ~3 weeks ago. The account that identified as "Sasha Gonzales" was one of the identified sockpuppets ([304], [305]), so they're the same person as the sockmaster. Combined with my earlier off-wiki investigation before Gonzales even posted on Wikipedia, the evidence suggests that they're (probably) not real. (Happy to provide evidence by email if requested.) SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, I think this is going to be a weak fart. I'm not worried about a hit piece posted to a tiny blog written by a so-called journalist who is best known for fabricating stories, and I don't think WP should be, either. I just post it for completeness and transparency.--Jorm (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is looking a LOT worse for Mr. Deutsch now. Making up claims of racism to cover your sockpuppetry? RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  A lot worse, I'd think. He is not just making claims of racism, but doing so under the guise that these accounts, likely operated by him, were Black editors. Gross. Grandpallama (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  "We would greatly appreciate any comments you wish to provide in response to these allegations." Hm. I think the proper response would be "Crawl back into your hole and pull the dung heap back over yourself," myself. Ravenswing 02:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No explanation in reverts

• Armantkb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Takab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Armantkb reverts my edits without explanation and I've both encouraged them to use the talkpage in the edit-summary and on their talkpage[306]. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Semsûrî! I'm not an admin. But I've reverted Armantkb, and also warned them using {{uw-editsummary}} and {{uw-disruptive1}}. Twinkle is handy for semi-automating the process of gradually dispensing increasingly-threatening user talkpage warnings. In one-on-one disputes, please try not to revert-war; please try to seek out an uninvolved third editor to help you instead. —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Semsûrî, an update: After some more disruption and warnings, Armantkb received a 31-hour block (applied by Materialscientist). —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked.[307] Semsûrî (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I appear to have gained an unwanted fan

After making this edit (sourced to the official Boxing Union of Ireland website, the reference is above the table) which removed an incorrect addition by HuntGroup, the user took exception to my correct and sourced edit and engaged in a brief edit war (seen here and here), of which their reasoning for restoring incorrect, unsourced information was "...If you are going to remove champions at least have the good grace to add to them to the list of former champions" (when they could have done that themselves instead of needlessly reverting lol). They echoed their illogical point with a borderline PA on my talk page (diff), I replied informing them that that is no reason to revert incorrect, unsourced information back in (diff), and left an edit war template on their talk page (diff), which appeared to have the desired effect as they stopped the needless reverting. Their response was this kind comment and to drop me a retaliatory template on my talk page (of which I removed). The user then followed me to a CfD discussion to cast a seemingly retaliatory vote (diff), followed by what I consider another PA on my talk page (diff), disrespect often manifests responses in kind, I replied and told them to no longer post on my talk page (diff). End of story? Nope. Following another person attack on the talk page I asked them not to post on (diff) they continued to stalk my edits to add a retaliatory comment at an article talk page that I'm guessing they've never previously edited before, just for shits and giggles (diff). I let them know in no uncertain terms that their behaviour isn't acceptable (diff) to which they responded with another personal attack (diff) and some more stalky behaviour; this revert, which I will revert as its blatantly retaliatory, and this pointless comment which again, is a PA. I'm guessing their antics up to this point don't warrant a block, but at the very least this user needs a few stern words regarding their disruptive, and to be quite frank, just outright weird editing behaviour. – ².O.^Boxing 11:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style and this he sees as problematic - well that proves my point. I tried to enter into a discussion with the editor but as you can see from the aggressive and abusive edit summary that this is not exactly easy. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And the first edit this editor makes after making this report is to enter into an edit war. Honest, I think we have a serious issue with projection here and an editor who has a bad case of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As for suggesting that I was making erroneous edit, my edits were sourced. I would have been happy to discuss the issue with the editor but User:Squared.Circle.Boxing prefers revert wars and has a long history of this, again pointing to issues of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another example of his attempted ownership of articles can be seen here where the editor reverts every attempt to improve the simply because he does not like it. More discussion and less aggressive edit warring would be the solution here. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tried to enter into a discussion? With a PA, after you were told not to post on my talk page due to your PAs? Funny lol and yes, I reverted your stalky, pointy, disruptive, retaliatory revert. Your edits were not sourced. The source for the list of current champions is the BUI's official website, which is directly above the table. And as seen in the diffs I provided, you were the first one to revert (Back to unsourced, incorrect information), so, fail. As for your final comment, I've already addressed my latest revert and the one prior is due to an unexplained reversion after apparent refusal to engage in discussion. Anything else? – ².O.^Boxing 11:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You deleted my comment from your talk page asking me not to comment there. Why not try and have a normal conversation elsewhere where others less bolshie or aggressive editors could contribute. No you would rather control issues. As for being unsourced, I already provided evidence that the edit I made were sourced not unsourced and that the BUI website have not been updated correctly. I cannot respect and editor who behaves in this manner.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your first comment on my talk page was a PA (diff), your second addition was an immature, retaliatory template (diff), your third addition was yet another PA (diff). So yes, after that I told you not to post on my talk page and removed the next PA you left. I'm not discussing your unsourced edits again, they've already been addressed. – ².O.^Boxing 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that when you start revert wars with good faith editors and then place passive aggressive warnings on their talkpage then you are not building good faith or respect. I suggest you allow others to breathe, try discussing issues rather than edit warring and then join WP:KIND.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest that it is actually User:Squared.Circle.Boxing that has been following my edits, as can be seen here and here and here and here etc etc. Simply provoking editors and displaying issues of ownership over articles.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

First diff – You were correct, I forgot about the BUI Celtic title, which is why I haven't reverted your revert.

Second diff – per MOS:BOXING.

Third diff – per various WP:MOS

Fourth diff – per MOS:NICKNAME

I have over 1,500 boxing related articles on my watchlist, if I see an edit that isn't an improvement or goes against an MOS, I'll revert or adjust where necessary. Unfortunately for you, there's an interaction tool which compares editors contributions on articles (I don't know where it is). If somebody (which they probably will) uses that, they will see that I have more than likely edited each of those articles before you. So no, correcting mistakes on articles I have previously edited that are on my watchlist is not stalky behaviour. – ².O.^Boxing 12:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You also have a long record of edit warring, warnings and even blocks relating to your editing of boxing related articles. Maybe you should just approach other editors with a bit more respect and you wouldn't constantly be getting yourself into bother and falling out with other editors. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not lol I've been blocked once (which was soon lifted) when I first started editing Wikipedia and was unaware of the various policies and guidelines, same with warnings for edit warring (one, maybe two?). This is getting desperate now. I have provided the necessary evidence and will respond to logical queries and comments from uninvolved people. – ².O.^Boxing 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a long history of revert warring and pretty much bullying and punching down. You placed a warning on my page to warning me about edit warring when in fact you were edit warring. I am a cool head, you are obviously a hot head and try to shut people up and shut people down when you don't agree with them. Again, I suggest you join WP:KIND and try and be nicer to fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntGroup (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it. – ².O.^Boxing 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? I am asking you to stop with your personal attacks. You are not an admin, stop trying to act like one and bully other editors. For example referring to me as a stalker to other editors (who you were trying to bully) in the middle of a conversation is disgusting behaviour. And also stoop removing my comments. Again you are not an admin, stop trying to pretend you have the powers of an admin in order to coerce other editors who disagree with you. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reinserting the PA after being removed. I smell a potential edit war brewing. – ².O.^Boxing 14:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Get it right, after YOU removed it. Again, you are not an admin, you do not get to push other editors around, you are a bully. I do not like bullies. You do not get to make personal attacks and then remove comments from editors asking you not to make personal attacks. It is extremely odd behaviour. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Again reinstating a PA of which the removal is covered by WP:RPA. I'm not sure if RPA is an exemption from 3RR so I'll refrain from another immediate revert, for now. – ².O.^Boxing 14:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So according to you it is a personal attack to ask another editor to stop making personal attacks? This is getting too weird. It's pretty obvious that you are just trying to game the system to get editors you disagree with blocked. Pretty petty and childish behaviour. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, according to WP:WIAPA, accusations of a PA without evidence is a PA, not to mention the whole "mummy, this person is a bully!" behaviour lol It appears WP:STALKING is an outdated term, the appropriate one would be WP:HOUNDING. Stating you're following me to multiple discussions to bark like a WP:HOUND is not a PA, it's not even an unfounded aspersion, it's evidenced in my opening comment. You should try clicking some of these links instead of focusing all your unwanted attention on me (30+ of this "editor's" latest "contributions" are directly related to me), you might learn a thing or two ;) – ².O.^Boxing 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously from your many dealing with admins over your aggressive and bullying behaviour you seem to have picked up a lot of buzzwords when it comes to reporting other editors and leaving warnings on their talk pages as of you are some admin. Every page I have been to that you are on I have seen editors accuse you of aggression, bullying and punching down. Can you not see a pattern here? It's time to grow up and start treating other editors who have differing opinion to you with some respect. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I haven't dived into this deep at all and did not review any of Square's work so I have no opinion about Squared's editing. I'm just dropping in because I noticed HuntGroup said the other ed has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style... (bold added) In theory at least, it isn't supposed to matter how wrong the other editor may have been, we each stand on our own choices. Whether your characterization of the other ed is right or not, we can assume you believed it to be true and say you mirrored it..... that sure sounds to me like a confession you were engaged in WP:BULLYING yourself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well technically that is only is you consider User:Squared.Circle.Boxing's edits as bullying. SCB has instigated all of this, instigated all of this, trolling, following my edits, reverting me, placing warnings on my talk page. Personally, I am not really au fait with the workings and tactics used in ANI but SCB is well versed in this world. I merely placed the same tags on his page that he placed on mine. I genuinely want nothing to do with him.--HuntGroup (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, reverting edits that do not adhere to various MOS' and sourcing policy, reverting per BRD or boldly nominating a category for deletion (of which an experienced editor, who helped create the MOS of which the category related to, agreed with the nomination), is "bullying"...*epic rolling of the eyes*. – ².O.^Boxing 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Every page I have been to that you are on I have seen editors accuse you of aggression, bullying and punching down. Any diffs for this claim? Or is it yet again, another unfounded aspersion? You have been to four "pages" that "I'm on", one is my talk page, two are article talk pages and the other is a CfD discussions (all of which you have followed me to), and the only person crying about bullying, is, you, on all of them lol Give your head a wobble would ya. – ².O.^Boxing 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay here are some diffs if that was even needed? Here an admin warned you over punching down, here another admin warns you over bullying, another that you push your aggressive opinion, another calls you a super vandal one editor even went as far as to say you were Immature and with psychological or physical issues and I am accusing you of being a bully. This is all in the very recent past. Anyone seeing a pattern? No one has ever had an issue with me before except you. Again, are we seeing a pattern of disruptive and aggression behaviour?--HuntGroup (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And now for the context, which is key. This was a result of my misunderstanding of WP:GRAVEDANCING. The admin suggested I remove a comment, I thought he was insinuating there was a PA, there wasn't, I decided against removing it. This was not a warning for bullying, it was for the same issue, grave dancing. After explaining my misunderstanding of the matter, the issue concluded with this message. This isn't even my comment lol but that is a discussion (that you followed me to for some hounding) between me and another editor at CfD, literally no aggression between us, you're embarrassingly clutching at straws with that one. This is from a disruptive, ban evading editor (who regularly leaves similar such comments to multiple editors when his talk page comments are summarily reverted) whose disruption has resulted in the indefinite page protection of Rocky Marciano. This is from another block evading, disruptive editor who was having a big ol' paddy after being reverted multiple times (that sounds familiar) for introducing BLP violations to the article (which can't be viewed due to a revdel) of Billy Joe Saunders by calling the subject a woman beater with not an iota of evidence, followed by repeated vandalism of the talk page after the BLP violations resulted in PP. Your false accusations of bullying are just that, false accusations. Dig through my contributions as much as you want, you won't any evidence. There's nothing you can do to deflect from the evidence (most of which are your own comments in this report) of your repeated PAs. Happy digging! – ².O.^Boxing 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:The Oriental Despot and User:HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer

Edits to the Maram Susli article

I am referring to User:HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer (who registered the account yesterday) and User:The Oriental Despot (who registered in February). The account's user pages are blank.

Edits made by these two accounts almost entirely include YouTube videos (including one from the deprecated RT) which seem to be intended as a promotion of the article subject rather than as an attempt to develop the article. One reliable source (The Guardian) has been removed twice as "fringe"; it mentions Susli's on air interview with a Holocaust denier. Philip Cross (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• The user WCE1986 is another new account whitewashing. Might be a {{checkuser needed}} situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CU is kind of a wash. There's at least one proxy involved. Someone tagged a Josher8a sock on an IP range used by HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer, and that IP range is full of promo editors. I personally think "Josher8a" is probably a paid editing ring, not an individual editor who's creating socks. The other two geolocate to a different country than HCP, for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

    I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I semied the article for 6 months. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

    I was checking at the same time NRP was (oops) and agree with their conclusion, except I have HCP simultaneously editing on two different continents (obviously using proxies). Also agree with semiprotection, I was already on my way to do that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I knew this needed a few more tools than I have, I appreciate the thorough look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Targeting User:Philip Cross

(Have modified earlier headings to this section.) These two editors are now making minor edits, some useful and acceptable, some purely disruptive and POV, to articles which I have heavily worked on the past and mention on my user page. As I am not able to edit many of these articles because of a BLP topic ban on post-1978 British politics, these edits seem like a deliberate taunt, attempt at harassment and a personal attack. I have not added any of the appropriate templates to the user talk pages, because it is clear these two accounts ignore any warnings, quite apart from being directly involved myself.

Yesterday, before the tragedy in Beirut, the @partisangirl account on Twitter was re/tweeting attacks on me or against Wikipedia, though most of those from yesterday have been deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User's topic ban

User:The Oriental Despot is now banned from editing the Maram Susli article. Yet this editor is still continuing to edit the article:

• diff
• diff
• diff

Philip Cross (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

obvious spat between two users - Sapah3 and MistyfelSR

Sapah3 and MistyfelSR appear to be involved in some sort of argument re edit warring. Can an uninvolved admin take a look and investigate? They have resorted to using AIV and AN3 as a warring platform, after one accused the other of being a sock of an IP. Thanks. Nightfury 08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I just got the message on my talk page that this was opened so I shall merge what I have published above with this. (Sapah3 (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

Sapah3 - My side of the story:

They are a new account and appear to be the same person as Special:Contributions/2001:8003:9008:1301:d966:b4c7:e4bc:8bc1 (an IP address that was blocked last week for harassing me on multiple occasions e.g. "You are such a turd", You are such a troll").

They have accused me of edit warring despite the fact that I have not used the "undo" function on every occasion I have edited a contested page. I have started discussions at the talk pages to dicuss the issues and get them to provide sources for the information they continue to reinstate. Despite warnings issued to them via their talk page to refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia and to engage in discussion, they have continued to revert my edits and have failed to engage in discussion. This whole time they have done nothing on Wikipedia except stalk me and revert my edits (even the ones that aren't supposed to be disputed e.g. 1, 2 - this second example clearly shows they have not read the source attributed to this information). It is clear to see that they are not interested in making worthwhile edits on Wikipedia - every single edit they have made since the creation of the account has involved me. (Sapah3 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

You seem to be extremely defensive, impatient and offended that I reported you on the edit warring noticeboard. Why? Anyway, you only made a section on the talk page after reverting 4 times, and now you're talking about "engaging in discussions"? I'm not going to write long paragraphs but I'll just link this [308] and await what an admin has to say over there. MistyfelSR (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MistyfelSR, without commenting on the sock allegations, can I ask you to explain your thinking when you made the two reverts linked in the previous post?

• Here you revert saying 'misleading edit summary'. Sapah3's edit summary said 'fixed error' and they did indeed fix a grammatical error (the missing 'have'). Why did you revert?
• Here you are reinstating an assertion that looks, on the face of it, like a sweeping generalisation, and which does not seem to be supported by the single source that paragraph has. Why did you revert?

Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, for the first revert, though they have added the missing 'have', there was also a discreet change from 'East' to 'Southeast' which wasn't mentioned in the edit summary. That's more than just a grammatical error. Throughout the article, there are a lot of mentions of Thailand being very much influenced by East Asian culture in many ways and it was a constructive addition made by another user a while back based on what I've seen in the revision history.

Second revert, I've checked the source [309] – the source is really detailed, but it's located in Results > Overview of Population Structure and Sino–Tibetan (I may have missed more links, but that's the general idea) – and Sapah3's claim in the edit summary that they "Removed information that is not in the source" was misleading. It goes into detail about the strong links that the different Asian peoples (Especially East & Southeast) have with each other, while forming a genetic cluster with Asians from other regions. That was removed even though it was in the source. MistyfelSR (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@MistyfelSR: Firstly, in regards to the first revert you need to look at the context. East Asian countries were not colonised by any European country. Thailand is located in Southeast Asia and the whole of Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) was colonised by Europeans. Secondly, my edit summary which read, "Removed information that is not in the source" was not misleading. You need to make sure you read the key components of a source before you make any changes. Nowhere in the source does it mention "Central Asians" or "Siberians". The source is a genetic study focusing on the ethnic groups in Vietnam with a broader look at Southeast Asia too. They focus on the ethnic groups and divide them up into various language groups like Sino-Tibetan (note that this is not an ethnic group, it's a language group) and Austro-Asiatic for example. They compare Southeast Asian populations with Indian and East Asian groups. There is however no mention of Central Asians or Siberians. If you aren't aware, the topic of genetics on Wikipedia can be a divisive topic and quite heated at times. That's why sources are very important and the source does not support the information that I removed from the article, that is why I removed the unsourced information. (Sapah3 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

@MistyfelSR: So, when you reverted the first edit, you re-introduced an error because you disagreed with a different part of the edit - that's not ideal. For the second revert, I cannot see anything in the source that would support an generalisation as broad as "East Asian people are all closely related to each other", which is also poorly phrased. Sapah3 did not remove the later assertion that South-East Asian people are closely related to East Asian people, which is relevant to the section. I don't see why you are reverting here, instead of suggesting and discussing changes on talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Malaysian IPs changing birth dates

We have Special:Contributions/115.134.228.186 and Special:Contributions/115.132.140.3 both on Telekom Malaysia. I don't see how this can be stopped but if anyone does, great. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

• Editor interaction: [310]
• Grufo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In late July, I had a content dispute with Grufo at Islam and blasphemy. During that dispute the user repeatedly edit-warred, employed a negative tone, accused those disgreeing of vandalizing the article and also accusing me of sockpuppetry ("@IP address (possibly a.k.a. Vice regent)"). Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert "The Quran prescribes either prison or mutilation or death for those guilty of blasphemy". Grufo defended this by insisting things like "a primary source in a philological context is way more valuable than secondary sources". Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including Eperoton) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was WP:OR and the dispute mainly ended, or so I thought.

Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles (Grufo's contribs), articles that Grufo seems to have never edited before. This includes restoring unreliable sources[311],[312],[313],[314],[315],[316]. It also includes making reverts from past content disputes at Rape in Islamic law without engaging in the discussion about that content (Grufo's only comment on the talk page doesn't come close to discussing the magnitude of content reverted). Grufo's revert on History of Slavery duplicated some content in the lead.

Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone. The user insists on using Raymond Ibrahim,[317] Nonie Darwish,[318] and The Legacy of Jihad[319] as reliable sources. Others agree with me that Raymond Ibrahim is not a reliable source. Grufo admitted that Darwish was "anti-Islamic" but insisted such sources were reliable and restored "Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration". Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "hide" and "silence" content.VR _talk 14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

“During that dispute the user repeatedly edit-warred”

As it has been explained to you, despite you keep projecting after a first private message, I am not the one who started an edit war, nor I consider myself at war with anyone.

“Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert”

On the contrary, among other things I have tried to avoid that a subjective minority interpretation of the Quran be used as representative of the article, and I have tried to rely as much as possible only on the secondary sources that are supported by tertiary sources.

“Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including Eperoton) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was WP:OR”

I think you lived in a parallel discussion. I did not interpret the Quran (nor I intend to). I did the exact opposite.

“Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles”

As it has been explained to you, your edits tend to be destructive (in the literal sense of the adjective, meaning that they tend to consist in the removal of sources or entire paragraphs, or in their replacement with apologetic content) and counterproductive, reaching the point of replacing influential interpretations with your personal opinion. For example you have removed the Hanafi school of jurisprudence's position from the page Rape in Islamic law, despite it is a largely influential school, maybe the largest.

“Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone”

How can that be? Either I reverted your edits or I added anti-Muslim content. Please do explain it or give an example.

“Grufo admitted that Darwish was "anti-Islamic" but insisted such sources were reliable”

I insisted (and I still do) that being critical of Islam or religion in general has nothing to do with being reliable or not as a source as you seem to imply – no more and no less than being Islamic or not caring at all about Islam does. On the other hand, since the only sources you have removed are the openly anti-Islamic ones, I must deduce that you consider being anti-Islamic as a valid motivation for being labeled as unreliable source.

“The user insists on using Raymond Ibrahim, Nonie Darwish, and The Legacy of Jihad as reliable sources”

I only restored the sources that have been removed without a valid motivation by you.

“Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "hide" and "silence" content”

It is literally what you have been trying to do so far, or at least as far as I could check. It looks like you feel invested of some sort of mission on Wikipedia. But whatever mission you feel you have, it does not matter as long as your edits are acceptable and not destructive.

--Grufo (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the IP who first confronted Grufo. Don't have much to add about the hounding accusation but, as can be seen above this user is rather quick to attack other users' motivations and rather slow in presenting reliable secondary sources that support his stance. In my initial interactions with him on Islam and Blasphemy, he refused to forward any source at all and relied on unsourced interpretations of the Quran (a primary source) ([320] and onwards) while removing secondary sources (in previous edits [[321]]) and continues to do so with some of his recent edits regarding the Quran. 39.37.163.88 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Grufo continues to make personal attacks.VR _talk 15:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces

• Differential geometry of surfaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Russ Woodroofe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blanking: [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327]

The article Differential geometry of surfaces (DGS) is one that I helped prepares twelve years ago in February 2008. For some time I have known that DGS has not been in am imperfect state. While writing the article, I added further content which became a separate article Riemannian connection on a surface (geared to graduate students). The original paper has many imperfections largely because, like other parts of wikipedia, it still remains unwritten. There were many gaps in the article, particular at the beginning and the lede, because it had broken off as a fork. However I decided recently to make the long overdue improvements to the article, knowing bits that were glaringly missing: first to symmetry of second derivatives and then to inverse function theorem. I just summarised very briefly a page or two out of Lars Hörmander and Henri Cartan (world experts).

Then User:D.Lazard decided he did not like some of the new introductory material which he blanked five times. I believe that this kind of blanking is extremely uncommon on wikipedia. D.Lazard did not seem to have give any coherent explanation of his blanking. He wikilwawyered and criticized the title "Differential geometry of surface."

D.Lazard has been told that the brief preparatory section is needed for the new section "Regular surfaces in Euclidean space". At the moment the paragraph of requisites is just a brief summary without proofs. The new content on "regular surface" is in the course of being written. The sources are the lecture noteds of Nigel Hitchin and Eugenio Calabi, as well as text boos by Pelham Wilson, Andrew Pressley, Manfredo do Carmo, Barrett O'Neill and Dirk Struik. D.Lazard's repeated blanking is unhelpful. In addition he has not made any attempt to discuss the proposed new material, which seems to me straightorward. He has accused me of WP:OWN, but he knows that there are certain prerequistes are needed for telling the story of Gauss and his remarkable discoveries. Most of contributions in mathematics have been to harmonic analysis, symmetric spaces, representation theory, etc. Differential geometry of surfaces is an undergraduate article: in the UK that is the case (e.g. in Oxford and Cambridge) and also for honors undergraduates in the US. D..Lazard's blanking is incredible. He has no authority to prevent standard content being created. As far as I am aware, he does not produce any such content himself. Other blanking by Russ Woodruffe has also happened (using WP:BRD as a pretext).

I have created an even shorter summary, now placed only in the "Regular surface" section. D.Lazard's blanking has been disruptive. It seems to be a combination of WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Very little to do with content creation, which requires calm and careful thought. Mathsci (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Boomerang This is a content issue and it seems that only Mathsci refuses to cooperate with the consensus of other editors on that talk page. The so-called blanking is explained by edit summaries and talk page comments, so I'm not sure why Matshci thinks this drama board will support their ownership claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have removed the section Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables that mathsci added recently, because it was out of the scope of this article. When I saw that mathsci started edit warring, I stopped reverting after my second revert, opened a discussion on this section on the talk page, and asked WT:WPM for help. Three established mathematical editors posted to Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables with comments agreeing that this section should be removed. Mathsci participation to this discussion did not addressed the question of the relevance of this section for this article. I have considered that four against one (mathsci) is a clear WP:CONSENSUS. So, I reverted again this section (three times), and each time I was reverted, with personal attacks in the edit summary ("rvv - WP:BATTLEGROUND by edit-warrior - WP:NOTHERE - there has no been attempt to discuss the relevant mathematics and certainly no attempts to find "consensus" - OP seems not to actually seem ti have write very much content editing on wiipedidia recently" [328]). Finally (for the moment?) Russ Woodroofe reverted this section again. The fact that Russ Woodroofe was not among the editors that have commented on the talk page enforces the consensus.

About the accusation of WP:OWN, it suffices to read above mathsci's post to be convinced that it is a problem for mathsci.

IMO, WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• This edit appears as a tentative of mathsci for escaping from WP:3RR by restoring the disputed material in another section. D.Lazard (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) In principle this involved updating and improving the article, I looked at it in 2008. During that updating period, I noticed that the article was incoherent, because of missing sections. The first task was then to add a few preliminary sentences, needed for surfaces: content on diffeomorphisms; and content on Taylor series expansion, needed for the first fundamental form and second fundamental form of a surface. A few minutes ago I added content related to the "first fundamental form". I wrote about the matrices ${\begin{pmatrix}E&F\\F&G\end{pmatrix}}$. It was blanked.[329] At the moment material that should have been in the article along while back is being added. That was my initiative. The material is standard, but requires care. I think in my experience editing, I have never before seen blanking like this. At the moment this anodyne neutral topic is hardly race and intelligence when legendary folks like Mikemikev were trying to remove all references to Jensenism. This is just undergraduate mathematics. I have some vague memories of D.Lazard being difficult about Euclidean Jordan algebras in the past, when I was editing material on hermitian symmetric spaces. I cannot see where WP:OWN comes into here. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You need to respect editorial consensus. At the moment, the consensus of editorial opinion seems against you. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: I have noticed that you have been one of the very few editors to actively edit this particular article: many thanks for that! Originally this week I added a proof of the the inverse function theorem in this article; it only gradually became clear that it could be transplanted to another wikipedia article, where it belonged. Then step by step, I have tried to reduce the sentences about derivatives and diffeomorphisms to the very minimum, both to clarify what's going on with regular surfaces, while making it accessible to a general readership. From my own edits, I hope you can see that is what has been happening. In the article, there are still problems in defining principal curvature, Monge patches, etc. I am trying my best. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you are trying your best. But this is not the place to discuss article content. This board is for discussing editorial conduct. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted Mathsci because I saw them (following a post on the Math wikiproject) ignoring talk page consensus about the article -- WP:BRD seems relevant, but the pattern appeared to be more BRRRR. I also tend to agree that their additions are of WP:UNDUE length, although I don't believe that they are intending to be disruptive, and I actually do think there is room for including some small connection with lower-level material. I am concerned that they are continuing to edit the article in a way that is out-of-line with talk page consensus, while other involved editors are waiting for this ANI situation to play itself out. I agree that there may be cause for concern regarding WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Gouri G. Kishan Article recreated with a different name

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

---

Gouri Kishan - This subject article was moved to draft with consensus over here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gouri_Kishan

Now a user named The Anandu (talk · contribs) recreated the page with a variation of the name and created a redirect. I suggest this kind of behavior to game the system should be taken seriously. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The system wasn't gamed at all. The article was indeed moved to draft space, however as with this edit here: [330], the article was approved for mainspace by User:Fences and windows. The pages histories were merged, hence why you see the original creation of the page in 2018. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I overlooked. The name change caught me here. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The history was a bit messy, The9Man; I've added a note on the talk page to explain. Thanks for the ping and explaining, RickinBaltimore. As this is about an article I moved back to mainspace I won't close this myself. Fences&Windows 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Spam still there from 2012

Of course those are not active spammers, but most of their links are still there so maybe some cleanup is required in the articles (that i’d rather not do myself). I believe each one of the links either violates copyright or can be effectively redirected to archive.org, yet they are dead anyway.

• Ralfbeert25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• New434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Byieanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Linia1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kate2323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Barbara2323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• LoraTgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Elyisia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Glory081997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Rootgty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Rootglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Ann2409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• SaraMrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kira742000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kira1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Bulteris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Bella231990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kaite2301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: BastrSf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: Lyusiy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: Battyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done

and whoever added links to the same websites back then. — 188.123.231.32 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The first was adding links to public domain books (not copyvio), I've added links archive.org instead and marked that user as checked. Fences&Windows 20:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Glory081997 done: replaced tehnikaa.ru link with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Barbara2323 / Bella231990 done: moflat.ru / f-sis.ru links are long gone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bulteris done: replaced f-sis.ru link with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Kaite2301 done: moflat.ru link has already been replaced with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done All checked and .ru links are either already edited out or have now been replaced. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User creating non-notable episode articles

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

This user seems to be creating articles without regard for notability, especially television episodes. The articles that were AfD'd or boldly redirected are listed in the collapsible. Today, they also restored an article that was boldly redirected due to lack of notability twice. (diff, diff)

See also Special:Permalink/971437106#Television_splitting_into_individual_episode_articles and the AfD's listed below:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The News (The Amazing World of Gumball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Production Company
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Routine (The Amazing World of Gumball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/iGoodbye
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Trouble (Goosebumps episode)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The View from Halfway Down (poem)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (season 21)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Also List of What Would You Do? episodes for What Would You Do? (AfD). This AfD closed as Keep. 09:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/iGoodbye article isn't mine. Horacio Vara (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Recreating articles (1) after consensus from prior AFD is to delete. Creating articles that fail WP:EPISODE guidelines. Creating redirects that do not meet WP:EPISODE (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Creating other extraneous redirects (1, 2). On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (season 21): Keep—Move—Keep—Move—Keep—Move. These actions show signs the user is not yet ready to contribute. AldezD (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please also WP:CHK 45.37.82.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is editing pattern is nearly identical to Horacio Vara (articles and deletion discussions) and is also blanking and posting Barnstars Horacio Vara's talk page. Horacio Vara has previously edited deletion vote of same IP user. AldezD (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

109.197.152.21

• 109.197.152.21

Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well.

• They removed text from Kurdish phonology 3 times this year
• Removed from Kurdish phonology last year as well
• Removed a Kurdish occurrence in a IPA sound page
• Removed a letter from Kurdish alphabets page, edit survived 20 days.
• They have also removed correct stuff on ku.wikipedia
• At least they are blocked in Russian Wikipedia. (Removed stuff from Kurd-related pages there as well)
• Also done these kinds of things in other Wikipedias.
• More stuff removed/incorrect stuff added in other language-related pages.

Been warned multiple times. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing correct information. -- Guherto (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

92.19.171.132 and decades

92.19.171.132 (talk · contribs) is adding misinformation about decades faster than the 3 revert rule would allow me to correct. The editor is claiming, for example, the 1990s are generally considered to comprise 1991 to and including 2000. Editors familiar with past calendar-related issues may feel the location of the editor, southwest England, is familiar. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of off-wiki harassment (with links), an offwiki campaign to add antisemitic material, etc at Talk:Israel

To be precise, at Talk:Israel#Edit war attempts being made by Anti-Semetic Websites like 4chan. I'm not going to have a chance to deal with it. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that the relevant section on the article talk page gets hatted (and where necessary redacted) to avoid outing issues and the issue be passed onto Arbcom or T&S for dealing with privately.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I left an "only warning" note on User talk:TheEpicGhosty for the attempted outing. I suppressed the material. This is truly bringing out the cream of the crop, with usernames to boot. What kind of person sticks "88" in their username? I haven't had coffee yet so I don't want to start dropping blocks, and I can't see any evidence yet of an off-wiki campaign or whatever. (The material in the lead needs to be discussed. RegentsPark, I saw your revert in the lead in Saudi-Arabia; that's relevant here as well.) Drmies (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:4.78.42.18

There's a strange pattern of edits by User:4.78.42.18 to the article on Jan M. Ziolkowski that also appear to be spamming his published work in other articles. Should they be investigated? Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it a strange pattern. The publications themselves are fine; whether they are relevant and necessary for the articles remains to be seen. I looked at the Ziolkowski article, and that needs serious work--it reads like a T&P document. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

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

---

174.115.100.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP has been involved in attacking multiple editors, spanning almost a year. They [replaced their talk page with expletives and calling another editor a "stalker" for giving them warnings for disruptive editing. In addition, they called me a "Zionist sage" on my talk page. The editor also has been warned for personal attacks in the past however they have continued with attacks on both article talk page and their own talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Their contribs to talk pages is just a litany of abuse. Usually they mention Zionism or Hitler, but occasionally try their hand at regular abuse. This all looks like a static IP with a single user to me - I'm thinking that a lengthy block is probably necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Still can't find the expletive I'm accused of having used. Maybe the block is in your head... 174.115.100.93 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Hagia Sophia's relentless IPs

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

---

Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been under attack from faceless vandals since its edit-protection wore off recently. I propose that swift action to protect the page would prevent further casual disruption. The issue I have already reported at the edit-warring noticeboard and at the page protection request list. If the page can be protected (and the present vandal blocked) then peace and stability can be restored. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• C.Fred blocked them, I revoked talk page access--and then I removed the content which, IMO, is completely out of place. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Out of place? Why? The article is about the place ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is, but that content is not. It's an apocryphal story about a rape whose prime purpose in that article is to smear. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: "whose prime purpose in that article is to smear is not WP:AGF! The prime purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to smear characters and events to which contemporary assessments and subesquent history have been unfavourable. Isn't removing that story alone (of all the apocryphal stories included on the page) more akin to whitewashing than is its inclusion comparable to smearing? GPinkerton (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Its a turn of phrase meaning "it shouldn't be there". But I do agree with Drmies, an apocryphal story does us little good. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: What good, then, does the page Biblical Apocrypha do, if an "apocryphal story does us little good"? Apocrypha, believed true by millions, is notable and should be discussed in its proper context, not just blanked out all together. GPinkerton (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300

• 2605:a601:ad87:300:bc81:44fe:2145:f0a8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:F018:6692:3E83:8338 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:D469:75E3:B5C4:B610 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:28AB:FDDD:B790:73AA (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:8011:8E90:6B35:9AEB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:5969:2564:CDBC:7F07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:4D70:8246:3657:7DE3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:AD87:300:159C:A24B:E828:93BC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

Vandalism resumed immediately upon expiration of block. Examples:

• Not ccorrect
• Ride has no inversions
• nonsense

The vandalism is nonstop, the editors are spending a lot of time trying to clean up the damage.

Would appreciate any assistance with this.—JlACEer (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by Zoozaz1

• Zoozaz1 violated WP:3RR rule: 1st revert on the "COVID-19 pandemic" article: [331]; after the consensual text was moved to the "Russian government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic" page – 1st revert, 2nd, 3rd, 4th --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Александр Мотин, The first one wasn't a revert. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Zoozaz1: WP:GAME --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Александр Мотин, I changed something, and then an edit war started with three reversions by me and three by you. Now the standard procedure is to come to a consensus on the talk page. That's not gaming the system. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see you've changed your claim to an entirely different article. Of course, that means you violated WP:3RR as well, but seeing it was a different article and that would ultimately be just a distraction to get around finding consensus it would just be petty of me to try to get you blocked for that. We have an editorial dispute; can we please get back to trying to solve content and get consensus and not try to get people blocked? And I'm not going to be pulled into the morass of someone accusing me of POV pushing as any editor can look at the actual edits made and determine who, if anyone, is doing the POV pushing for themselves. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also Zoozaz1 is POV-pushing too much violating WP:NPOV rule. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked for the standard 24 hours. 3RR is very unambiguous. The rule clearly specifies that partially reversing another user's addition counts as a revert, thus the first edit is a revert and the 3RR was indeed violated. And, like the reporter says, even if they thought they weren't violating the 3RR, the fact that they attempted to edit war up to the limit is not actually an excuse. @Александр Мотин: In the future, please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, WP:AN3. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor is being hostile towards edits they don't like and trying to give a hard time

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

---

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&action=history @Martinevans123: is blocking edits done that add additional non-government sanctions for homosexuality in the UAE. The consensus among the editors who shared their opinion is that it can be added as info underneath not inside the punishment box itself. However, this user seems to disagree and block all edits adding this information, giving an excuse each time why he won't add it. The consensus has also agreed it can be added with the for mentioned condition that it is added underneath. Please talk reason into him and get him to stop his canvassing and add the agreed sources. Thanks. 91.197.129.74 (talk)

I see one user across two IP addresses (you) failing to get the message and spamming the same arguments over and over again. Oh, you're also evading a block, let me fix that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Issues with Semûrî

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

---

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

The account Semsûrî has repeatedly abused their position over the years by targeting and heavily editing multiple Assyrian pages to their liking, due to racial motives. There have been attempts to reach out, for them to leave the Assyrian pages alone, however they have continuously ignored our pleas and conversations.

They have pettily removed information that is largely acknowledged, frequently stating that "there is no source" as their excuse. However in the past they still have removed information (especially information that details Kurdish history's onslaught on Assyrians), despite accompanied by sources, because once again, they are driven by racial motivation. They also have not attempted to add sources themselves despite their meddling.

This clearly breaches WP:harassment and undermines the Assyrian community. They have no connection to the community nor are they administration but they still go out of their way to harass the community - Les.témoin (talk) 12:55, 7 August (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les.témoin (talk • contribs)

WP:BOOMERANG applies here. This appears to be a bad faith complaint. Also, the OP failed to notify the user (I've now done so myself). Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

New user, first edit ever is to come to ANI and make this complaint filled with personal attacks. Who's laundry is this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not new here, just my account. I have monitored these pages over the course of a few years. There is no maliciousness on my part. Forgetting to notify the user does not excuse the user's actions Les.témoin (talk) 1:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No, but (1) creating a new account just to start an AN/I thread is usually very suspicious (barring serious risk of harassment/OUTING, which does not seem to be the case here) and (2) you are obligated to notify them. We don't do trial-by-ambuscade. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 02:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Boomeranged OP for being NOTHERE and likely block evasion. This has become a pattern: a brand new account immediately hauls Semsuri to ANI for spurrious reasons. This has happened several times now. Sorry you have to put up with this crap Semsuri. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Slow motion edit war

User:Helper201 has been repeatedly reverting edits by a number of editors to their preferred version over a period of time. A slow motion edit war?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&type=revision&diff=946363843&oldid=946151827
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955498234
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955525346
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955664800
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=955724213
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&diff=prev&oldid=970766641

Bacondrum (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not only edit warring, it's edit-warring against a standing consensus. Helper201 obviously doesn't agree with that consensus (which is supported by multiple reliable sources), and is attempting to overturn it via edit-warring instead of allowing a new consensus (if any) to develop on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was not attempting to edit war. I was restoring back to the long-standing agreed upon version as these changes that were being made were frequently edit warred over and had not been discussed prior on the relevant talk page. They were often not discussed and seemingly changed on a whim without citations provided. I am seeking compromise and discussing the matter on this article's talk page. Please see the edits and discussion on the talk page in full context. Helper201 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And another reversion:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rally&type=revision&diff=971633693&oldid=971596701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, there seems to be a content dispute. The sourcing only improved on June 30, whereas the first revert is from March 19. Meanwhile, Bacondrum started two biasedly worded RfCs and this AN/I thread. Seems overzealous. --Pudeo (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Heaton-Harris ‎

Over at Chris Heaton-Harris Clive Wynne Candy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing for the inclusion of this [[332]] based upon on combination of wp:or and WP:SYNTHESIS. Over at WP:NPOVN they really are bludgeoning the discussion. For me the final straw was (in response to me arguing its it a violation of wP:undue to include this to post this [[333]], which include links to articles in RS that do not even mention Heaton-Harris.

To me its clear they are trying to fight (over one speech an MP has made) the good fight and are wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If nothing else they're copying and pasting from the MLM article without attribution. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Has not picked up on that just the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, blocked: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia - WP:SPA fixated on a WP:BLP". Guy (help! - typo?) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• And who's User:StanTwoCents, whose first edit was to the NPOV noticeboard discussion? ——Serial 14:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No idea, but they are fixated on the same subject, with the same use of OR, and a bit of PA thrown in as well. Apparently they have been accused of socking, but not by me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have notified them they have been mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Which PA did I throw in, Steven? Which OR did I present? I thought one had to assume good faith? And I believe it is PA to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, without citing any evidence as WikiDan61 has done. Somehow, that still has not been addressed. As per who I am and why my first edit (with an account) was on the NPOV Notice board, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Clive_Wynne_Candy StanTwoCents (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@StanTwoCents: When one's first edit at Wikipedia is in an arcane area such as WP:NPOV/N, in support of another editor who has been mentioned there, this is a signal of sock puppetry (or, at the very least, meat puppetry). My report at WP:SPI was made based on valid observations, and endorsed by the relevant admin. You might want to drop that particular stick. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, StanTwoCents, a patrolling admin endorsed the SPI as a reasonable in the circumstances; if they had thought WikiDan to be casting unfounded accusations, they would have warned him against doing so. They didn't, so he didn't. All the best! ——Serial 14:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but I am starting to feel increasingly unwelcome because of such actions. Is Wikipedia only for seasoned accounts? I have contributed to numerous Wikipedia articles over the years, but never felt like committing to an account. That was probably the right choice. Left and right rules are referenced to tell me that everything I do is unwarranted, but when it says in plain language in important Wikipedia policy that thou shall not levy allegations of sockpuppetry without clear evidence in the form of diffs and edits, these policies no longer apply? It makes little sense to me, but that is probably on me. StanTwoCents (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

StanTwoCent, PA [[334]], an accusation of vandalism. The same dif also includes you repeating that we should include this, despite not one RS commenting on it. [[335]], out right OR, you claim you know what an MP meant. Despite having been told more than once wp:v and wp:or means we cannot infer things ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This is starting to feel a little personal to be honest. If you feel I violated these policies, it would be helpful if you would cite the specific piece of that policy I violated, and which of my words (written on talk pages and notice boards discussing an article, not in said articles, mind you) have done so, rather than to just say wp:.. every third word. I meant no harm and dealt in good faith, and do not think I should be barred from editing here simply because we disagree on something. StanTwoCents (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.", Synthases "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.". But you are supposed to read policy,Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

”Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.” Please do tell me where I did this. I understand it is not allowed. Many things are, and I can read. Just citing it is not the same as proving I engaged in said behaviour. Show me the serious accusation I have made without serious evidence. As for the rest, I have not added anything to the article; perhaps you have me confused with someone else? StanTwoCents (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

[[336]] "but please refrain from vandalising without discussing as per WP:VANDAL".Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I asked you not to do it. That is hardly the same as accusing you of doing it. StanTwoCents (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am about to block this account per WP:SOUP, unless their method of interacting with others improves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Without having any grounds whatsoever for thinking that there was the possibility of SS actually vandalising—a premise that is so far from reasonable comprehension that the competence of anyone doing so could be questioned—yes, it's effectively the same thing. ——Serial 15:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, so we can add wikilawyering to the mix.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You gotta do what you gotta do. For the record, I do not think I have been not nice to anyone but Slatersteven and WikiDan61, who have not been particularly welcoming to a new editor. I have tried to assume good faith and remain civil, but do not feel I have been granted the same by everyone here. From the moment I engaged in the discussion, I was accused of being a sockpuppet, having an axe to grind, or some other ulterior motive. My apologies if that invoked a reaction in my own writing as well. Policies are thrown around, but the referenced editors do not seem to adhere to those same regulations, and the community seems to come to their support. Understandable, but a bit frustrating, yes. StanTwoCents (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

At the tea house you asked "but I do not know how to end this and simply going back to making valuable edits", You were told (more then once) to obey policy, one way to end this is to agree to obey by wP:OR and wp:npa, and wp:v and stop arguing for the inclusion of unsourced material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have! I do not think you are treating the material fairly, and I do not think you and WikiDan61 have followed those same policies by outright deleting sections instead of trying to improve them - but I have dropped arguing for its inclusion long ago. However, new places keep sprouting up where apparently I have to defend myself for the way I have conducted myself StanTwoCents (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Its been said here before about other users. When all are against you, maybe its because you are wrong. Someone like Floquenbeam do not hand out sanctions like confetti, and certainly nor to Newbies. But will bow out now, I have tried to explain to you what you are doing wrong, and its now down to others.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That must be it. My apologies to everyone I have wronged and I hope you will extend me a second chance to be part of this inspiring community. StanTwoCents (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest we close this and StanTwoCents is offed mentoring?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think suggesting to off another editor is considered uncivil ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry typo offered mentoring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes, I will gladly consider to accept mentoring, but I will pass on the offing. Slatersteven Thanks for the suggestion, though. StanTwoCents (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

StanTwoCents, I love irony! Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

StanTwoCents, in defense at the SPI, said that they had edited previously as an IP and as a registered user (Special:Diff/971370477}. All of S2¢'s contributions prior to the filing of the SPI at 15:11, 5 August 2020, and for the next hour, had the focus of a WP:SPA with more experience than their edit history showed. That would flag possible sockpuppetry to any uninvolved bystander with experience in anti-vandalism. I hope that S2¢ can accept that the SPI was a good-faith false-positive.

StanTwoCents, unless I've missed it, you haven't given the name of your previous account. It would probably help anyone offering you mentoring to know the level of experience of your previous account. Cabayi (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent, I am happy we can share a laugh. @Cabayi:, yes I will gladly accept that the SPI was a good-faith false-positive. Also I fully understand why you deemed the allegations plausible. Reversely, I hope the community understands it sucks to be falsely accused of something, especially in the heat of a far too heated discussion - for which, mea culpa. I was not initially informed of the suspicion, and at the time it really felt like the inquiry was filed because of a content disagreement - I understand now that there was more to it than that. In the initial discussion by the way, for obvious reasons, I will no longer take any part, but I still think it should preferably be continued, probably by more experienced editors (about notability and verifiability of some of that information that was added and removed).

Regarding my level of experience - this is essentially zero (as evidenced by some of my novice editing mishaps). My last edits as an IP were either in 2015 or 2016 (I will double-check), I was never very involved in the wider community, and I do not remember the username of my last account. I have had at least two, briefly and years apart (2011 and 2013 I think), of which I eventually lost the log in information. Maybe I can dig up the username from some old edit I remember to have made, but for all intents and purposes, treat me as someone who does not have a clue. StanTwoCents (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:‏Detyu15 and Copts-related articles

User:Detyu15 has been trying to edit the estimates of Copts or Christians in Egypt to make it seem higher, and cherrypicking sources. The exact number or percentage isn't known, and estimates vary widely between 5% (or 5 million) to 20% of Egypt's population. He has been trying to ignore the lower estimates. The article should reflect that wide variation in estimates. From the history of these articles, it seems this issue has been going on for a long time. Related articles are Copts, Copts in Egypt, Christianity in Egypt and Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Mohamed^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mohamed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Detyu15.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fate Grand Order Babylonia

User:Fate Grand Order Babylonia has been persistently adding citations from a non-reliable anime blog to articles, as can be in their contribution history: [337] -- almost every one of their edits has linked to this blog. I reverted their edits at four articles (Kakushigoto: My Dad's Secret Ambition, Toilet-Bound Hanako-kun, Pokemon, Pandora Hearts) and they later reverted me on all four articles with this summary: [338], I found the source reliable for I cross checked the facts given in the source, after proper cross check , I cited the source. They also left this message on my talk: [339].

Since this summary indicates a lack of knowledge of WP:RS, I left this message on the user's talk page informing them on WP policy and reverted them again: [340]. Several hours later, they reverted me with no edit summary at the same four articles, and I reverted them again and left this second, more detailed warning on their talk: [341].

Now, the user seems to be operating this sockpuppet: User:Dark Knight Ingrid, which has added back the blog citation while trying to hide it -- they filled in the "author" and "website" fields in the template to disguise it as Anime News Network (a reliable source per WP:A&M/ORS), but still linked to the blog in the "url" field. They also wrote a phony edit summary, so this was not a mistake: [342] [343] Added Citation from Anime News Network. — Goszei (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: this user also appears to have made these IP edits: [344] and [345]. The second IP was blocked for 2 years on July 31. — Goszei (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked socks and blacklisted the link.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Review of my (User: Thomasgilbertie) block

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

Hello. So an admin has blocked me for two years since I was using multiple IP addresses. First of all, as of late, I have not used a VPN. And secondly, the reason I appear under different IP addresses is simple. I’m an out of state student at LVC, a private school near Hershey Pennsylvania, and started editing Wikipedia pages on my free time at my high school and home for fun. So because of that, I would appear under three different IP addresses, one for home, one for my high school, and one for my college (LVC). If you could please review my block, that would be great. :) Thomasgilbertie (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You do not appear be blocked (see your block log) , and there is nothing about this on your talk page. What's the problem? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think maybe an admin blocked an IP (not targeting OP in particular) and OP had logged in through that IP and (*checks user rights*) is not IP block exempt. A checkuser would be needed to verify if that's the case and if adding IP block exemption status is a good idea.Ian.thomson (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thomas has a new /64 range and it is anon blocked. He should be able to edit using his account. In his previous /64 range, he was editing some of the time while logged out so I think that is what he is really asking about. The anon block should probably be left because an LTA has popped up more than once in it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yogaguruaniljain

• Yogaguruaniljain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Yogaguru Dr. Anil Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User: Yogaguruaniljain is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and is only here to promote themselves, repeatedly submitting a draft, and move-warring about its title. Request a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, agree only contributions are to promote themselves. Have blocked. Glen (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please consider ban 96.43.244.95

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

---

Editor under IP 96.43.244.95 has previously been warned a lot for vandalising, but is back today and has already vandalised multiple articles, to all adding the same unreferenced conspiracy theory. Please consider a ban. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.43.244.95 StanTwoCents (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked for 31 hours. This took place about 3 hours ago. Blocks and bans are not the same thing. We don't ban IPs.— Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining me the difference between banning and blocking. The IP was not blocked when I posted this, but was blocked by —valereee after I posted this request here. She has also told me I posted the request in the wrong place My apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused. StanTwoCents (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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

User:2.97.208.34

This user has been making alterations to various articles about matches in UEFA football competitions. Some of these edits have been constructive on the face of them, e.g. specifying players' positions, but often without citations. Other edits of theirs have been downright destructive, including removing information about substitutions and yellow cards from articles. Their conduct has been brought up on their talk page, and I spend a good while checking all their contributions a couple of days ago, reverting where necessary - the vast majority of their edits required reverts. They seem to edit in spurts, so they're not being persistently disruptive, but a block would be a good idea. – PeeJay 20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Battleground IP editor on Hebrew Bible pages

• 71.104.20.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judas Maccabeus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

P,TO 19104 and I have been dealing with an editor who is intent on soapboxing their views on the Bible through edit summaries and otherwise not communicating with other editors. Warnings have gone unheeded. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm this. It seems that this IP's intent is merely to remove the content on various articles, giving inadequate explanations for the content removal. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)