[[User:Doctorhawkes|Doctorhawkes]] ([[User talk:Doctorhawkes|talk]]) 12:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Doctorhawkes|Doctorhawkes]] ([[User talk:Doctorhawkes|talk]]) 12:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
== [[User:Vif12vf]]'s persistent misuse of the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert legitimate edits on [[Golden Dawn (political party)]] without adequate justification ==
I would like to report a incident concerning a user by the name of [[User:Vif12vf|Vif12vf]]. Recently, while attempting to make an edit to [[Golden Dawn (political party)]]'s lede, Vif12vf has continually misused the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert any edit I've attempted to make to the page, and Vif12vf has failed to provide an adequate policy-based justification for said reverts in the edit summary, nor did he specifically point out any potential errors to me. In addition, when I've tried to issue several warnings to him on his talk page about his problematic conduct, he erased them from his talkpage (Once again, using the Rollback tool) without even indicating he has properly read them, nor did he issue a proper response, and the only communication I received from him was a template regarding blanking, even though my edit has not removed any significant portion of content from the article, and were restrained solely to the lede.
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.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AnwinNovaTrichy(talk·contribs·count) has a long-term pattern of making disruptive edits on topics related to India and Islam. These edits often insert unverifiable claims or remove citations of reliable sources. A significant portion of these edits are accompanied by edit summaries that are not representative of the content of the edits. See the following examples:
Special:Diff/913316196: Changed "Islamic religious-political-armed movement" to "Islamic Extremist religious-political-armed movement cum Terrorist Organization" (emphasis added) in Houthi movement with the edit summary "minor gramatical error", marked as a minor edit
Special:Diff/918814093: Changed "Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation" to "nationalist, volunteer organisation", added "(It should be duly noted that said person was kicked out of the organisation even before he assassinated Gandhi for his radical and supporting ideas irrelevant to Rss's agenda)", and changed "Hindu community" to "culture of India and her place in the world" in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, with the edit summary "Numerous Spelling Mistakes and long quotations have been removed", marked as a minor edit
AnwinNovaTrichy's contribution history shows that most of the user's edits violate policy in some way. Some of these affected articles do not receive enough attention for the unconstructive edits to be reverted in a timely manner.
Support site ban on the basis of the bold and outrageous deceit between the edit summaries and the contents. Noobs get patient instruction. Policy followers with a tinge of POV get somewhat more assertive reality checks. Intentional deception of this sort should get shown the door. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have a DS in this topic area? AE might've been faster. Can't indef with it, but topic bans and 1 yr blocks sure. Flicking through contribs since 2016, I can't find a single constructive edit. Even the ones that aren't highly problematic are edits that go against our core content policies, and the rest are just religion/IPAK POV pushing -- support site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do, however it only kicks in if you can show the user was "aware" of it. In this case, the alert notice has been given, but not before most (all?) of these diffs. So its in place for next time, but given the outrageous deceit, why kick the can down the road? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A long time editor with a history of productive edits, that's someone to whom you give a warning shot. But it just seems that this guy shows up every year or so and makes a heap of such edits. Ravenswing 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Guys sorry about all the disruptive edits, My father(Who is a full blown conservative) had been making all these edits for the most part,He couldnt think straight due to his old age and his political positions, The only edit i made personally was the one about the Siberian husky, Sorry about this mess, I understand that my account cant be deleted, but i still support a edit ban on this account as he still has access to this account! Nova ( Nova) 07:5, 01 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/969783560, My father added a page to my site's root for some reason(He has access to my cpanel from the RPI i keep in the living room for easy access, he has worked in IT before, I am just sorry about the whole thing Nova ( Nova) 09:19, 01 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, This was originally my father's account that i took over, The password for the cpanel was saved up in rpi, Also, You claiming this is a case of WP:BROTHER is ludicrous Nova ( Nova) 09:19, 01 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Um, that's not allowed per WP:NOSHARING:
Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the user being required to stop the practice and change their password, or in sanctions (up to and including the account being blocked), depending on circumstances.
There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources [1], [2], [3]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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:Bite22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [35]
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. [36] (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 [37] 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)[reply]
This is going nowhere. If there is a legitimate reason to re-open this discussion, anyone is welcome to do so. However, a legitimate reason for re-opening must be given and I'd like to be notified. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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:
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:
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)[reply]
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.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [[46]] 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Reply Hi AlejandroLeloirRey. What is technically allowed and what is advisable are often different. It's important to remember even admins can give bad advice (insert shocked face). It's my understanding (others can correct me if I'm wrong) that nominating an article again for AfD within six months is generally considered bad form (not always). This is especially true if the same rationale is used in the renomination and even more so when nominated by the same person with the same rationale. It could be interpreted by others as WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND or refusing to WP:LISTEN. It can also be seen as a variant of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, hoping a different audience will produce the result you desire when the other did not. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hi TimothyBlue, lol, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, god I love wikipedia, there is an article for any kind of misbehavior I assume lol. i am starting to feel it like a challenge to misbehave in a way nobody ever did before lol (joking)- ok, than I followed a bad avice because basically it was just what I wanted to be advised. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think both editors are acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing, but they are clearly arousing eaching other (sorry couldn't resist). They could take steps that would make the situation better. Going the extra mile to be polite. Remembering its important to listen. Not beating a point to death (sorry). I don't think either editor is getting any pleasure out of this situation (sorry again), and if both commit to trying to move in the right direction, each would have a more productive and enjoyable time talking about gay porn. Yes I'm jesting a bit, but I am serious. // Timothy :: talk23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final Reply: AlejandroLeloirRey, I was originally hoping to stop this thread from starting because I knew what was coming. I have made a genuine effort here and on your talk page to try and find a way to make your time here enjoyable and productive.
I will make one final effort, because I genuinely want you to stay, be productive, and enjoy being here.
There are some areas on Wikipedia that are quiet and editors can work reasonably undisturbed (I work on bibliographies often for this reason); AfD is the polar opposite. AfD is a place you must work with others constantly and find a way to work productively and collaboratively, in the face of often heated and contentious disagreement. This is true regardless of the AfD topic; I'm in a heated and contentious disagreement hereover a 2yr old Princess. Whether this is right or wrong, it's the nature of this area of Wikipedia, and its not going to change. Expecting otherwise is like expecting to find a cocktail and Sunday brunch at a dive bar. (Now I'm thinking about cocktails and Sunday brunch... god I miss cocktails and Sunday brunch. I also miss dive bars).
In areas that require a great deal of interaction and consensus building, everyone must find a way to work with others if they wish to consistently and constructively participate; otherwise, it is counterproductive to achieving consensus. It is equally true that the others should attempt to integrate everyone, including individuals with whom they have frequent disagreements. If for whatever reason a person cannot find a way to work with others in any area where there is often contentious disagreement, it's best to find another place in Wikipedia to work; otherwise, it's just going to be mutually miserable all around. Perhaps in your particular case, it would be creating articles related to gay porn instead of AfDs related to gay porn. There is no point in working in an area of Wikipedia where you cannot enjoy working.
The choice here is simple, either change, continue on the same path and be unhappy or find a new place you can enjoy working. I hope you choose the latter but fear you will choose otherwise and eventually just decide to leave Wikipedia (which would be unfortunate). Others may have better advice, but this is the best I can offer. // Timothy :: talk01:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
An admin should consider closing this discussion. There is no consensus on a course of action and the discussion is all heat and no light and this is not likely to change. // Timothy :: talk01:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- GreenC18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Meh. I don't see much different from something likeI'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, orNo 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. ——Serial18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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?
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. ReykYO!20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. DreamFocus22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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. DreamFocus23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.:
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"
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."
7&6 (emphasis in the original): "WP:SNOWWikipedia: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."
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."
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."
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."
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!
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."
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."
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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. DreamFocus04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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"
(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". DreamFocus02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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. DreamFocus22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). ——Serial13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. AtsmeTalk📧16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
−
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? SpartazHumbug!05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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). Darkknight214905:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk12:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | Talk03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DreamFocus17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. GregoryPer 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."
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)[reply]
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!vich15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!vich03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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" [47] 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 [48][49] and afterwards [50].
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 [51] and I immediatly withdrew the nomination [52]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour [53] 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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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. SpartazHumbug!23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- GreenC02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Darkknight214900:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To clarify, my "tag-team" comment was referring to people on both sides of the aisle. I have seen a lot of deletionists that are equally guilty of this sort of thing and there is even an entire essay on it. I have seen radical deletionist use tag-teamy tactics, intimidation, dishonesty, and accuse anyone who opposes them of being on the "other side," just to delete as much stuff as possible for deletion's sake (telltale signs - these users will have a history and are generally aggressive, one-note, always assume bad faith, and never oppose a deletion for anything). And yes, there are also people who are vehemently against anything being deleted for any reason, and I think we're seeing some of that here. I wish there was an easy way to weed out people with battleground tendencies, because the deletion/article creation area in general attracts a lot of this. Darkknight214905:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- The sanction is actually quite mild and is tailored to specifically address the problem (and not be punitive), so I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. This has gone on far too long. While I'm of the position that the ARS needs to be disbanded since it is nothing more than a canvassing club, I find at least some of its members to be civil. This not the case with 7&6=thirteen, who is clearly the worst offender. I have been subject to his personal attacks in the past (see Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen). One of my first interactions with the user is when he staunchly defended keeping an article that everyone else agreed was pure plagiarism (see William Foster Nye). When you are start an ANI discussion over a plagiarized article being speedy deleted, that shows a pure lack of judgement. Its this keep at all costs, no matter how bad an article is attitude that is harmful.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These don't really rise to the level of direct personal attacks requiring sanctions per Black Kite. Most of his comments do cite policy and even if some of the insinuations were wrong, they don't really interfere with editing and can just be ignored. Patiodweller (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Maybe 7&6 and Deacon need to step away from ARS for a little while (say, a couple of months?). They both seem to have gotten over-invested it and overheated. A little rest and editing elsewhere could restore perspective. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!vich05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. Darkknight214923:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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!vich01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very simple rule. Criticism of inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism by inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. ReykYO!11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. ‑ Iridescent15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would become ridiculous and time prohibitive with anything that has more then a few search results. AfDs aren't about Google hits anyway. It's also worth mentioning that doing a search for a term in the Google search bar will sometimes give complete different results then if you search for something by clicking on the search links in AfDs. I've had it happen a few times myself with Google Scholar. I think search results can be different depending on the users location and their prior search history also. It's not the job of the nominator to provide sources showing why the article should be kept anyway. That's on the "voters." It's not like the same personal attacks wouldn't occur if nominators did what your suggesting anyway though, because it's just a tactic that isn't based on anything already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose that anyone should prove anything, just that they should say what they have done so the discussion can be a consensus-seeking exercise rather than a battleground. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s AfD that is the fertile battlefield not just ARS, and this idea is worth implementing in some way. It would help confirm that the Nom did indeed follow Before, then if a pattern of bad noms surfaced maybe they would get coached in more successfully adhering to Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying what was done in general terms might not be too time-consuming, but logging every step can be tedious. I've searched archives via my local library web site and while of course I can write all of the details down regarding archive names and search criteria, it is definitely additional overhead. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section’s first sentence tries to lay the battlefield mentality at ARS’ door when AfD itself is a contentious area filled with strong opinions. Anything that might make the process more smooth is likely worth consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Isaacl said it would be time consuming because saying what steps the nominator took is tedious and nothing is good enough for the ARS people anyway. Even if you say you did a before they attack you for not doing a before. You say you did a before that involved a Google search and a Google scholar search, and you point out specific sources that you found and they still attack you. That's what they do. The nominators shouldn't have to bend over backwards by saying what they did just to be treated with a little decency. There should always be a presumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence. If someone isn't willing to grant them it, then that's on them. Just like it's on the people who call nominators sexist for doing an AfD about a women or a racist for doing about a person of color, etc etc. We shouldn't do anything to bend over backwards to accommodate the ARS people's cynicism anymore then we should do it for those people. It wouldn't matter if we did anyway though. We'll still be accused of things. So screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for their good faith while simultaneously accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith.
I think a simple step somewhere in the process confirming Before was done is needed, especially with some editors who seem to struggle with identifying sources that others point out. Then the issue becomes helping serial misusers of the process in finding sourcing rather than being frustrated by process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith. I'm accusing the ones that have acted in bad faith of doing so. Which is who this discussion is about. This discussion is not and never has been about every person that has ever had anything to do with the group, no matter how minor their role in it is. Everyone here knows who the bad actors are. I'm not going to list all of them every time I want to say "ARS." so some random member, who isn't a part of this discussion or at fault, won't feel like I'm talking about them. Thanks though.
Anyway, more importantly there's zero way to "confirm" a nominator has done a BEFORE. Except for the nominator to say they did one. Which, as I've said before, they are already doing and no one from ARS is ever satisfied with. So, making it obligatory for us to say we did a BEFORE isn't going to deal with this. having consequences for badgering users like Andrew will resolve it though. Things have calmed down quit a lot already since this incident report was opened. Whereas, there's tons of AfDs where Andrew and his cohorts (obviously I'm not talking about every damn member of ARS)have accused nominators of not doing a BEFORE when they explicitly said that they did one. BTW, their the only ones that ever bring up a BEFORE or accuse nominators of not doing one. It's a non-starter IMO to make a policy about something just because three users have a chronic personal problem with it. Instead we should deal with the three users who have the personal problem. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Yeah, there's a bad actor or two whose accusations of bad faith are chronic, who are plainly operating off from an agenda that the whole deletion process is illegitimate, and for whom it seems that any tactic, stunt or reversal of tack in its service is justified. (Except, of course, gaining general consensus for their extremist philosophy.) Ravenswing 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update As an update, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burry's, which was highlighted as an example above, has now been closed as Keep. The subject is a maker of biscuits, especially Girl Scout Cookies. The topic was listed for rescue and got good attention. For an independent view of the topic, I suggest consulting Eddie891 who contributed good comments and article updates during the AfD. As it happens, this is the same Eddie891 that is currently to be found at RfA.
My own view is that this example demonstrates the value of prod patrol and article rescue. If I had not intervened, this topic would probably have been deleted without discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse any of the problems raised in this thread. That you think the AFD's outcome is relevant is the problem itself. Lev!vich03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Burry's was cited as an example because it was my most recent nomination and, at the time, unsettled. It was relevant then and it is relevant now that the AfD has now been closed and we can see the outcome. It is also topical in that one of the main participants is now at RfA. The claim that Burry's is "completely irrelevant" seems to be completely false.
My most recent nomination for rescue is now Hasdeo Arand. This topic is the second in an attempt to innovate. It occurred to me that topics in the news often need timely improvement because they are getting lots of attention by our readers but often need citations to help them through the formalities at WP:ITN/C. This hasn't achieved much because the real problem with the ARS is that few members do anything. While Eating Out to Help Out recently I saw a sign. It's an old chestnut but seems relevant still:
That's Not My Job! This is story about four people named: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
I think it’s fair that the issue is the longstanding tension between deletionists and inclusionists, and that AfD is a relatively easy system to game.ARS looks to be the only real watchdog that looks for systematic corruption of the process. And it’s truly thankless work.Unfortunately the burden is to prove someone is abusing the deletion process which seems at best to be an uphill battle. Maybe someone can think of a way to help ensure that AfD isn’t abused, I’m not so sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose - We are far from a site ban here. This user has only been blocked once - for 24 hours - for edit warring. We only resort to bans when the problem gets to the point, even after multiple blocks, that the issue continues. If the user is being so disruptive, an indefinite block (which gives the user the ability to appeal it) is the correct course of action. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [54][55][56]. 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"[57], "You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why"[58], and "You'll have to wait for my explanation"[59]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Czello10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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).[60] 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.[61] Could someone please help deal with this stonewalling and incivility? —Granger (talk·contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 [62] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And again. Meanwhile, the lead still has two incorrect statements about manufacturing, the timeline has no updates from this May or June, and Flaughtin has given no explanation of why they keep reverting the fixes and updates. Are these unexplained reverts and stonewalling enough merit a block? If not, what can be done about this pattern of repeatedly reverting and refusing to explain or discuss the issue? —Granger (talk·contribs) 11:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a third opinion as a way to wrap up the (outstanding issues from the) first round of debate so that the second (and by extension third) round of debate can proceed. I had initially said that I would initiate the second round of debate until after the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate was resolved; I am now modifying my position so that I will initiate the second round of debate by the end of tomorrow regardless of whether that 3O request has been resolved. As I have said I am expediting the debate to the best of my ability and this is proof of it. As for the recycled complaints about my problematic conduct, editors should note the deliberate provocation by the opposing editor as well as my befitting response. Flaughtin (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not having read anything about this displute beyond the two last diffs posted by Flaughtin: that is not a provocation. It was inappropriate of you to strike comments that were not yours without permission, and Mx. Granger's response was totally appropriate. Your response in edit summary, on the other hand, strikes me as inappropriate and provocative. I suggest that you apologize for tampering with other people's comments (something Mx. Granger carefully avoided, leaving your comments in exactly the same state before and after their edit). --JBL (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, this is really not getting any easier. If this third opinion request doesn't lead to a breakthrough, I would really suggest setting the article back to a point prior to the disputed edits altogether (as discussed above) - that appears to be something that both editors could agree on, although not happily. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very serious behavioral issues at work here. I recently began editing this article, and had never interacted with Flaughtin before. I asked on the talk page if there was a source for a particular claim made in the article. Flaughtin resonded that it was being addressed in one of their "rounds of debate" above, which are massive walls of text with dozens of itemized arguments (take a look here). I responded that these "rounds of debate" are completely opaque to me, and that absent a source, I was removing the unsourced claim. Flaughtin then reverted me and accused me of refusing to read. Instead of just citing a source, Flaughtin is demanding that I wade through massive walls of text, the "rounds of debate." The whole thread is here.
The problem here is that Flaughtin is holding the article hostage. Anyone who wants to edit it has to engage with Flaughtin in their "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to know what the source for a particular claim is is directed to these massive "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to restructure a subsection is informed that they must first take part in the "rounds of debate." I've never seen anything like this on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the editor here. For the record that editor is welcomed to participate in the above debates and if it is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of WP:BRDD) then corrective input would also be welcomed. Barring any clear up of my procedural misunderstanding, then I stand by my assertion that that editor should not be allowed to jump the line after the hours of input that I have put into the article/talk page debates. Flaughtin (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flaughtin's demand that I not be "allowed to jump the line" is precisely the ownership issue I'm talking about. Flaughtin is engaged in wide-ranging "rounds of debate," each round covering dozens of different issues, and believes that anyone who wants to edit the article must first participate in these "rounds of debate." Anyone who doesn't first come to Flaughtin for permission to edit is "jump[ing] the line". Even if I just want a simple answer to a simple question ("What's the source for X?"), I'm directed by Flaughtin to the "rounds of debate." I don't think this user understands how talk pages are normally used, or that they don't have the right to demand that every edit be submitted for their prior approval. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well no no that is a total misrepresentation of what's going on, aided in no small part by your I don't like it attitudehere. I'm saying you can't jump the line on things which are already being debated and an important reason is logistical: it's going to be impossible to keep track of the developments, particularly in a situation like this where there is a sheer number of other and in many cases overlapping points of contention which have to be resolved. I don't care about the other things which are outside of that - those can be adjudicated on its own merits. Now as I said, if this is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of WP:BRDD) then corrective input would also be welcomed. But of course, that is not a job for you as you aren't an administrator. Flaughtin (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. What a mess. I'm happy to try User:Elmidae's suggestion of going back to the pre-dispute stable version[69], though I'm not sure that will resolve User:Flaughtin's behavioral issues. To borrow User:Thucydides411's description, "holding the article hostage" is a fairly apt description of what Flaughtin has been doing with unexplained reverts for the past several weeks.
Either way, I suggest that we abandon the great big section covering dozens of topics that Flaughtin divided into "rounds of debate". Let's have a separate section for each unresolved issue. Hopefully that will keep discussion organized enough for other editors to follow what's going on and weigh in. (I think most of the issues in the huge section have already been resolved, though I haven't yet had time to read Flaughtin's latest post in that section—I'll do that in a few minutes.) —Granger (talk·contribs) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of administrative action, I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert in question so that material is back to its original version. (this is the opposing user's version of the material while this is my version of the material) To recapitulate: the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent debate over that same section on the talk page. This is in total violation of all sorts of editing policies and guidelines (e.g. BRD and AGF) I have informed that user on the talk page of my revert and also warned him or her that I will be filing an request for administrative action if the user does something like that again. If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed, but I am confident given the circumstances that my revert and warning is the right thing to do. Flaughtin (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated some of the content in my version of the material per my explanation on the talk page [70]. If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. Flaughtin (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No part of BRD endorses reverting a revert. It is not possible for "you were edit-warring so I reverted you" to be true without "I was edit-warring" being true. You should change your approach. --JBL (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis Well I have a different view with regards to your characterization of what I did - I didn't see it as a revert as I was per the corresponding explanation on the talk page reinstating material which wasn't explicitly in dispute there; my edit would only have been a revert if it had included the disputed material. And to be clear I don't see a contradiction between those two statements as they are undrstood in the objective. Reverting disruptive edits don't count as edit-warring so I wouldn't agree, by way of example, that a reversion of the unilateral revert by the opposing user so that the material went back to its original version would be considered edit warring as I did here (The key here being that the material is reverted back to the original - and not my - version. Of course you can say thgat the original version is itself disputed but that technicality is practically meaningless - at the end of the day you need a version of the material to actually be in the article while the disputes are being resolved on the talk). But having said, I will going forward refrain from adding anything from my version of material without prior consensus on the talk page. Flaughtin (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what you wrote: I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert. So maybe you want to rethink this response? Then you can give apologies all around for edit-warring, for asking for corrective input and then Wikilawyering in response, etc. --JBL (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No really I don't know what there is to rethink because I am genuinely confused. This isn't me trying to get cute and be a wiseass. As I understand it, reverts of disruptive edits don't count as edit warring - and what I reverted was clearly a case of disruptive editing (the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent debate over that same section on the talk page.) I made the mistake of reintroducing material from my version of material which the opposing editor disputed - this is a kind of mistake that that won't happen again. If there is something wrong in the way I'm thinking about this, then I am open to the comments. As I said I've been saying all along if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. I'm not out here to prove a point and it's not like I have one to prove anyway. Flaughtin (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that piece of information as I didn't know about it. That said, there's still something I need clarification on. Was the unilateral revert by that editor vandalism? To me that's what it definitely looked like. But whichever the way the response goes, I will make a note of this exchange for future reference.Flaughtin (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I think it's safe to say it was not vandalism. It's a content dispute. A unilateral revert during discussion is poor form and uncollegial and not recommended, but it is not vandalism. Schazjmd(talk)19:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Schazjmd So...what am I supposed to do if something like that (the unilateral revert) happens again? Am I supposed to bring the complaint here, the edit warring noticeboard or how is the response supposed to work? Because it doesn't make much sense to me if the solution is going to be just sit back, pretend like the revert never happeened and do nothing - that would just disruptive editors a free hand to do whatever the hell they want to do. Flaughtin (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to ‘’act like a grown-up’’ and continue appropriate discussions on the talk-page, or appropriate DR. If you are correct about what the eventual outcome should be, that will be borne out by discussion. Acting disruptively yourself is not part of that process. —JBL (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
Flaughtin is to be partially-blocked from the article (Talk page access retained), until they can demonstrate a better understanding of when to use (and not use) reversions. The above WP:WIKILAWYERing either indicates a lack of understanding, or a desire to game the rules. Whichever it is, this needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [77] which are basically just attacks, as well as section titles like in [78]. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [79][80] and harassment [81]. 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 [82] came AFTER my warning and their apology. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. ——Serial16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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 ([83], [84]), 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I love it when they're stupid. Giving his deadline as 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time in the middle of the summer is an especially delicious touch; people too dumb to know what standard time means should probably avoid such technicalities. (At least he's not a train dispatcher or air traffic controller.) EEng23:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement: I became involved with the Kevin Deutsch article via RFPP requests. I full-protected it in mid-July due to edit warring, and semi-protected extended-confirmed protected it later for three months when it became clear that there was concerted disruption going on. Multiple users all demanded the same thing: that a sentence be inserted into the lead absolving the subject of fabricating sources; media suspicions of fabrication in his books are the subject's main claim to fame. The unanimity of these demands from three or four editors led to an SPI which ultimately led to most being blocked as socks. Then another account claimed to be leading an edit-a-thon and began accusing the rest of us of racism - which was rather baffling since there is nothing at the Kevin Deutsch article to indicate that he is a person of color, and none of the socks up to then had claimed to be people of color or to be working on any issue with racial overtones. The race card was played only recently, along with the assumption that all of the regular editors at the article are white people, and prejudiced white people at that - an assumption that is in itself racist since most Wikipedia editors don't disclose their race or ethnicity. That "editathon leader" account proved to be another sock and was blocked. The bottom line is that probably all of these people, including “Eric Klein” who wrote the letter to Jorm, are Kevin Deutsch himself. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The entire socking in the "ediathon" threads here and on the talk page read to me like a false flag attack-- like fakes. Really, if it was obvious to me, it must have been pretty damn obvious. --Deepfriedokra(talk)09:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91]. 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,[92]Nonie Darwish,[93] and The Legacy of Jihad[94] 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.VRtalk14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“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.
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) ([95] and onwards) while removing secondary sources (in previous edits [[96]]) 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)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I am among the ones who contributed substantially to the current version of the Planck units article, and the discussion you mentioned (where I made an argument against the removal of the Planck charge from the units) ended in my favor – this does not say anything about the other editors who participated keeping a different position, who are also good Wikipedia editors. Thanks to that discussion the Planck charge is now the unit with the highest number of references in the article. But how has that discussion anything to do with what we are talking here about? It's curious that a discussion about me “hounding” other users consists mostly of me being hounded. --Grufo (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing Grufo of being a "civil pov pusher" seems hypocritical since there appears to be a number of those going around some of these articles. Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions, but VR has been quick to report him here and at 3RR. This seems a case of reporting someone for having a different POV. Barca (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you do when someone makes more than 3 reverts in 24 hours? Note that Grufo was warned by an admin for that episode of edit-warring.
Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions Grufo has followed me around on more than 10 articles, and every instance of following around starts with a revert. In almost all cases, it is me who starts the discussion. Once the discussion has started, Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see Talk:History_of_slavery#Recent_edit.) During discussions Grufo makes WP:PERSONALATTACKS and casts WP:ASPERSIONS. Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me.VRtalk18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Note that Grufo was warned for that episode of edit-warring.”
“Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see Talk:History_of_slavery#Recent_edit.)”
If you don't ping me I won't even know that you want to discuss with me (I did not even know that talk paragraph existed). But to be fairly honest I have been quite involved in discussing with you recently.
“Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me”
I have absolutely no problems with you. Although, as I already stated above, I do think that – as far as I can see – your edits tend to be destructive, biased, and full of POV-pushing.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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" [103]). 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.
(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 . It was blanked.[104] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment: Here are the main points for which, in my opinion, WP:BOOMERANG must apply.
Edit warring after a consensus was reach on the talk page: the three first edits that are linked above are reversions of the same Mathsci's contribution from August 3. The last three are reversion from August 5 of the same contribution, after that a consensus was reach on the talk page.
Tentative to escape from WP:3RR by adding the same material in another section [105]
Personal attacks in edit summaries, for example [106]
Removal of a heading in the talk page, which makes nonsensical other's post [107]
Systematic and still continuing use of article's page as a sandbox for preparing their contributions; see [108] as a typical example. This is disruptive by making very difficult to others to review these fast changes, and fixing/improving/reverting them.
Although, IMO, none of these items is sufficient by itself for opening a thread here, all together, they form a highly disruptive behavior that must be stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stopped following the page because it was stressful, but I came back today and was shocked further. Every editor outside of MathSci has been unanimous that his edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia, reading more like a textbook and using a level detail not appropriate for a high level article. There have been 300 edits since he started editing the page in late July, with 250 edits since Aug 3, and as far as I can tell there have been reverts back and forth every day for the past week. I don't know if its a thing you guys do, but I suggest the page be reverted back to the state it was in July 9 before any of the edits and locked for a time.Brirush (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript to the above comment: I think MathSci is intelligent and eloquent, and I think the material has use somewhere, but not in this article in this fashion. Others have suggested moving the new material to a new page and summarizing it on the main page, and I think that's a great solution. I post here not to condemn MathSci, but to admit that I'm not sure how to proceed; outside observers could see clearer, IMO.Brirush (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am biased as an editor who has made some major changes in the last week, but I believe there have been vast improvements to the article since July 9, and I think it'd be a very bad idea to revert it. I know there is at least one other editor (D.Lazard) who thinks my edits have made a positive impact. In my opinion, mathsci's edits to the page have been highly confusing and in need of clarification, which in part explains the number of edits - in my own opinion, he's also made it rather difficult for me to improve the page. In essence, I think the article needed an almost complete rewrite for it to be clear. The (current) end result of the major edits, in section 3, is in its majority written by me and not by mathsci. It may look long and over-detailed, but it is very much not written as a textbook, it is just a summary of the main points. (There is one section on isometries, written by mathsci, which I think is unclear, as well as two paragraphs, also written by him, which are in discussion on the talk page.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good idea to restore an old version such as the one of mid July. At this time, the first technical section of the article was not as usual the definition of th object of study or the needed background. It started directly by the sentence "Informally Gauss defined the curvature of a surface in terms of the curvatures of certain plane curves connected with the surface." In other words the article could be understood only by people who already know its content. After Gumshoe2's major edits, the article is much better and useful for a much wider audience. It would be a pity to destroy this good job. My contribution to this improvement is minor, because, while I know enough of the subject for understand and reviewing edits, I do not know enough for writing sections and chosing the material that deserve to be added (or kept). D.Lazard (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, the problem here is that although Mathsci edits of the article and his contributions to the talk page are clearly done in good faith, they are very disruptive, and this would help to improve the article if they are stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, the underlying content dispute has given rise to behavioral issues: slow motion edit warring on the part of Helper201 as well as an unwillingness on their hpart for the attendant talk page discussion to agree on a new consensus (it if does) to support their PoV. This is in ANI's wheelhouse, and cannot be batted off as solely a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the arguments presented on the article's talk page, the edit warring needs to come to a full stop until the discussion has concluded. I'm not to the level of giving out any warnings or proceeding towards administrative action at this time, so I'm hoping to give both Bacondrum and Helper201 an informal warning here: Please do not make any more reverts or edits to the article until the discussion has come to a close. You both have a discussion ongoing and you're both trying to work things out; don't take it out on the article itself. Step back from the article, and discuss this. Proper dispute resolution does not mean that you can discuss the issue and revert one another at the same time. ;-) I don't want to see any more reverts on the article from either one of you until the discussion has concluded. If it does, I will have to start with "strike one" and issue a warning for edit warring. Then, from there, if it happens again, I will proceed with administrative action. I believe that you're both perfectly capable of handling this dispute civilly and properly, and I also believe that you both have a good sense of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies. If it needs to come to an RFC, so be it. Just keep civil, and keep things on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve not touched the article since filing this report. However Helper201 has continued to revert. Like I said, apparently some editors are more equal than others. Let him keep edit warring, why not. Bacondrum (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayjg: That was the third revert to their preferred version between the 2nd and 8th - made nearly eight hours after this discussion was started and they were definitely aware of this discussion. Despite a number of editors disagreeing with them over the course of a couple of months they have reverted to their preferred position seven times. If no further action is deemed necessary I'll leave it as they appear to have stopped. There appears to be a double standard in how rules are applied to different editors though. Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. MohamedTalk14:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: [109] -- 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: [110], 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: [111].
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: [112]. 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: [113].
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: [114][115]Added Citation from Anime News Network. — Goszei (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. – PeeJay20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I believe this user has been warned sufficiently given the timeline of their edits. I'm holding off on blocking; my usual threshold for blocking when I run into this situation is that we've given the user least three warnings, and the user has made disruptive edits despite those warnings. It's what I believe is fair, and it shows that we've given the user multiple chances to stop the behavior. At this point, we have. If they continue any further disruption moving forward, I'd support blocking. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is an issue about an editor’s behaviour. As a bit of background, this behaviour has been taking place on the war of 1812 talk page; this page is controversial in that it has editors supporting two points of view, a US centric point of view and a Canadian point of view – sometimes with editors from those countries arguing their national narratives. Tirronan and I take opposing viewpoints.
My complain is mainly that Tirronan makes constant attacks on me, and complains about me being on the page and is generally uncivil. This has been going on for may be 10 years. Initially I attacked back(a while back), then I would ask him to be civil, then I just ignored the remarks. However, lately, these comments I admit have been starting to get to me and to me, they could be seen by some as a pattern of bullying.
In my opinion, I am just on the page working with editors to keep the page unbiased, sometimes by myself, against a body of editors pushing the US centric point of view - but he takes exception to this and claims I am pushing my issue all the time. I debate with the other editors who we also dissagree with, but they don't make comments like this.
Recently I asked him on his talk page and the talk page for the article to rescind the latest comment with strikethrough, and be more civil - but he declined.
I guess I would like an opinion on whether these sorts of comments go against WP:Civil and are appropriate or not. It could be me being oversensitive, in which case, I'll accept it and just deal with it, its hardly the end of the world. Thanks for your time
(1) It still doesn't change the fact that over a decade, despite being shown all the evidence to the contrary, not a single position that you have shown has changed. Not a single one. In example, the invasion of Washington, was a raid, not an invasion. An invasion would detail intending to stay and expand the land that you took. Had the forces involved stayed, all flag-waving to the contrary, there would have only been a single outcome. There was never any chance that America was going to annex Canada. You have been told over and over and over, that many of us were exhausted by the continuing cycle of the same issues, with the same arguments, being repeated. You need help, I'm not an expert but I suspect that you suffer from the obsessive-compulsive syndrome. You either can't let go or this idea, or you enjoy this. Most of us do not. Bring something new to the discussion or leave it alone. Tirronan (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
(2) It is just trolling to get his way. We have been dealing with this for a decade. If it isn't pro-British then it is POV obviously. Frankly, he should have an AFD run for a topic ban for non-stop POV warring. Tirronan (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
(3)Deathlibrarian Again and for the last time. Canada could not win the war. Upper and Lower Canada were colonies of Great Britian period. Under no circumstances would any history worthy of the title put such a thing in a book. If they did they would be laughed at. Secondly, you have been asked to drop the subject. You have heard all of us. We are not going to continue to endlessly blog on the subject that you apparently can't let go of. You are steadily marching right into outright harassment of other editors. I have no intention of further commentary on this subject. The answer is NO, it will remain NO, and please do yourself and all the other editors on this page a favor and accept that NO is the only answer you will receive. Now stop it.Tirronan (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(4)The Indians were their own Nations, thank you very much. God, just what I love to hear a pair of white guys telling us what to call Indians. Fucking irritating.Tirronan (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(5)Finally, this article was subject to a formal complaint by Deathlibarian about the summation and no action was taken. Impuning the reputation of historians to get your own way in twisting the truth of the articles does not speak well. Are we to subscribe to the "fake news" issues in our politics today?Tirronan (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
TirronanI'd ask you to please remain civil to me in this discussion, please consider attacking the argument, not the man. CheersWP:CIV Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(6)Yes the infobox, where we now have CANADA WON! With a fucking newspaper article to provide the weighty proof for it in the fucking infobox. I am so proud, really.Tirronan (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
In response talk has been on a ten-year crusade which in my opinion has amounted to trolling and POV warring. He has during that decade brought out the same issues every time and each time it has taken weeks or months to address the issues. Further, once we have dealt with the complaints it only seems to reset a timer and he returns to repeat the cycle. Yes, I think the man has emotional problems. And, yes I think it has gone into outright harassment of other editors. talk has repeated quoted historians taking sentences out of context to support his views or showing some rather interesting interpretations of those historians' views. I have been rather harsh towards the man out of sheer frustration.Tirronan (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Tirronan - yes, it has been a crusade to reduce US bias on this page. The page has been biased for that long, and we were still removing bias and jingoism from it in the last couple of weeks. After 10 years, I think it is only looking fairly balanced now. As for taking historians sentences out of context, I may have on occassion(?) but so have a lot of other editors, much worse than me, and I have had to correct them. Tirronan, I am just as much as frustrated by what I see as your bias and gatekeeping, the difference is, I am civil to you at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP really has been on the wrong side of consensus for a decade, then they have been shown considerable restraint. If so, CIVILITY may not be the issue, rather WP:TE by the OP. Context is important; are there a few archived discussions going back to 2010 that can be linked to? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deathlibrarian, (non-admin comment) First, a transparency matter: using diffs keeps your comments briefer, and also unambiguous with respect to who said what, and who's comment we are reading now. Pasting excerpts from a previous discussion, with signatures and everything, makes it difficult to follow, unless you collapse it or set it off with a box container.
Now, to your complaint: most of it represents Tirronan's frustration of a long period of discussing the same thing with you over a period of years, and I see nothing actionable here in what Tirronan said, so I'd advise you to just drop this.
To @Tirronan:, I've watched you at the article, and for the life of me, I don't know why you keep getting drawn in again and again. Is it to have the last word? We are all volunteers, here. You are not obligated to respond. You could, for example, revert an article change with "get consensus at Talk to overturn long-term stable content", and then just not respond at Talk, or with one sentence, and then wait for the support for DL's PoV to roll in. If it doesn't, you don't have to say anything, and the article remains in its status quo ante stable version.
To DL again: without judgment on the merits, I kind of admire your patient monomania and ability to do this completely civilly. I would however recommend, that if you hit a wall in one discussion, then give it at least three months before raising it again, and six is probably better. I realize you are hoping for some support, and you may yet get it one day, but there's not going to be a sea change in consensus in less than three months for sure, and all you're doing is annoying other editors, regardless of who is "right", if there even is such a thing here, plus eating up editor time there (and now here) that could be used productively to improve some other article. Please forgive Tirronan's cries of frustration (which don't cross the uncivil boundary in my opinion), and let's all get back to what we're here for. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mathglot - my idea of posting these comments here was to see if they really did fit within WP:civil. As I said, if the admins think they do, and they meet with policy, I'm prepared to accept that and have no debate with that and accept it. From your comments, and Bison X also doesn't seem to have issue with them, they appear to be ok, so I am happy to leave it. Also, thanks the comment about the three months, I think that's good advice, noted. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned, If Tirronan's comments are in fact civil, according to Wp:civil guidelines, I'm happy to leave this as is and close the issue. There's no point in 30 admins all saying the same thing, I'm sure people have more important things to do. I get the opimion they are seen as civil, so I am happy to leave it at that. Thanks for the contribution. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most cogent point made here is that I probably shouldn't be allowing myself to be drug into these situations, over and over. In fact, I was asked to join the issue this last go around or I would not have. Nor do I have any strong desire to do so again. If we are done here this will be my last comment.Tirronan (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deathlibrarian, your entire editing history on this article provokes reactions you might not like. You continually misrepresent sources, other editors' positions, policies and guidelines and repeat the same evidence and arguments over and over again, and ask editors to explain positions they have explained countless times before.
It reminds me of when the anti-Islamist activist Tommy Robinson drove up and down Brick Lane, which is in a largely Muslim neighborhood, shouting out his the window that Muhammad was a false prophet who preached violence. Eventually one of the passers-by punched him. You see, said Robinson, Muslims are violent.
Your opening explanation of this discussion is typical: "a US centric point of view and a Canadian point of view – sometimes with editors from those countries arguing their national narratives." In fact the U.S. centric point of view is that the U.S. won, and there have been tendentious editors over the years who argued that position. But you yourself have admitted that most historians claim it was a draw. Editors are not supposed to let their persoanl biases get in the way of editing. They are supposed to ensure that articles reflect sources.
Mathglot, what you call civility is just civil POV pushing. (Read the essay, it describes Deathlibrarian completely.) Standard textbooks routinely describe the outcome of the war as a draw and neutral editors support following that desription. But whenever a new editor somewhat sympathetic to another interpretation enters the discussion, Deathlibrarian marches out the same evidence and arguments that he has used before. For example, he routinely includes Pierre Berton on his list of historians. Then when confronted, he agrees he was not an historian, but a journalist. Then he rolls out his list of historians again, again including Berton. So he wastes everyone's time by asking them to comment on an issue that has already been resolved. And he has the effrontery to call us pro-American and the other editor you defended called me "American bwana." You are just encouraging them. I know that ANI is about behavior, not content, but read through the arguments and you will find that Deathlibrarian has total disregard for policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We might have crossed the line in WP:TE, but as I understand it, this complaint was opened by Deathlibrarian about if I crossed the line as per WP:Civil . I take it that I have not in fact done so. So while I do wish an end to the "righteous crusade" routine. Doesn't that have to be another complaint? Mind you I am not opposed to entering such a complaint but we might need to follow the forms.Tirronan (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yaaawwwwwnnnnn... @Tirronan: remember, you don't have to respond to irrelevant comments about article content unrelated to this ANI post; and DL, imho, would be showing a great deal of forbearance by resisting the temptation to defend their honor against attempts to derail. DL seems happy to let this go, Tirronan, you seem to understand as well, and the two of you seem to have a rough understanding here. If you're both happy with it, then this looks like a win-win to me. The best response to that latest overture, is this, and then we can all go home:
Well it is the briefest ANI I've ever attended. I will respond to one question you asked of me. Why I keep responding. When you decide to work on a history article I feel I take on a certain responsibility to the public to make it as honest and closest to the truth as we can get. So I spent more time than I wanted in the National Archive. What records exist on the Congress of Vienna, etc. No, I really don't care who won the War of 1812, but I do feel it has to be the truth. If we report histories any other way. Well, you have heard what kind of reputation we have in some circles of the Internet. I don't want to add to that. Honestly, that is my entire motivation. I have found the Air Force Maintenance manual for the M39 autocannon, yeah I am a geek. So my next article will be... And, this is absolutely my last sentence here.Tirronan (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T, those are all good motivations, and I know that's what you want, and it's commendable. From where I sit, DL wants that too (don't prove me wrong, DL!) so in reality, I think you actually both want the same thing, and would probably make a good team on some other article. WP:AGF really is a good principle, plus, people are human, and react humanly. I didn't respond to the last derail, and unless there's something of substance that is new and belongs here, this is my last sentence, too. Ping me to your cannon article, just for fun; I know less than nada about that subject. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mathglot, yes, I'd already decided not to respond to TFD - I'll let myself go undefended here - it would have just resulted in another pointless huge discussion, and probably achieve little anyway. All I wanted here was for these comments to be assessed within Wp:Civ guidelines - it appears they are fine, and I publicly apologise to Tirronan - it appears I was perhaps being oversensitive: your comments have been judged as wihihn the guidelines, and so be it. I welcome TFDs special investigations against my alleged misbehaviour, and in fact would ask if you plan to do this, start as soon as possible. I'm happy to close this issue here, as already mentioned. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you begin your paragraph by saying that you will not respond to me, then take a shot at me at the end of the paragraph. You continue your pattern of self-pitying passive aggression. In answer to your response, as the article I linked to says, it's very difficult to get sanctions against civil POV pushers. As long as there are a small number of editors and the topic has little interest to other editors, you can spend 10 years arguing against reliably sourced content. If you were editing a topic that had broader interest, such as aspartame, intelligent design or climate change, you would have been topic banned. I don't understand what your motivation is. I follow lots of articles that attract editors with non-mainstream views. First, I think it is important to protect them against misinformation, but I am also interested in the psychology of people who tilt at windmills. TFD (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look to see if there was a good case of TE against the OP, but when I go to the talk page and search for their username, just since July of 2020, I came of with 162 matches. They have overwhelmed the talk page so I can't even narrow down where they are making a point and where they are beating a dead horse. The article history, out of the last 100 edits, 44 of them are theirs. I didn't have the time to go thru the archives. If this really goes back 10 years, if y'all can give half a dozen DIFFS or so, you may be able to limit the time they waste of yours by having some restrictions implemented. If y'all don't want to spend anymore time on this, then this should be closed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing happens over and over again at the article. So what do the long time editors do (2 experts in their fields)... they don't comment and wait till the talk dies down and simply fix the article.....been this way for over a decade.--Moxy🍁22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a year-long range block. Looks like this has been going on for a very long time. I left account creation enabled, so people can still create accounts if they really want to edit. No more impulsive blanking sprees, though. It sounds pointless, but this does sometimes work. If registered accounts start doing the same thing, I can always disable account creation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, NinjaRobotPirate. I followed some of the associated IP's edits back to early this year or late last. Quite the industrious time waster. Drmies interacted with them yesterday, so I considered pinging him, as well. And sorry for my changing IP; I'm in Connecticut, where the power and wifi are cutting in and out on a minute-by-minute basis since the storm last Tuesday. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:E47B:82B:B1E3:66A (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For some reason Ehplimsoll has been changing English words to American spelling even know it's a bio on a British commander, adding capitalisation when you don't need too. Changing some of the English around which doesn't seem correct. Can someone else deal with this, I don't think he wants to listen to me. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy to listen to any of Govvy's suggestions. He is right to insist that a page drafted in English, on the subject of an Englishman, is written in English. Spelling is in accordance with the Oxford English Dictionary (en-GB-oxendict); grammar is corrected or amended where necessary. I would be worried if Administrators might seriously consider taking linguistic advice from a user that is apparently ignorant of the difference between a preposition and an adverb (for his benefit, to/too, respectively). Ehplimsoll (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ehplimsoll Whilst a lot of your changes are OK, although the -ize suffix is given as a valid OED spelling, -ise is used far more often in the UK, so for articles that are written in British English where this is the longstanding spelling, I wouldn't change those. Also, changing "footballer" to the Americanism "soccer player" is something I wouldn't have done especially in this case when there's no possibility of confusion. Black Kite (talk)10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That edit with the footballer bugged me out when he changed footballer to soccer for a British player, words like apologised which is correct English to apologized. The possessive of ('S) on the end of Hawkins in a sentence mentioning his son seems wrong. Over use of the lower comma in places. I simply loose trust.. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite The -ize suffix is the valid O.E.D. spelling; the usage is estimated to be 3:2, and I only made the single amendment for the sake of consistency. The latter amendment was necessary, as there is possibility of confusion. In England, there are two popular forms of football: Rugby football, and Association football. They are commonly abbreviated to "Rugby" and "Soccer" - though occasionally and erroneously to "Rugby" and "football" respectively. I am not here to judge adherents of the latter, I simply aim to ensure articles are clear. Ehplimsoll (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That statement (that Association football is "erroneously" abbreviated to football), I'm afraid, shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about here. Football in the UK (and in most of Europe and many other places outside North America) is simply called "football". You will find UK references to "soccer", but that's an Americanism - used to differentiate from American football, of course - that has crept into use here and is certainly in a minority. If you check reliable UK news sources, you will find that their football section is always called just that. (BBC Football, SkySports Football, Guardian Football etc. etc.) Black Kite (talk)11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite According to the O.E.D., football is the more usual term in Britain and Ireland, except in cases where it is necessary to distinguish soccer from other forms of football. I have cured the uncertainty, and deferred to your opinion, by retaining the word and referencing Plymouth Argyle Football Club, which plays association football. Govvy I am struggling to see the value of criticism from someone that doesn't know the difference between "loose" and "lose". You profess to be a native English speaker, but you are far from proficient in writing. I don't mean to criticize, but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding. Ehplimsoll (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In England, there are three popular forms of football: association football (commonly called football), rugby league and rugby union. (I am safe in specifying England rather than UK; league is hardly played in the other three countries.) Rugby football is a class of games, not a single game. League and union are more different from each other than are American and Canadian football. "Soccer" used to be used, but has largely fallen out of use because it's perceived as an Americanism. It was always more of an upper-class word anyway, probably Oxford University slang from late C19 (like e.g. brekker, champers and rugger).
Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED records usage worldwide; it does not specify it anywhere.
It is for reasons like this that my User Page says en-gb and en-us-4. I imitate US customs where appropriate, but my US grammar and punctuation will never be perfect. Narky Blert (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Loose and Lose? Really... loads of people can make that mistake, we hardly ever refer to Rugby Football in this country anymore. Ehplimsoll you wrote "but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding." Ouch, now who is being rude! I didn't make corrections need I remind you, I only reverted you! But you still seem to be changing British English to Americanisms. I strongly feel you should consider your actions, you seem to be digging a hole here. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert:Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED records usage worldwide; it does not specify it anywhere. My copy of the Oxford Style Manual, which *does* specify use, says "recognizenot -ise". --Calton | Talk14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ehplimsoll: Thanks for telling someone who has lived in the UK for 46 years exactly how British people talk. And you're still wrong. It isn't necessary to distinguish football from other sports in the UK, because Rugby football is always called "Rugby" (or "Rugby Union" and "Rugby League"), and American football (unsurprisingly) is always called "American football". But thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk)13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert There are indeed three, if you wish to include Rugby League: seems to further validate the clarification which raised this issue. We can debate the use of the term soccer if you wish, but given it is no longer included in the article, I cannot see the relevance. I would quickly point out, by your own explanation (as it being a term reserved originally to the élite), that the fact it is perceived as an Americanism is not necessarily the cause of its waning popular use.
I did not suggest that the -ise suffix was non-standard. You are right to point out that the O.E.D. is a dictionary of record, however the only variants Murray was prepared to recognize, or recommend, if you prefer, were those with -ize suffixes. The changes I made were for the purposes of consistency - I am far too aware of the futility of imposing a given orthodoxy on a wiki.
Given your knowledge of these various proclivities, and attention to detail, I would suggest that you may be being too modest about your writing and editing capabilities. However, it is right that you have carefully considered your capacity in this regard, and represented accordingly.
Govvy I didn't wish to be rude. I did, perhaps unnecessarily, point out the irony of a classification being challenged by one who is, if anything, below his professed capabilities. I would suggest that you are considerably less likely to be criticized in this regard if you refrain from unnecessarily instigating criticism. Please learn the difference between variations in standard British English and Americanisms before casting sweeping declarations.
Black Kite You have already recognized that there is variety in use, and there is, therefore, no inherently correct form. Given that I originally used a form you accept to be standard, albeit waning in popularity as Narky Blert helpfully clarified, how can I be wrong? Referring to what I presume is your age is a rather desperate justification of wisdom. As I have said above, we can continue to debate this (hopefully constructively, if you can manage it), but I don't see how doing so will be of any benefit: the page has been updated according to your preference. Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame. I would suggest that there would be fewer had my changes not been undone without due consideration. Ehplimsoll (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame" — this suggests to me that the user needs a formal 3RR warning. I have supplied one. Bishonen | tålk14:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure that "not talking the right language" is actionable, and would have said "no action" but for what I read on their talk page. Clear not listening,and (possibly) edit warring over something so trivial tells me they are going to be a net drain. I think the warning is enough for now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven I cannot to see where I have failed to listen, please enlighten me. I would also request detail about what exactly was so offensive on my talk page. I would point out that I have not been edit warring over this admittedly trivial matter - I accepted the edit, and subsequently enhanced/clarified the subject matter. I have simply debated the initial reversion here, whilst accepting the consensus - indeed, my subsequent change was according to the preferences put forward in the course of this conversation. I challenge you to point out what exactly, if anything, I have done wrong. Ehplimsoll (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always suspicious of editors who scrub their talk pages of warnings without archiving them. Ehplimsoll's conduct has left a funny taste in my mouth, and their use of flowery language and wikilawyering smacks of an editor using an alternate account to avoid a block. Does the John Hawkins (naval commander) page have a history of these sort of changes? – PeeJay16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have always striven to eschew elaborate and arcane language, finely-nuanced legalistic argumentation and ad hominem points, lest some reader erroneously induce that I was taking the piss. Narky Blert (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Checking their contributions, pauses like this are not common before they return and continue (please mention me so I can see your message quicker). -- Guherto (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no action that we can take at this time. The user's last edits are from July 17; we can only do something if their disruptive editing is recent or currently in progress. Next time this user edits disruptively, make sure to warn the user appropriately, and if the user continues after enough warnings have been given to them, report them to AIV or do so here. Then, we'll be able to take action at that time and when they're actively causing disruption. As of right now, blocking the user would be inappropriate and against the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contested "anti-vandalism" revert
Administrators, apologies for bringing this to ANI but I couldn't find a more suitable board (I guess I expected there to be a "anti-vandalism false positives" board). I'm happy to be sent elsewhere.
I've been round the block a few times. I've used Mediawiki for longer than I care to remember, and I've been editing on Wikipedia (as an IP) for over a decade. I realise that as an IP editor - and as an IP editor with a dynamic IP address - it's hard to prove experience or demonstrate competence. And I realise the following links could be bogus or "cherry-picked", but I offer them as examples of my previous editing:
Fizz fam I appreciate the anti-vandal enthusiasm, but I do have to agree with the IP: you have been over-zealous. Looking at the reverts you made, I don't see good reason to have undone the IP; I also take issue with you reverting while claiming "AGF". Assuming good faith is important at all times, but when you revert someone by simply saying AGF and not providing an explanation, it is difficult for folks to believe you are assuming good faith. Also, IP's are totally allowed to edit, and some of our very best contributors are anonymous. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't single folks out for being IP's. Also, I think you should probably be...a bit more chill? towards new folks. Looking at this diff...no need to yell and be that rude. Wikipedia is built on being WP:CIVIL, and that is not very civil. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓08:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits seem fine to me. Your ability and "right" to edit articles is no different than anyone else. My "right" to edit an article is the same as yours; you do not have less consideration because you are an anonymous user without an account, and mine isn't greater because I'm an admin. Nobody has ownership or exclusive or greater "rights" to edit an article than anybody else - period. Fizz fam is not an administrator, but he/she does have the ability to revert edits (like all users do). Fizz Fam, I used to be a little bit overzealous at times back when I was patrolling recent changes; it does no good and it can lead to frustration and turn new users away. Even small mistakes can cause frustration and lead to someone leaving the project as an editor, and we don't want this to happen. Please remember to think "quality over quantity" when you patrol for vandalism and disruption, and please slow down. Make sure that you understand the context before you revert someone's changes. When in doubt, don't revert - ask someone for input if you're not sure. You're welcome to message me any time if you need a second pair of eyes, and I'll be happy to help. Like I said, we all make mistakes (including myself) - please take this as a lesson learned and as an important note to keep in mind with your edits and reverts in the future. You have awesome potential to be an experienced editor and recent changes patroller. But you must understand that a big part of having that experience and respect is to be accurate with what you're doing, and keep attention to detail in mind. I've been a recent changes patroller for 13 years, and I've made more than my fair share of mistakes. If you want to excel at what you've been doing, you have to demonstrate accuracy, clarity in your edit summaries, and that you know what you're reverting when you do so. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Religion in the European Union — Status quo stonewalling
This is purely a content dispute over a contested addition to an article, and admins are powerless to resolve content disputes. You need to seek consensus at the article talk page, and ask at WP:RSN for help with questions on the reliability of sources. Now, as long as nobody continues the edit war (and you won't, will you folks?), there's nothing for admins to do here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to report a incident involving User:Tammbeck, User:Trasz and User:JimRenge. On the Religion in the European Union, I added a paragraphs on issues facing Christians due to increased secularization, citing a 2019 report from an NGO and a news article. As a comparison, similar statements appear in the Religion in the United States or Religion in the United Kingdom articles, so the text is very much appropriate for this type of an article. Also, the tone uses is similar to that found in other paragraphs in the article (pls, see and compare). However, the text was deleted by the three users respectively, citing nothing more than "NPOV", "neutral tone" and last but not least "much better sources needed". If users Tammbeck, Trasz and JimRenge provided some constructive feedback, perhaps fixed some of the wording, I would understand the arguments, but just deleting the whole text without providing much of anything, only comes across as sanitizing the article — nothing more than Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, against which much can't be done on the talk page, since not proving any meaningful feedback ends any chance the text will be included. --E-960 (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No really Robby.is.on, you stated that this NGO is not a good source, why since NGOs are routinely used on Wikipedia as sources, so I would expect an explanation, which I'm not getting — just as I'm not getting any meaning full input form the other editors. I personally feel that is is bias, as issues that Christians face are routinely ignored and marginalized. --E-960 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You won't bait me into discussing content here, E-960, it is not the right venue. As stated at the top of this page, AI/V is intended for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.". The only "intractable behavioral problems" I am seeing at "Religion in the European Union" is you assuming bad faith at the article's Talk page instead of attempting a civil discussion – after being reverted by three different editors. The process is WP:BRD – "bold, revert, discuss" – not bold, revert, whine and assume bad faith. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960, you have come very close to breaching 3RR, and you were clearly edit warring which is not a good thing. Consider this a warning - you don't need to breach 3RR to be blocks, that's just the bright line where you will be blocked if you go over it. Stop, look for better sources, and engage in discussion without making accusations. GirthSummit (blether)14:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't understand this guy... if they had discussed what they were doing and hadn't started sock-jumping on slight provocation, that could have been quite productive. In view of recent behaviour (including totally losing it on Chiswick Chap's TP), I'd support mass-reverting - some of this stuff is pretty arcane and would be hard to check by your average editor, and good faith clearly can't be assumed here anymore. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the link. You could ask the reviewing checkuser for additional information. It's likely that they found connections between the socks, but not the master... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Report declined. Broad agreement that the two indicted users were not making offensive and disparaging comments. E-960, making reports that are not actionable (and next time we'll call it a false report) is disruptive, and really a violation of AGF. Please be more careful--a boomerang block was mentioned here, and that's what you might see if you keep this up. And please don't come here with canards about worldwide prosecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to report GPinkerton and Cabayi for making offensive and disparaging comments. As a Christian, I'm offended by the dismissive tone and a lack of neutrality exhibited by the two editors in earlier discussions on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard page. When referring to a Christian NGOs and news-site, Cabayi said "site is attempting to weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" while GPinkerton said "Church vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority". All this in relation to the earlier discussion on whether Aid to the Church in Need and Intolerance Against Christians can be cited as reliable reference sources. Apparently, since these organizations focus on Christian issues they are "unreliable". However, sifting though Wikipedia, I find numerous examples of NGOs, charities, or issue specific news-sites cited as references. Also, to refute the point that this is a minor issue, I'd like to highlight the fact that there is a wave of church vandalism in Europe and elsewhere, which is not being frequently reported on in the "mainstream media", so those sources are hard to come by for use as reference. Also, if you think that this is a "marginal" issue, please see this video of a church vandalism, here: [122]. I find such dismissive and belittling comments despicable. --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're on about. There's nothing offensive and belittling there that I can see. However, I do see someone being overly sensitive and inventing offense where there is none, for a reasons I can only guess at.--Jorm (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflicts) We cover what is written about in reliable sources, such as the mainstream media (without the dog-whistle scare quotes). If you prefer to believe what is written about on partisan web sites rather than by organisations with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy then that's your problem. The idea that Christians (in general, rather than specific sects or denominations) are persecuted anywhere is the West is, given the last two millennia of history, simply barmy. But of course vandalism happens in churches, which tend to have less security than most other buildings. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, there are different levels of persecution, some are extreme such as the persecution of Christians by the communists, others are more subtle. Btw, did you see the video I included, I added the link for a reason, how would you describe that scene for me? --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On your point of which is not being frequently reported on in the "mainstream media", so those sources are hard to come by for use as reference., Wikipedia can only work on the existence of reliable sources. If our trusted sources do not report it, then there is no grounds for inclusion. Instead you have to make the argument (not here) that your sources are reliable. But I also agree with Jorm (talk·contribs) -- I think you're taking offense too easily here. — Czello17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NGOs in conjunction with other references are often cited on Wikipedia. WP:SYNTH seriously? The title of one of the sources reads "Study Reveals about 3,000 Attacks on Christian Churches and Symbols in 2019" I don't need to make synthesis out of that to confirm that this is serious issue. Also, please do a test run, take the comments that were made and instead of the word "Christian" insert a different minority or social group in it's place, see how that sounds like. --E-960 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA... funny!!! So, to give an example, how would it sound if the statement was a follows: LGBT center vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority. Are you still laughing? Do you want more examples? --E-960 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm did you see the video I included, what does that look like to you? Also, how many Catholic mobs do you see attacking LGBT people, maybe some pseudo-Christian/football hooligans (who hardly follow any of the other church teachings), but surely they are not getting their orders from the pope. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gleeanon409, that's a blunt exaggeration, the overwhelming majority of people in the West, are not what you would call a Christian. They don't go to church don't follow church teachings, never were baptized and maybe celebrate Christmas just for the presents. I guess they might identify as Christian just because their grandpa was. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960: Whenever anyone tells me, "watch this video, it will prove it," I expect a 45 minute screed by a crazy person about how 5G towers cause cancer or how Kathleen Kennedy is ruining Star Wars. There's a reason why youtube isn't a reliable source. So no, I didn't watch your video. Further, denying that Christians persecute LGBTQI folk is such such a vapid, ill-informed, and blind position that I cannot possibly take anything else you say seriously because it is likely infected with The Dumb. Jorm (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm, you call me "ill informed", yet you close your eyes and boast that you won't see the video, is not someone talking for 60 min, but actual 3 min video from the Church vandalism site — just so you are not ill-informed about the situation. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back to OP's complaint-- looks baseless and like OP is butting head against WP:RS issues in a content dispute. OP looks to be trying to right great wrongs ( that only putatively exist). I suggest OP withdraw this as not actionable. --Deepfriedokra(talk)17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to blocking the OP for disruption here. This is the second frivolous thread they've raised here today about people they disagree over content with. E-960: there are no personal attacks, harsh language or offensive comments in those discussions. Your argument about 'other minorities' is empty, sources of all complexions get criticised at RSN routinely. This noticeboard is not a place for you to file reports on everyone who disagrees with you. Go and discuss content and sourcing at the appropriate location, and listen to what other people are telling you. GirthSummit (blether)17:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, editors have been warned or sanctioned for making disparaging remarks in the past, in an extreme case user Icewhiz was banned for using the sarcastic term "Polocaust" among other things in reference to Poles killed during WWII. --E-960 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960, that case has absolutely zero relevance to anything that has occurred at RSN today. There have been no disparaging marks directed towards you, and users are free to speak openly no their opinions of sources on a noticeboard specifically for the purpose of discussing the reliability of otherwise of sources. GirthSummit (blether)17:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks on my talk page
The account has been blocked, and it looks like the IP user has been warned for civility. Going to go ahead and close, but if that IP user keeps going off at you, please let me know and I can talk to that person. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Admins, I've just recieved two personal attacks at my my talk page within the past day (which I don't need to be suppressed):
I just want to know is there anything that should be done? Again, I don't need this vandalism suppressed because they're more comical than anything else. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi team – I'm an admin and I have nominated User:Sinkplil to be reviewed as a possible sockpuppet. You can find the case here. Now, the user has begun targeting edits my edits and reverting them. So far, there are three edits here, here and here. They also have moved to my Commons talk page, but I'm unsure what to really do about that at this point[131]. I clearly can't do anything due to conflict of interest. Thanks for your efforts and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Missvain, I have reviewed the diffs and the harassment is real, targeted and despicable. I blocked Sinkplil for a week with a firm warning that the next block will be indefinite if the misconduct resumes. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'll be doing that now. I've also warned Fa suisse for edit warring. If it continues after the full protection has expired, this user will be fair game for being blocked without further warnings. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The current revision had the "Marxist" content added back to the article. Per the guidelines on full protection, I am not allowed to change the revision of the article prior to applying full protection, unless the current revision violates a serious Wikipedia policy (BLP violation, copyright violation, libel, etc). It assures that I am not seen as "taking a side" and using the admin tools in order to push a certain opinion or point of view. But, of course, despite this explanation, I have absolutely without-a-doubt protected the wrong version. And for that, I am sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first message (from Gleeanon409) is a lie. The protection expired almost a week ago. The situation has changed with the publication yesterday of a new reliable source on the topic (the Politico article), which ends the debate. My edit was balanced to the point where it mentioned a point you, Gleeanon409, made on the talk page, the "dog-whistle" argument. I will engage again on the talk page, where Gleeanon409's avowed political agenda for blocking this content is on full display, and which has unfortunately become a tool for the prevention of advancement on this article. This behavior, which has been going for more than a month and led to many complaints, is also against policy. Fa suisse (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Gleeanon409 has removed additions I made to a list of sources on the RFC section of the talk page, acting like the owner of the page and trying to set the terms of the discussion. Diffs : 1, 2. Fa suisse (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fa suisse - This is a content dispute, and it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Please review this policy page on how to properly handle and escalate disputes. If you two can't decide on a consensus together, then take the next step. Get neutral input by other editors, file a request for comment, do what it takes to resolve this civilly. This is not the place to do that. You two have been given the actions that I determined were fair and necessary, which was to warn you both informally that further edits and reverts made to the article by either one of you would be actionable. It's now up to the two of you to resolve this in the correct way. Just don't touch the article itself - that's all I ask. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After the last visit to ANI, I started a RfC as suggested. With one, maybe two exceptions, editors have been civil. Fa suisse proceeded to assume bad faith with most everyone who disagreed with them as can be seen above, and throughout the talk page. It took two editors to explain how reading a book about Marx does not make a person a Marxist.What they fail to realize is that just wedging in every instance where Cullors and Marx intersect does not improve the article, NPOV writing reflecting the best reliable sources does. They seem to be waging a battle against no one else. If we need to do a series of RfC’s then sobeit.Fa suisse was asked to gain consensus several times and they continued to edit war. What they are missing is that some form of the content is quite likely to be used despite their poor conduct because of the Politico source identified. They need to wait until the RfC ends *and* consensus on how to include the information is formed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gleeanon409 - I understand. This is why I've fully protected the article until this RFC comes to a close, informally asked you two to stop reverting one another, and stated that imposing a block would be a logical next step if Fa suisse continues to edit war. In the end, this dispute is content-related and we need for the disruption toward the article to stop - I'm sure you understand that. :-) I don't want to see anybody blocked; I'm trying to push everyone toward properly resolving this dispute and reach a consensus. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine seeing a community sanction or administrative block here unless the previous warning was given by an admin, rather than a party that was involved in the dispute--and I take it from the wording above that this is a case of the latter, rather than the former. Besides, I don't think it would serve the interests of arriving at a longterm stable solution to the dispute. Additionally, blocks are only given for preventative reasons, not punitive ones: with the article protected for a week (or at least as long as it takes to form a consensus), further disruption to the article itself is impossible (at least for the short term) and it can be hoped that under the new circumstances a middle ground solution can be reached which all parties can be satisfied with (or which at least can gain the support of consensus). In short, Oshwah has already pointed the way forward here, both expressly above and in the conditions set in the edit summary for the protection action: continue to attempt to forge a consensus.
On that last topic, I note that discussion has not yet begun again in earnest on the talk page; that is perhaps for the best, as a brief breather from engagement by both "sides" and a little bit of time to digest the new sourcing could be helpful both in lowering the heat and letting everyone consider where we go from here rather than digging further into entrenched, dogmatic positions that they might not otherwise have if not for the tension of the dispute. When discussion does resume (within hours, I would presume), the focus needs to fall on untying this gordian knot that has resulted from a hotly disputed RfC (with presently about equal !votes going either way) combined with the fact that we now have a new source, half-way through the process, which may shift many opinions. That's an incredibly complex situation that is going to present difficulties for further discussion and consensus building and for anyone who has to make a formal close of the discussion. However, it also presents an opportunity: if Fa suisse and Gleeanon, as the two original parties of the dispute (as best I can tell?) were to come to an agreement about how to proceed from here in light of the new developments, many other editors might follow suite and we could have a (relatively) civil resolution to the whole matter.
Gleeanon, a comment you made above suggests to me that you now favour including brief reference to the topic (or at least that you recognize this is likely to be the consensus given the new sourcing). Like me, I suspect you find the weight that Fa suisse gave to the topic in the currently live edit to be excessive, and would favour something that simply discusses the original 'Marxist' quote and makes quick reference to the fact that Cullors feels the comment was leveraged by right-leaning pundits to mischaracterize herself and the movement (in short, an attributed partial quote to the original interview and an attributed quote to the Politico interview where she clarifies herself, ideally all in a single sentence and not in the lead). I suspect that this is an approach which a significant majority of editors could get behind, given the present sourcing: a number of the !votes supporting inclusion originally only wanted the topic included so that the article would address these alleged media manipulations, after-all. I think Fa suisse could also be convinced to support such a version, with the right wording. Obviously the full matter of the content cannot be decided here, but if the above solution is something you can see yourself supporting, can I suggest you start there when discussion resumes, with a clearly marked subsection that pings the previous RfC respondents so that perhaps consensus will be fairly swiftly forthcoming and the page protection can be removed as per Oshwah's conditions? Snowlet's rap14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not on any side here, nor am I edit-warring in any way. I’m again suggesting the contentious content under dispute be removed and the RfC to continue.This is a current news story so I fully expect more and better sources to appear. With the Politico one we now have two(!), so a reasonable sentence with some context seems possible.Fa suisse has been warned by many users and at least a few admins so I hope they’ll refrain from more poor editing choices. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edition a week after protection expired, following developments (new reliable source). Gleeanon409 proceded to remove the whole of my addition, instead of the part they disagree with. I reverted that, and clearly explained that if they want to do so, they should remove the part they consider contentious. I have consistently used civil language on the talk page and in edits, which isn't the case of Gleeanon409. My allegations of political agenda are based on explicit claims of such by Gleeanon409 on the talk page. I don't have a problem with a continued discusssion on the talk page, nor a removal of my latest addition. I just wish for a constructive engagement of all parts, without baseless allegations, snark, acting-as-page-owner(s), and systematically using procedure as a tool to prevent encyclopedia-writing. The repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing by Gleeanon409 against myself are incidental and not central to the topic. I don't feel like asking for dispute resolution at the time due to my loss of faith in the possibility of said user to engage calmly with the matter. I do however have faith in the process and will calmly make my point(s) on the talk page, where hopefully Gleeanon409 will stop removing my additions to the debate in what do look like acts of spite. I don't have hope that Gleeanon409 will stop trying to fix the terms of the debate, but that's okay, others users are now involved, and hopefully we can collectively work towards writing content instead of bickering. Cordially, Fa suisse (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This editor repeatedly removes updates to the Gamers Choice Awards page. The updates are to correct the record regarding the creators of the show. The editor has removed irrefutable citations showing that that ownership as stated in the article is not accurate. It seems as though CNMall41 has a COI or possibly some sort of relationship to the other party, which is causing this behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JupiterReturn (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Note: The reversion that CNMall41 performed removed an Imgur link to an email where personal information has been redacted. I strongly believe that the email itself isn't a reliable source and that its removal is warranted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
E-960
Was discussed in two threads he started above. After the discussion, E-960 accused other editors of "utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks". I warned E-960, and afterwards E-960 did it again on Drmies page, and then blanked their talk page While the personal attacks require action, there is an underlying issue of E-960 being unable to deal the topic neutrally. Evident in the extreme arguments employed by E-960, and by:
[133]: Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended
If E-960 is personally offended (as a Christian), accuses other editors of employing "Bolshevik" methods, and is incensed (1. Enraged; infuriated; spitefully or furiously angry), then E-960 is unable to edit neutrally. I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict.--Hippeus (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is blatant bias, so other editors can freely throw the follow not too subtle accusations that I'm advocating "conspiracy theories" or "canards", but I make the comparison to this type of accusations as "bolshevik" (who called themselves the "majority" and labeled everyone else who was against them as the "minority") and I'm the one that's out of line, and needs to be censured:
User Cabayi said:"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy"
User Drmies said: ""And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"
I can see that those editors REALLY articulated their positions in an objective and meritorious manner. Just like I was told yesterday by another editor: "I do see someone being overly sensitive", so to those that are offended by the bolshevik comparison you are just being "overly sensitive". --E-960 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They expressed their opinions which were firmly based on facts and reality, while you have expressed your opinions which are based on your emotions and imagined "facts". We base our articles on verifiable facts, and not on the personal distress of an editor. That you cannot edit on this basis is the reason a topic ban is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing Editor does not seem to understand what constitutes a reliable source and seems to be over engaged in the suject and not open to discussion. Needs time to reflect -----SnowdedTALK07:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppliment: the compatitve nature of the response here and on this rather odd RfC not to mention this complaint and the attack on the closing admin's talk page, all confirm my view that this editor badly needs a break from the subject -----SnowdedTALK08:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a sensitive matter to some, and I can understand E-960 being offended and sensitive about it. I think a piece of simple advice to calm down and advise to try to understand the opposite side will solve it.GizzyCatBella🍁07:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WOW!!! An editor just wrote on the Talk:Religion in the European Union page, in response to my RfC about Christian marginalization, quote: Dismiss AFAIK, Christians are still the majority of EU inhabitants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC) — solid argument, can't argue with that kind of logic. And you really expect to project an degree of neutrality and knowledge with those kinds of arguments? You got to be kidding me! --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu with your comment on the talk page "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy"[136] you just proved my point that there is political/ideological bias in how this issue is being handled on Wikipeida. No wonder, other editors can make disparaging remarks my way, but I make a similar comparison in the opposite direction and I got a sanction heading my way. Btw, the EU has never been criticized for a deficiency in democracy at the institutional level. What you just said is exactly what the bolsheviks accused Christians of in the past, that Christians are against the people's voice! E-960 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... and how does that excuse your offensive comment about Christians when you said "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy", I'm confused. --E-960 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has to come for a play book of some kind, equating Christians with "radicals" and opponents of "democracy" time and time again. On the LGBT ideology-free zone page, I reverted not too long ago a statement which called Ordo Iuris (a conservative Catholic organization) "FAR-RIGHT"[137].--E-960 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960 Please calm down; I think you are overreacting. Nobody is intentionally trying to hurt your religious beliefs. Please try to compromise with the point of view of other editors who might not share the same opinion as you are.GizzyCatBella🍁08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960, oppression is what happens when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, not when you're prevented from doing so.
In the US and increasingly elsewhere (e.g. Australia and the UK), Christians are the ones who want to ban abortion, gay marriage, legalise discrimination against gay and trans people, allow companies to opt out of providing birth control to female employees, mandate state funding of churches and the teaching of creationism alongside (or, ideally, instead of) reality-based biology, allow preachers to endorse political candidates from the pulpit and the rest? Yes, it's the same people who held out against allowing black people marrying whites and using the same facilities as whites.
The Christian persecution narrative was perfectly summed up by Jon Stewart.
“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”
To be fair, we got there in the end: after 44 consecutive Christian or Deist Presidents, there came Trump, a man who has never been willingly seen inside a church (except perhaps for his string of marriages, each of which he betrayed through infidelity). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet is the President of the United States allowed to do anything with his power that would advance the cause of Christianity? Trump can't even walk to his local church without people freaking the hell out. JC himself could be elected President, and it would do nothing to halt the march of secularism in the land of the free. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Secularism in the American political system means that the state is totally separate from all religions, and that no religion has official status - and, yes, there are examples where that is not actually followed, such as the U.S. Senate having an official chaplain, but it's still the case more often than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella is to be commended for trying to de-escalate. Unfortunately, @E-960:'s responses here and in the previous two threads are in effect arguing for some sort of sanction. If interacting with other editors causes one to see personal attacks where there are none, and causes one to become enraged and feel offended, they are too close to the issue to edit objectively and neutrally. SupportTBAN as proposed for articles dealing with religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. (They seem to be bringng an off-Wiki struggle into their editing. That never ends well.) User will need to interact WP:CIVILly with others and show an understanding of WP:reliable sources to have TBAN reconsidered. --Deepfriedokra(talk)09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't befoul Wikipedia often with foul language, but now I'm incensed'. @E-960:, what the actual fuck makes you think some of the respondents here are not Christians, with deep and abiding faiths? Your slathering-at the-mouth approach and personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are most unbecoming. Your crap about, "has to come for a play book of some kind," is wholly unacceptable. --Deepfriedokra(talk)09:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra - Lets tone down the hostility and the language. :-) I agree with your message, just not the words you chose to use. There's no need for that; we need to be setting the example here and leading others by our actions and how we respond to... not so understandable messages. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, to answer your questions, did I not write above all the comment that came my way? Did I not write in examples of what I interpret as bias? I have the feeling you did not even bother to read my comments just follow the narrative other editors made. --E-960 (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960 - Your observation is noted. Regardless, this proposal for a topic ban is going to proceed with input and discussion. Based off of the responses you've given here, as well as elsewhere, I must say that you're not helping your case. I would advise not adding any more fuel to the fire. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, please consider that if the responses to my points were objective and constructive we would not be here. Right now its just blame e-960 for this or that, but no one is saying, this is not an appropriate way to respond on sensitive topics. If an editor reverts a text at least have decency to provide constructive feedback, and if you disagree with my point don't make a snide remarks, and say nothing happened. --E-960 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) E-960 - I'm not sure what comment I made was "snide"? I have made no judgement for or against you. I'm moderating this discussion as a completely neutral party, as I might be the one that will be tasked with closing it. All I am saying is that this discussion is going to receive input, in support or opposition, to the proposal - and it will close with an appropriate ruling based off of the establishment of consensus. I didn't say whether or not the comments you listed above were constructive, and I have not labeled you as "the bad guy". There's obviously some merit to the proposal based off of the input that this discussion has received by other editors; my task at this time is to maintain the peace here and keep the discussion civil. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah clarification, not refering to you specifically, the "you" was just a generic reference to other editors, not to be understood personally. --E-960 (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, can you describe the below comments as objectivie, respectful and merit based?
User Cabayi said:"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy"
User Drmies said: ""And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"
I believe that if you administer E-960 to calm down and voluntarily stay away from religious topics for a while, it will be enough. E-960 is a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will agree. Would you E-960? Just take a break and rethink everything tomorrow, I'm sure you will come to different conclusions. Right now, emotions are speaking, not E-960.GizzyCatBella🍁10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely can, but I expect the admins to hold other sides responsible for the escalation. The comment by Guy, is a perfect example of bias displayed outright on Wikipedia. That's a personal attack accusing me of holding some privilege, yes in Communist Poland we all had it so good as Christians. --E-960 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it backwards. The cartoon does not show "how Christians are persecuted by atheists in US and EU", it depicts precisely the opposite, how atheists are persecuted by Christians. Note that the person holding a Bible is telling the other person to "Stay quiet" -- that's the Christian (=Bible) commanding silence from the atheist. The "old" atheist holds his tongue, but the "new" atheist says "No". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I think you are just baiting with that comment and trying to get me to say something over top. What you are saying is right out of some playbook. Yes Guy, under communist oppression Christians were privileged, very much so. Btw, please tell me what happening in this video [138], are those the "privileged" Christians you are talking about? I can find more clips like that for you if you'd like. --E-960 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
trying to get me to say something over top seems very easy to do. So perhaps you could knock off all the ridiculousness and melodrama and stick to basic problems like finding high-quality sources and accurately representing the mainstream view. —-Joel B. Lewis (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If had known there was an ANI thread I would have said here what I said on my talk page: "You just added another canard: "Cultural Marxism". What's funny is that you totally misrepersecutedad what I wrote. The canard is the supposed media suppression. Linking a BBC story about that very issue proves your point was invalid. But, and this is pretty relevant for someone who wants to be writing an encyclopedic, you presented someone's opinion (that of Philip Mounstephen) as if it were a fact. You can't do that." In other words, E-960 has reading issues that, in my opinion, likely prevent them from editing neutrally. Representing opinion as fact, reading selectively, that's not good. So I support a topic ban, sure, though these problems are not just relevant in the proposed area. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – When I first came across one of the related threads yesterday I was tempted to try to intervene along the lines of the position that GizzyCatBella is taking here. At this point we're looking at a clear case of WP:RGW with a side of dead horse beating and a penchant for sucking up way more editor-time than this deserves. signed, Rosguilltalk14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 3 threads in 2 days and a huge degree of I didn't hear that thrown in. They either need some cooling time or just prevented from continued disruption and eating up so much time. Canterbury Tailtalk14:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The main source for their complaints seems to be this "report"[139] from the Gatestone Institute, "a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles". Note how this overview of anti-Christian attacks in Europe has the Notre-Dame de Paris fire, an accident if ever there was one, included in the first paragraph, as the main image, again in the body of the report, and in the appendix, each time claiming that it was a "suspicious fire". The remainder of their sources seem equally dubious. Fram (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You start an RfC based on two sources, the first of which is "Aid to the Church in Need"[141], and their article "EUROPE: Study Reveals about 3,000 Attacks on Christian Churches and Symbols in 2019". I actually looked at which study they mean, and lo and behold, it is the study from the Gatestone Institute linked above. As was rather clear in the article you linked to, which starts "According to research conducted by the Gatestone Institute". Fram (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support an appropriate topic ban on grounds of RGW. (FWIW I think accusing someone of "utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks" is absurd, uncollegial, and unconstructive, but not a personal attack in the sense of NPA.) --JBL (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed/Weak support for heel-cooling general block of at least a few days. The original cited comments regarding offense were problematic, but not enough that I would have endorsed a sanction on that basis alone. However the additional context provided regarding other discussions, combined with the party's own comments here, make the level of innate disruption in their approach to the topics in question immediately obvious. That said, the original proposed topic ban scope is unreasonably (arguably unworkably) large, hence the refinement suggested in my !vote header. Also per the header, I would support a more general sanction given the current full head of steam they seem to have on this topic, and the fact that I can't imagine that they are going to immediately lose the sense they are being persecuted as soon as the topic ban goes into effect: indeed, I think it may be in their own best interests (if they want to remain on the project) that they be temporarily prevented from responding to this sanction and given some time to digest the community's opinion of their conduct here, and consider if they can accept it to the extent that they are willing to move on to other areas, without further recriminations against the great Wikipedia secularist conspiracy. Snowlet's rap15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for a broad topic ban. My interactions with this user were in the AN/I thread above but then they followed me to my talk page to try to argue even more that Christians are somehow persecuted. They don't understand that youtube videos are not proof of things.--Jorm (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are Jorm, just read this page Persecution of Christians. Those type of comments show nothing but contempt and bias, every religious community in history faced oppression at some point and even today, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. face problems based on location, culture, and so on. To say that Christians face no intolerance or persecution today is an outright bias. --E-960 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed. I think all religion is bad. But I can work with people who disagree with that opinion, and my positions don't lead me to try to right great wrongs, which is where you are right here. You are too close to your passion to see it clearly and I think a time-out is in order. Anyways: Feel free not to reply. I am not interested in arguing with you further. Jorm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed. Based on all of this at ANI, its clear they have an axe to grind, and this is not the place to grind it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This the the type of comments I face, but I'm the bad guy:
My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed... Jorm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
How often do you see editors respond with statements like: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Judaism did not and never existed, or My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if gays did not and never existed. But you can tell a Christian that to their face on Wikipedia and it's OK. --E-960 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not helping Jorm: please keep your comments confined to constructive purposes and away from sarcastic rejoinders. Snowlet's rap16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a case of someone who demands respect for his own belief system (fair enough), but who feels entitled to launch intemperate attacks against the belief systems of anyone who disagrees with him ("Bolsheviks", "cultural Marxists", etc). MastCellTalk16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but On the other hand just look at all the taunting (and Jorm as well as the OP aren’t the only ones) and sniping throughout this thread. And this is by several people who should know better. Volunteer Marek 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, when I objected to the first series of comments which I though were belittling, I was told that I was being "overly sensitive", so when I responded in kind and made the "bolshevik" comments that action drew this complaint. Which proves my point, when talking about Christianity you can make snide or insensitive comments and it's ok, but the other way around and people are offended. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960, there are other possible explanations here, one of which is that the derision is not being directed at Christianity in most of these interactions, but rather at you--or more specifically your incomplete understanding of our policies on issues such as WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality, WP:WEIGHT, and sourcing, combined with a tendency to perceive push-back to your proposals as evidence of a nefarious agenda and deep bias against Christians (despite the fact that this project is rich with adherents of that faith). You claim all of Christianity as your personal constituency and I don't think that's particularly justified. One can both have a deep faith in Christian dogma (or be of a different or no faith and still respect it) without having to agree that your specific assertions about particular social forces in particular contexts are correct. Assuming otherwise is a classic false dilemma. Snowlet's rap17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rarely participate in discussions here, but E-960 is using unreliable sources in support of a POV based on the Christian persecution complex. "In a conversation at the British Humanist Congress in 2014, Stavrakopoulou suggested that some Christian fundamentalists perceive the advancement of secularism as a threat, and that this may support the idea of a persecution complex." Wikipedia should be wary of of religious partisan views. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, but is not secularism a point of view as well? You automatically label religious views as partisan, and secularism as the undisputed truth. But, I'm the one that's pushing a POV, because I wrote an statement that Christians in EU face issues such as marginalization (so fundamental of me). --E-960 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E-960, secularism is the view that no religion should be privileged. It applies to the Scientology, Christianity, Islam - all religions. As a POV, that's entirely neutral. Secularism is not atheism. There are Christians who advocate secularism. In fact, the Constitution of the United States was written by some of them. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To properly understand the root of E-960 emotional arguments, one has to be religious. I'm an older person and practicing Christian, and I know where all these emotions come from. E-960, please recognize diverse views and opinions, it would be unfortunate if sanctions are imposed, but I can't keep opposing them if you continue arguing with your heart instead of the head. Look, I'm a Christian, and I don't feel oppressed here or in real life. I still hope you will be allowed to step away from the religious topics voluntarily. I believe you need to do that and for a long time.GizzyCatBella🍁17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad topic ban with review after 6+ months. User is so passionate as to be dismissive of community standards, decorum, and feedback resulting in strings of disruption making any editing acrimonious. This is counter to building an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading this discussion, and the additional comments which have come in, I now believe that E-960 is totally incapable of editing in a neutral way on a broad variety of subjects, due to his personal beliefs and his extreme excitability, which cannot but influence his edits. I therefore support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed. This !vote should be construed as supporting any proposal which includes its parts, i.e. it is a !vote for a topic ban on religion, a topic ban on politics, and a topic ban on society, if any of those become the consensus. Any and all of those TBans should be broadly construed. The purpose of this is to remove E-960 from any and all areas where his PoV editing will be disruptive to the community.I would also suggest that if a TBan is levied on his by this discussion -- which seems fairly likely -- that E-960 understand that the next step would be a site ban, since we cannot keep just piling on subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed & a short-ish block (1 week). E-960 has progressed from an inability to discern good sources to an extreme battlefield mentality. Badly needs a cool-off period and to keep away from their trigger topics. Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There’s a lot of heat on both sides in these discussions and various editors making unnecessarily provocative statements. E should calm down and tone down the language (as should some of the others throwing out lines about “radical Christians oppose democracy” or “slathering at the mouth” but there’s nothing here topic ban worthy. If E deserves one there’s def some others here who do as well. Volunteer Marek 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should read my claim in context, he provided the diff for it. About Hungary being led towards illiberal democracy there is little doubt, I guess. The speech of the Hungarian PM pushing for it became famous.
At first, we were fighting against Sovietization. Bolsheviks let us speak our own language, but not what we want. Everything changed. Today we only hear the slogan Poland for Polish people. We got rid of Bolsheviks, but we kept our mutual despise for each other. Now we have an anti-Bolshevism with a Bolshevik face, that's why I am sad... What is nutured inside Poland is a kind of anti-humanism. Our government is supported by the Polish Catholic Church. What does our government tell us? That now comes the «gay pest», which is more or less the same as the «red pest». It is an idiocy which even Ceaușescu could not utter. In Poland, this Bolshevik mentality, a mentality of despise, of superiority, it remained... There is a great madness all over all post-Communist countries. We all think that our own people is noble, innocent, never did any harm unto others. According to this idea we judge those around us. If somebody says that that's not completely true, he/she is regarded as a traitor to the country
— Adam Michnik in Stefan Both, Disident polonez legendar, despre România post '89: „Iliescu a salvat țara pentru că n-a ales calea lui Miloșevici“
So I think I made clear that it is factually true that Hungary and Poland are led by radicals. At least mainstream Western media see it that way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed The user seem incapable of differentiating secularism from Christian persecution. The sources they are pushing have the same issue and then some. They also seem unable to drop the stick.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose E-960 is using the talk page to discuss their changes and this sanction goes way too far. Certainly with statues going down and churches being vandalized, it's no surprised that this issue is coming onto Wikipedia. It's understandable. desmay (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think the proposed sanctions go too far. They are a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will learn from this and step away from the topic area voluntarily. GizzyCatBella🍁05:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is some new definition of 'reasonable' I am not familiar with? If I saw a single comment from the editor which indicated a willingness to step away from the topic area then I would be happy to change my vote, but there are none. It is not just here and the talk page of the article; the editor relentlessy persues people onto their talk pages (see the edit history with a good example here) and even on the talk page itself there is zero engagement with the argumetents of other editors just a series of attacks or assertons of being a victim. Your two attempts here to get them to say something conciliatory have both failed. -----SnowdedTALK05:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That diff illustrates the problem - firstly we get a link to a pretty nasty far right site with offers to send us more such links, then a statement that they might possibly back off if admins start to behave fairly. Happy to see if that changes when they come back on line -----SnowdedTALK08:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm shaking my head here over how this has all escalated so quickly from "Those two sources don't satisfy WP:RS". I think de-escalation from all sides could have helped here, and I can't support a topic ban proposed in the heat of argument. Such a ban might indeed be needed in the coolness of time, but not now, not like this, not in this heat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed per Beyond My Ken. Pushing far-right trash as reliable is bad enough, chasing editors to their talk pages, badgering, and attacking is worse. When I read accusations of "Bolshevik" methods, I think of Mass killings under communist regimes, not a light accusation.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the topic ban proposed by the OP. This discussion has become sidetracked but we need to keep our eye on the ball. This is a clear case of WP:RGW and E-960 has shown no understanding of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. They have been unwilling to take advice from administrators and have not responded positively to attempts at mediation. Their trenchant views on the subject of Chistianity have led to them to being unwilling or unable to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in this area.Tammbecktalk10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not suggesting any response to the user's combative tone and actions, considering the way this thread developed. Let's stick to the core issues. Tammbecktalk15:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well for that matter one of the few "No" voters here namely desmay is the only editor supporting E-960 on the RfC in the article in question. If you are pointing out one side, then point out the other or none! -----SnowdedTALK16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support after waiting to see how this developed. At first, I had some sympathy that this was a simple misunderstanding that had accelerated, but the toxicity of the behavior just in this discussion (anyone who disagrees is anti-Christian and part of systemic bias), and the speed with which aspersions were cast in the RSN discussion have convinced me that an expectation of the ability to edit neutrally in this area is currently not realistic. Grandpallama (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - E-960 hasn't been active for a day now[145]
I hope they took this advice thoughtfully [146] and are thinking about what happened here. Please wait with the decision until they come back with the response. I genuinely believe that the sanctions might not be necessary if their answer is satisfactory in view of editors concerned.GizzyCatBella🍁20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As recommended by GizzyCatBella, I can agree to voluntarily stay away from editing topics related to Religion for a prolonged period of time, as a way to avoid further unnecessary escalations. Also, I can admit that the discussion took an unnecessarily intense tone, which in turn brought a significant level of disruption to the overall discussion process. Having said that, I would also like to add that such bursts of heated exchanges are not a one way street, and are a result of dismissive or demeaning comments from the other side as well, as in this situation, where instead of proving constructive commentary and input, some editors voiced their personal opinions on the matter of Christianity. With that, I will not make any further comments. --E-960 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out of hand. Guy Macon, I don't think you're going to get much more out of this--you could ask the other guy, Guy, to drop a block or a warning, maybe. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm gonna assert reportee's privilege here to give context by quoting the post to which I was responding. In a discussion of the Ref Desk's no-medical-advice policy, the Count said:
You typically do not get question on taking potentially harmful medicines. This is because the sale of medicines that may be harmful is regulated such that only relatively harmless medicines are available as OTC medicines, and all medicines include information for the patient. If you think about this, there really is no good reason to have a "no medical advice policy", as there isn't actually a problem to be solved. Medicines and potentially dangerous treatments are kept under lock and key. We cannot prescribe medicines as the WMF doesn't operate a pharmacy. We cannot prescribe open heart surgery to someone with chest pains as the WMF does not operate hospitals.
Noting again that I went out of my way to make clear that I felt this post must reflect some kind of momentary lapse on the Count's part, I leave to the judgment of my esteemed fellow editors the question of whether or not it was, indeed, idiotic. Like the man said, Everybody plays the fool sometimes, there's no exception to the rule. I personally appreciate having my own follies pointed out, because it is only in that way that wisdom can be attained (not that I'm anywhere near that point yet). EEng17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, considering the comment you were responding to, and the context, I can't fathom endorsing a sanction or even particularly harsh condemnation over this (not withstanding my more general comments below), and I doubt many other community members here would. As an old RefDesk regular (albeit one who has lapsed in recent years), I can appreciate how important the topic matter of guideline being discussed is, and how vexing (and indeed potentially dangerous) the laissez-faire attitudes of some in that space can be. I also was unaware until it was raised below, that CI had been topic banned from RD under circumstances intersecting with this exact subject matter. So, the strength of your wording (which wasn't abysmal to begin with) is put in a certain helpful light in those regards.
However, if you want my advice--I'd just stay away from that word (and any close synonym--'moronic', and so forth) altogether from here forth. Wikipedia just isn't a great place for curt, even psuedo-insulting language like that, however tempting it might be to use that bluntness to emphasize that you are calling the spade for the spade. There are a lot of more principled (and frankly, effective) ways to say that an idea is terrible/inexplicable than using a term that (at least by one semantic interpretation) might be perceived as saying that the person was an idiot at least for a moment. Snowlet's rap18:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the substance of the debate itself, I don't think it's a personal attack to say that a usually intelligent person has said something uncharacteristically silly. ReykYO!14:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it is at least borderline--honestly, I think it's a fair statement to say that no exchange with a fellow editor should utilize the word "idiotic" in an accusative fashion, no matter how many caveats are added to reduce its scope to specific comments. And Eeng does have about as extensive a history as any editor (otherwise in mostly good standing) when it comes to making little "jokes" or barbed responses that hold potential in them to engender offense. For example, I've seen him use homosexual slurs before and then explain them away using the fact of his own orientation in that regard as proof that he was only using the word in jest/ironically. Which, yeah, we can probably take him at face value about that, but in the meantime there is needless disruption and distraction costing volunteer time and having the potential to seriously inflame a situation.
And while not all of these little jokes (or barbs, or snark) are so extreme, they are pretty constant with Eeng, who has been made aware of the potential problems with these kinds of comments repeatedly. I personally like him and get his sense of humour, but it might be time to send a message that he needs to balance his love of a good bon mot or heavily-acidic droll reply with consideration for the unique context of this project and the self-restraint it sometimes requires. I do agree with Girth Summit below though, in that I'd like to know what Count Iblis thinks of this comment himself. But regardless, I wonder if we won't just be kicking this can down the road if we don't at least give Eeng a bit of a warning here. Snowlet's rap15:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, that doesn't look very much like a personal attack to me - it's mostly a compliment, and then an attack on something someone said, not on them themselves. I'd be fine with it if Eeng ever says that to me (consider that an invitation), but I guess mileage may vary. I think the comment was directed at Count Iblis - it would be good to hear whether they interpreted it as hostile, or a PA. If they're fine with it, I don't think we need to wring our hands too much. GirthSummit (blether)15:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Ymblanter--no one is really unblockable. I've been waiting for years, YEARS to block EEng, but I can't over a comment like this. Feel free to give EEng a warning, here or on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be completely satisfied with a warning. I can see a good case for not blocking, but given the large number of previous complaints, I would oppose any message that says that the word "idiotic" is acceptable if you wrap the right words around it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'You said something idiotic' is not a personal attack. 'You are an idiot' is a personal attack. It's the same basic principle that underlies the "comment on content, not the contributor" mantra that we use for article disputes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously want to say that voluntarily staying off the refdesks because of a dispute over how you answered some questions means that you can't comment on an RfC proposing a new policy just because it is on the refdesk talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the fact that Rhododendrites was asking a question rather than making a statement, it's worth noting that the ban would have been imposed whether or not Count Iblis agreed to it. It's not really 'voluntary' since there was a clear consensus for the ban anyway. So the question remains: is the ban still in force and, if so, does it cover this particular talk page? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to state my two greatest beliefs about Wikipedia: (1) a lack of civility inhibits the site's best work; and (2) pearl-clutching nonsense over said lack of civility equally inhibits the site's best work. That said, I hope everyone has a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dumuzid, do you think restricting speech by forcing people not to offer critical commentary on someone else's poor edits, bad behaviour, or differing of opinion "inhibits the site's best work"? If you're being a jerk, expect to be called one. If another person's edit is problematic, call it so. That is how things are built. Not all edits are good and not all people who write them, do so with good intentions. The reason this website is where it is today is because of the many heated discussions that have taken place, a lot of falling outs between editors, and copious amounts of hurty comments and offended feelings. The moment you take any of that away, you start to get nothing more than a woke forum of grey goo. CassiantoTalk17:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question "do you think restricting speech by forcing people not to offer critical commentary on someone else's poor edits, bad behaviour, or differing of opinion 'inhibits the site's best work?'" I would answer yes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dumuzid, then you'd agree that this is a contradiction and that our current, flawed understanding of "incivility" is that one that also stops people from being able to have these constructive, truthful discussions that some, not all, then misinterpret as "incivility". The two butt heads in a most spectacular way. CassiantoTalk17:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, I would refer you back to my initial comment. I would merely elaborate by saying that part of it is aspirational, and part of it is more concrete. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, to be fair, the claim that OTC medicines are mostly harmless is... not sound. Paracetamol is extremely dangerous yet is one of the most common OTC drugs. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait sec I am not sure who I have been taking to for years.....wow some of my replies to each must have confused them all tout hell..omg...lol.--Moxy🍁20:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"You are an idiot" = personal attack. "You said something idiotic" = harsh, but not a personal attack. "You don't usually say idiotic things, but that one is idiotic" = not even close. C'mon people, there must be more important things to do? Black Kite (talk)17:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, in your opinion, maybe, If someone called me an idiot I'd own it, want to understand why they thought I was being an idiot, learn from it, and move on. I would not consider this a personal attack, an no editor, administrator or otherwise, gets to tell me if I should be offended. Making threats against safety, doxxing, and being grossly uncivil by using words of a racist or homophobic nature, are very much personal attacks. Being called an idiot, I'm afraid, goes with the job. CassiantoTalk17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree, on the basis that "you are an idiot" is right at the bottom of the NPA tree. I've lost count of the number of times my competence and mental acuity has been questioned, but as you say it comes with the job. I think the only time I got really irritated was when I was called a racist for a comment where I pointed out that gun murders are more common in the USA than they are in Europe, amusing as it may be now. Black Kite (talk)17:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extremely idiotic comment, which only reinforces the need for a policy against giving medical advice. By all means sanction for the use of the word idiotic if you must, but only after you have awarded an at least as harsh a sanction for the comment itself. Me, I'm more interested in "I've seen him use homosexual slurs before and then explain them away using the fact of his own orientation in that regard as proof that he was only using the word in jest/ironically.", because that sounds all kinds of f'ed up. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that was years ago and thus quite stale to be bringing scrutiny on now and my recollection of the event is that once Eeng told me he was gay himself, it became pretty obvious that he was using the word in question in a quasi-self-effacing way. I still told him it was problematic (also as best I can recall) but I didn't bring it up here to suggest an attitude of callousness or eagerness to offend on Eeng's part, so much as the fact that he is sometimes willing to go a little too far out on a limb for a joke or a punchy retort than he maybe should, considering the fact this is essentially a work environment, albeit a volunteer one. And honestly, his post above suggests him being somewhat receptive to this message (or at least not dismissive of it) so I'm hoping he is taking this all in, in the spirit it is intended. Snowlet's rap20:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there are "work environment"s and there are "work environment"s. Not every work environment is a coal mine, or a lawyer's office, or a library, or a deep state security agency. There are plenty of work environments where people work easily and well together, and respect each other's feelings, but are able to share jokes and pleasantries and social talk without generating lawsuits and headlines. When I hear someone say that Wikipedia is a "work environment", it seems to be the other kind they're talking about, Scrooge's office with Bob Cratchit afraid to clear his throat. Let's lighten up, people, and not act as if our voluntary social project is building the A-bomb. There's nothing wrong with cracking a joke or even occasional light cursing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, but then neither (I would think) are deep-state security agencies. 01:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't particularly disagree with any of that--other than the suggestion that the mere reminder of the fact that we ought to treat this more like a work space than a playground automatically makes one an anhedonic Dickensian crosspatch! Humor has its place here (as indeed in any work environment that doesn't threaten to grind the will to live out of those doing the work), but there are definitely limitations on conduct which are more robust than casual association that doesn't involve the context of millions of people try to navigate and mediate differences of opinion over literally just about any subject which some people hold dear, and in a context where vocal ques are completely absent, not everyone knows eachother, and your weekend afternoon may be my Monday's 3am. :)
I'm just saying (and this applies more to short tempers than chancey jokes, though to both to some extent) that there are a lot of people in our community who think that WP:VOLUNTEER means that everyone needs to accept their particular brand of "rough and tumble" interaction. And that we could all stand to treat this like a place where you would be mortified by (or at least concerned about) not being seen to show the proper level of decorum. That doesn't mean becoming Marvin the Paranoid Android. But the distance and quasi-anonymity afforded by the internet, multiplied by the sheer numbers of the community and the fact that you can always find a person or four to tell you that you are right and everyone else is just being a whiny wimp, shouldn't become an excuse for one not to do an asshole-in-the-mirror check on their conduct about as often as they would as if their actual standing at their professional work place depended on it. Snowlet's rap23:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you call me gay? I prefer musical or light in the loafers. For those interested, click here for the discussion to which friend Snow Rise refers. I'll be happy to discuss it, but here's a preview: Different people will have different ideas of what constitutes a slur and my general attitude is that, being a poof myself, my ideas on that point probably deserve some weight.And they'll take away Levivich's sodomite Burma-shave when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. EEng22:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to echo what many others have said: referring to a particular comment, rather than the commenter, as "idiotic", while not the most polite thing to say, is not a personal attack. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:1호, 2호 수트.jpgTryptofish has been awakened from his semi-retirement --EEng.
EEng, you seem to have confused me with Bishzilla. I'm not as good-looking as that. --Tryptofish.
I'm very interested in improving en-wiki's ability to get these things about how to talk to one another right, so this discussion has awakened me from my semi-retirement. I want to correct what I think are some logical errors made by some editors.
I don't need anyone to tell me that I should be offended by the word "idiotic" – but then again, I don't need anyone to tell me that I should not be offended by it. It goes both ways. And so much of this comes down to treating other good-faith editors with a reasonable amount of respect, however a particular editor may feel about a particular comment. Comments about others should enhance rather than impede a collaborative approach to improving the encyclopedia.
So what matters most in this incident is not only that EEng directed the criticism at the comment rather than at the person, but even more importantly, put it in the context of saying that the person does not usually say such things. It's pointing out an error in a context of (a reasonable amount of) respect. So that makes it OK.
I want to address this frequently used formulation that it's a PA to say it about the person, but not a PA to say it about something the person wrote. The intention behind that is a good one. But it fails as a practical test, and it should be discarded. Try parsing: "Based solely on your comments here, you must have shit for brains". To excuse that as simply an analysis of "your comments here" would be wiki-lawyering. There is no universe in which "You misunderstand this" is worse than "The edit you made was complete garbage". It's entirely possible to frame a comment entirely in terms of content and not the contributor, and still have it be a personal attack, depending on context.
I'm quite ready to excuse an exasperated "Fuck off", but I'm much more troubled by "What editors like Tryptofish don't understand about this kind of content is..." For the latter, it may be far more effective to say something like "Tryptofish, please see the discussion on archive 16 of this talk page, because it sounds like you may not be aware of that prior discussion."
What also comes with the job here is being able to select the right words. If I, hypothetically, were to see an editor who wants to say in an article that "The War of 1812 was fighted in 1812", I'd conclude that this is someone who needs to find another hobby – "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" notwithstanding. Editors who can write well enough to be here can also figure out that an alternative to calling something "garbage" is to call it "a mistake". Those who don't are either lazy, or used to be the kid in class that everyone hated as a spoiled brat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is a PA and you used it hypothetically just so you could get away with it unscathed. And the band played on.AtsmeTalk📧22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get out more. They actually have old folks homes that are now called "Senior Living Communities" to avoid offending anyone...and they even have planned outings...but not the kind of outings that will get you blocked. AtsmeTalk📧22:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto, if you were in semi-retirement, this post is proof that we could really stand to have you back here more consistently. I agree with every word of this, from the apt deconstruction and examples demonstrating why the "easy" formalistic rules ("If the individual is not the grammatical object which the insulting word modifies, there is no PA.") are in fact non-sequiturs that collapse under scrutiny, to the equally salient point that there really is no situation on this project in which it is not more preferable to explain why a statement is mistaken or problematic rather than to impute what the mistake means about an individuals intellect (generally, or in a given moment/with regard to a given choice of action). Attempting to construct a set of syntactic (or even formal semantic) rules to be able determine in any instance if a comment is insulting is not the way that a community can approach and reasonably evaluate and constrain editor behaviour: inevitable subjective arguments not withstanding, the community must develop an intuitive standard for encouraging editors to avoid insulting terminology, whatever noun the word modifies as a syntactic sense.
Of course, context is king, both in terms of the circumstances and the surrounding words which massage specific meaning into the otherwise offensive words--which is why I do think this particular comment here is relatively harmless. But embracing a standard that no statement can be problematic from a civility standpoint just because it doesn't follow a "You are X" format is clearly an exception that can threaten to swallow the rule--especially as people determined to be incivil internalize these rules as a means to insulate themselves from criticism while in fact being deeply disrespectful. This mode of thinking and the various inappropriate behaviours it often fails to capture (and therefor is seen to vindicate, especially among those who are most inclined to push the line on civility) is indeed a long-standing issue on this project. Though at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I do not think Eeng is (at least in this instance) a good example of someone who has crossed that threshold. Snowlet's rap22:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like everyone else is saying: "you are an idiot" is a personal attack. "What you said is idiotic" is not a personal attack as it pertains to content and not the contributor. It is a bit blunt, a bit crass, but it has to be the most petty, trifling example of incivility I can imagine being reported, and by a third party at that?! And that's not even factoring in the fact that it was said in the context of a compliment. I'm all for stepping up and tackling incivility, sometimes I get a bit too worked up about it, but frankly there's nothing constructive about a third party running to AN/I with a diff of the most petty incident of slight bluntness imaginable. ~Swarm~{sting}23:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have a thick skin, I would not be bothered by the most vile insults you can imagine. The comment made by EEng was not a direct personal attack, as pointed out by Swarm and a few others here, my comments were called "idiotic" not me. But, of course, as Snow Rise points out that's purely formal matter that misses the problem when one stops arguing based on the relevant issues. Of course, it may be the case that in a discussion you need to argue based on a meta issue, but you then need to address that meta issue. For example, if someone's argument is a straw man argument, then you can simply point that out and explain why it is a straw man argument.
The real problem with using words like "idiotic" whether or not it was technically a personal attack, is that it demonstrates that you do not have a good argument. Now, my background being in science not industry, so my perspective on this is going to be a bit different. In a company, your boss may be unsatisfied with your work and use words like "idiotic" to express his/her dissatisfaction and you are then supposed to swallow that, accept the authority of your boss (but you are always free to quit your job, of course). In my field, it works in the opposite way. People can call my arguments "idiotic" or use other qualifiers to express their feelings that I'm doing things wrong. But without any good rational arguments, this betrays that their objects are not rational, so I'm then inclined to double down on my approach that was called idiotic. I will, of course, stop arguing with the person who made these comments, as that's pointless, but the effect of the feedback of the person will be the opposite of what the person intended.
This is then also true of the previous topic ban and my promise to not engage in medical advice on the Ref Desk. That's a matter of the community here enforcing their authority to impose their rules and I having to accept that they can do that. But this also proved to me that they are wrong and that my arguments in favor of allowing medical advice were in fact correct.
But who cares about the Ref Desks, they are not all that prominent on the Internet! As I've argued on Jimbo's page some time ago, we should all adopt my attitude of not being bothered by personal attacks and also to always stay away from personal attacks as far as possible. We can then engage extremists on social media based on good arguments, get attacked by a massive amounts of insults and then only reply using rational arguments, never using personal attacks ourselves. While this won't convince the extremists that they are wrong, not all of their followers will have adopted the ideology of the extremist. They will be more susceptible to counterarguments and if they read your counterarguments that address the fundamentals while the extremist has no answer against that and resorts to personal attacks, then some of them will conclude that the extremist is actually wrong. The problem with doing this is then that you only see the comments of the extremists and usually their most loyal followers who gang up against you. You don't typically see the comments of the many followers who start to doubt the ideology of the extremist. This is why this is now rarely done and why extremists can indoctrinate their followers virtually unopposed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a good rational argument and also call your argument "idiotic", or must I choose one? For example, if I say, ANI is where fools go to consult with fools about foolishness, is that a good rational argument, a personal attack, or both? Lev!vich02:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a humorous way to make your point about ANI. But in general, it's best to stick to what I learned at university when I had to prepare for speeches. I.e. for every statement X in your draft, think about why are you considering mentioning X, what is your goal here, how do you think your goal would be achieved in the best way? Count Iblis (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Malcolm thanks you for your kind consideration, but says he can't get to the lecture right now!" Martinevans123 (talk)
The real problem with using words like "idiotic" ... is that it demonstrates that you do not have a good argument. – No it doesn't. In the instant case I was simply doing you the compliment of believing that if I could jolt your rationality awake from its slumber you'd withdraw such statements as only relatively harmless medicines are available as OTC medicines... potentially dangerous treatments are kept under lock and key without first needing the details of their absurdity rubbed in your face. There's still time for you to not disappoint my faith in you, but if I was wrong and you really do need the good arguments I was sparing you, start here [154]. And here [155]. And here [156]EEng04:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that OTC medicines are not 100% harmless. I've actually made a similar point about PPIs on StackExchange some time ago. But all the evidence about harm is reviewed and these medicines are deemed to be safe enough to be sold as OTC medicines. What matters is then that a system exists to mitigate harm due to people self-medicating themselves by blocking their access to a class of medicines that are judged to be unsafe to be sold as OTC medicines. People are allowed to self-medicate using medicines that are sold as OTC medicines. These are not 100% harmless medicines as you point out, but society thinks that this isn't a big enough problem to demand that people need a prescription. Given that this is accepted practice, we should not worry about medical advice here. In practice, allowing medical advice is going to be a net benefit, it does not interfere with people going to the doctor when necessary, it will actually help people making the right decision about going to the doctor. Also we ban people who misbehave, there is no way we would allow someone here recommending people drink bleach to cure themselves from COVID-19. Count Iblis (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My faith in you has, alas, not been vindicated. I think it would be best for everyone if you stay away from medical topics. EEng06:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History is on my side. Think about the opposition against against sex education, the opposition against legalizing gay marriage, opposition against legalizing marijuana, etc. etc. Instead of saying that they were wrong and that these issues are irrelevant, consider why they were wrong. What were their arguments and why do we not agree with them today? For example, marijuana is not harmless, and yet we don't shut down discussions on that topic because of that fact. Count Iblis (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what marijuana has to do with anything (though I recommend staying away from it when editing – that's editing advice not medical advice, by the way) but I'll say one more thing, after which I won't be responding further. Paraphrasing your reasoning above: "Society thinks that court isn't a big enough deal to demand that people be represented by a lawyer. Given that this is accepted practice, we should not worry about giving out legal advice here." I'm sorry but that's just crazy. (I'm not saying that you're crazy, of course.) EEng13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When people ask questions here, they know that we are not doctors or lawyers. So, they can at most ask questions just like they could ask their friends or family members about an issue. There is therefore never going to be any undue interference with the questioner getting proper medical or legal advice. In practice the opposite is likely to happen from time to time. People can get pointed to the right sources to check out their problem, allowing them to make far better decisions to consult with an expert, be it a doctor, lawyer or some other professional. Count Iblis (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "society thinks that this isn't a big enough problem to demand that people need a prescription"... Just out of interest, which society? There are hundreds of them, and they can be wildly different in what they allow to be sold OTC. There are many drugs readily available OTC in many societies that would be considered extremely dangerous in, say, the USA or UK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This only means that people won't be able to buy stuff that the society they live in disapproves of. So, we're then not going to do harm to people in any particular society according to the norms they stick to due to someone here having said that you can use medicine X (say an OTC nose spray) for condition Y (say, blocked nose). Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But medical harm is not determined by the norms of a society - if you die through using the wrong drug, you're just as dead whether you're in the USA, India, Cameroon, or wherever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attack by Supolsanko
This is pretty blatant and uncalled for personal attack. Supolsanko has claimed another editor is a paid editor, but they have not provided any evidence thus far. They also seem to be operating multiple accounts based on their first post.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at their 4 (four) edits so far, my initial thought is to simply block them as NOTHERE. Their story at the TeaHouse doesn't ring true to me at all. Whether the other editor is a paid one is something we can work out without this editor making personal attacks on others and demanding we "take down" an editor. Black Kite (talk)18:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When someone writes both I have never seen a dumbest human like your bad self and I have gone through all your articles and have seen that you a bad writer in the same paragraph, it's safe to assume that they are either trolling or incompetent. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this screed on Lapablo's user talk. Whatever Supolsanko thinks or alleges may have happened, they have failed to convince anyone on the merits of their argument and has instead decided PA are the way to achieve their goals. NOTHERE is an apt summary, I feel. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: user has a long history of disruptive editing and is continuing to edit-war on the Russian vaccine article, Gam-COVID-Vac, spreading Russian government propaganda on a vaccine unassessed by the world scientific community. Recommend indefinite block. Zefr (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack and your were edit warring. I have partial blocked on this article as well as the last one. Please review and undue if I got it wrong. Having a minor health challenge. Signing off. --Deepfriedokra(talk)20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the user shows that since the previous (partial) block for persistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (they were persistently added Russian propaganda into the article) they have leaned virtually nothing and continue disruptive editing. They were edit-warring reverting the addition of a photo by another user (discussion in Russian) and concluded the discussion saying that this other user "has too short hands" to get them blocked. They spent the whole day today trying to add info into Wikipedia about the Russian vaccine and edit-warred against Zefr, ignored their warnings, but were not using sources of acceptable standards and never added info that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested (thus again adding pure propaganda). They have been indefinitely blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. When other users come to them with the warning they pretend they do not understand what is wrong with their edits. They do have some positive contribution, which typically looks like this (note that the article contained some, probably good-faith, mistakes which I had to correct). On my opinion, the sooner this user get a site ban, the less time it will cost the community. This is becoming an incredible time sink.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all surprised by this one-sided and biased attitude of this Russian administrator (Ymblanter), since he has already expressed biased opinions about Wikimedia RU Chapter as I am one of the founders [161] → Question 10: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ymblanter. There is a rather ambiguous assessment of his activities in the Russian Wikipedia. In such a situation it is impossible to consider his statements objective.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about "too short hands", this administrator again continues to express his bias against me because the user whom I replied to, wrote me a message with a sneer in the context of my request to the Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee [162] which has not yet been resolved for almost a year.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit bizarre. The information was sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health's official website, saying that a Russian COVID vaccine had been issued a "registration certification" by the Ministry, which is exactly what the text said. If that's a bit unclear, Reuters simply says the vaccine was "approved". Certainly seems like reliably-sourced, uncontentious, pertinent information that said vaccine exists and was "registered". The text made no additional claims that weren't verified. Zefr is reverting because we "can't trust Russian information" (a sweeping claim he's not authorized to enforce), falsely demanding the user "discuss on talk page first to gain consensus", which is not a valid reason to revert, says "sources are unreliable" without articulating specific objections, and claims "there are no peer-reviewed scientific reports to affirm safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy", when no such content is being added to the article, and calling the user a Russian propagandist, simply for including an extremely basic claim which is sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health. That's clear disruptive editing, as is intentionally reporting them as a vandal. They also have 2 blocks for edit warring since 2019, one being earlier this year. The sources in the actual article confirm that the vaccine exists and was approved, with scientists skeptical as to its safety and efficacy. So, it's a potentially-dubious vaccine, though a real, approved vaccine nonetheless that's covered in reliable sources, including English sources. The simple claim that it exists is verifiable. The dubiousness is verifiable, so include it. But if the Russian government's claims about the vaccine cannot be trusted or are "propaganda", the user did not insert any information about those claims. Even if you suspect that the user is a pro-Russia POV-pusher, they objectively didn't do anything wrong here, other than edit war against a user who's disruptively stonewalling their edits. Far more inclined to block the filer for wanton disruption, personal attacks and edit warring based on the reported incident. ~Swarm~{sting}21:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zefr is a valued editor who does a lot of good work in keeping "woo" out of our articles. Александр Мотин is keenly interested in Russia-related topics, but is not experienced in medical topics. I think that both have been zealous in their approach to Gam-COVID-Vac, from different perspectives. I trust Zefr to tone down their comments when asked, and I've invested some time in explaining to Александр Мотин the standards needed for our medical content. I don't believe any action is necessary here, especially as so many eyes are on the articles right now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of more than one editor who were so driven to combat unscientific information that they crossed into disruptive editing territory and are no longer allowed on this site. These editors are indeed valuable, and I'm not keen on aggressively chasing them off. However in this case Zefr achieved nothing "valuable" or even constructive in this incident. Like I said, even if the user was problematic elsewhere, he was doing nothing wrong here, and Zefr let his perception of the editor drive him to wage a disruptive edit war without any sound logical or policy-based reasoning. He was purely disruptive, and then he filed a frivolous report, trying to get the editor blocked even though they had done nothing wrong. It's pretty significantly troubling. So I'm also not keen on simply inventing a resolution for him because of the good work he's otherwise done. I'm more than happy to accept a voluntary resolution if Zefr is willing to provide one. I understand people can get frustrated. Not asking a lot here, not asking Zefr to grovel, however it needs to go a bit beyond a euphemized "tone it down". Zefr is in blockable territory right now and if we're going to let him off scot-free he does need to offer a voluntary resolution coming from himself, acknowledging that he understands where he went wrong and that he will not repeat these issues going forward. He has already been asked to reply here. I hope we can resolve this amicably, otherwise a formal warning will need to go on the record at the utmost minimum. Unfortunately, based on the below content, Zefr seems unconcerned about these serious issues and hellbent on waging a crusade. ~Swarm~{sting}23:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint was made against the user because of edit warring on the COVID-19 vaccine article over unscientific content and sources that can only be called Russian political propaganda, as confirmed by numerous interviews of scientists published in the worldwide news today (discussed in sources of the second lede paragraph here, Gam-COVID-Vac). Александр Мотин claims Russian residence on their user page. The Russian government propaganda on the COVID-19 vaccine and Coronavirus disease 2019 articles has been removed here and here. While the Gam-COVID-Vac candidate can be affirmed to exist (included in the COVID-19 vaccine article here), its "registration" by Russia is unacceptable to the world vaccine community, its promotion on Wikipedia as a valid vaccine should be eliminated, and the person who promotes the propaganda should be penalized. Zefr (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor on the vaccine article, I'm inclined to agree with Swarm - while the Russian vaccine has its skeptics (I being one of them), it is nonetheless a real, registered (in Russia) vaccine that has had significant coverage in reliable sources. To call it "propaganda" like Zefr has done implies that it doesn't exist and it is a WP:POV opinion. MiasmaEternalTALK00:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors above are losing sight of what this ANI was about: by warring and using only Russian sources, Александр Мотин was trying to insert unscientific content from an unreliable source into the COVID-19 vaccine article. The majority of news coverage on 11 August about the Russian vaccine was negative, if not outright rejected, by vaccine experts around the world (as a simple Google search will show). As one of the most active contributors to the COVID-19 vaccine article, I was defending the article's veracity and the global scientific consensus by rejecting the edit, then simply reported the persistently warring editor in the usual way to AIV (it was moved here by ToBeFree). The word "propaganda" for the Russian vaccine announcement was used by TrialSite News,The New York Times,Bloomberg, and CNN, among others. Sure, the vaccine exists and is in a Phase I trial shown in the table (which I created and have regularly updated), but there is insufficient scientific confirmation to treat the Russian vaccine as "approved" by world vaccine experts (the required process in a pandemic), nor is it acceptable for the article. Zefr (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, he didn't insert anything unscientific into the article. He merely inserted the uncontentious claim that a Russian vaccine had been registered. There was no propaganda involved, no claim that the vaccine was supported by world vaccine experts, none of the Russian government's claims that the vaccine was safe or effective, no dubious info, no unsourced info, no unverifiable info, no "propaganda". Your personal view that any mention of the vaccine should be eliminated with extreme prejudice is, while good intentioned, irrelevant. You have no consensus, no policy to support you. This is IDONTLIKEIT POV-pushing. Get a consensus to validate your view, but until then, bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and, at face value, there's nothing wrong with the content you're disputing. There may be a lot wrong with the vaccine, but that doesn't translate into the automatic censorship of any mention of it, and it certainly doesn't justify your out-of-control disruptive editing. ~Swarm~{sting}05:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken in the big picture, but to prove or disprove this I will need to carefully check the diffs and the referenced sources. It will take some time, but I will be back soon in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am afraid I have confirmed my picture. I am now talking only about Александр Мотин, not about Zefr. What reliable sources essentially reported yesterday was that (i) the Russian government announced the creation of the vaccine (specifically, "registered the vaccine" whatever it means) and (ii) that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, the trials are at this point not up to standards, and there have been no confirmation that the vaccine actually works. Now, this is the version Александр Мотин left the newly created article in, the next significant edit came only 100 minutes later, when another user added criticism about the trials. (i) is obviously there, (ii) is essentially not. This version has one sentence which says that the clinical reports have not yet been published, apart from this, sold as a minor technical detail, the version makes a full impression that the vaccine is there up and working. This is despite the fact that sources 3, 4, 9, and 10 go into some details about the shortcomings of the trials, and sources 1, 2, and 6 which do not mention these shortcomings would never stand WP:RSN: 2 is a press release, 6 is a news agency run by the Russian government, and 1 is a propaganda source which may publish reliable stuff but certainly is not supposed to be critical against the government. This means that Александр Мотин, being aware from the cited sources that the vaccine has not been tested up to standards, deliberately decided not to add this info into the article. This is significant violation of WP:DUE aka propaganda. (And I do not quite understand their motivation either, it is clear that this is a high-profile topic, and other users, who are way more critical towards the Russian government, would check the sources anyway). In parallel, they were edit-warring with Zefr at COVID-19 vaccine trying to add (i) but not (ii) to the lede. So whatever blockable or not but I would certainly not call the actions of Александр Мотин perfect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I became aware of this topic from reading about alarm from the WHO and others that a vaccine was being promoted with Russia in a "reckless and unethical" way.[164] Looking at the former state of the article you wouldn't have though there were any issues, and some aspects were concerning. Calling this in Wikipedia's voice the "world's first registered vaccine against COVID-19"[165] is meaningless or untrue (in the context of "the world"), since every vaccine in development is "registered". Including Putin's anecdote about how effective the vaccine was on his daughter is effectively using an unreliable source to imply a health effect (even if this were a case report formally published in a journal, it would be unreliable for medical claims).[166] And stating in Wikipedia's voice that the vaccine "does not have any side effects" is problematic.[167]Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: AFAIU, "registered" means approved for use or (and) allowed for (mass) production and use since it has certificate of state registration. In this context, it is not meaningless. Maybe it needs to be rephrased.--Александр Мотин (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that is a very peculiar usage, and the only context of the edit you actually made was "the world". This is not the first world-registered vaccine (not that such a concept is meaningful, unless you mean WHO-approved); neither was it the first vaccine to be registered nationally for trials. As used, the phrase is, yes, rather propaganda-like. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While kremlin.ru is no doubt reliable for the Kremlin's position, uncritically relaying it in Wikipedia's voice was your editing decision. You don't think that is problematic? Alexbrn (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I can see you have vandalized more articles related to Pashtuns by constantly pushing your POV and claiming that they are not sourced or verifiable, which is entirely the contrary as your assertions are subsequently disproved.
The user PashtunTribal548 is not the first. You have always come to this predicament to threaten to block users (some examples are Störm and Azmarai76) in order to pursue your own agenda, before you even want to reach a consensus with them on talk pages. This is against Wikipedia's Guidelines. I can vouch for this based on my own experience with you and of many others as well. But you insist.
I will talk to a couple senior representatives on Wikipedia and will apprise them of the situation regarding your vandalism and disruptive editing. I will file a full report on you soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhan0818 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm a fellow Pashtun and Wikipedia user and just want to ask you for assistance in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in vandalising Pashtun articles." and
"As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find "Open Sources" to fullfill our ancestral history but we still manage to get sources and have the hard copies with ourselves."
on the trail of canvassing for support.
Following is a detailed response about the sources used by from the pertinent team:
"@McKhan: As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),'''I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)"
Before anything else, I would like to start off by pointing out that what this User McKhan has told you is absolutely flawed. The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance. The main issue is about how this User keeps Pushing his POV and agenda across by deleting sourced material and mainly having a biased opinion of subjects that are Pashtun related. I don't understand how Wikipedia allows this User to stay active as what he is doing is completely against Wikipedia's Guidelines.
I want to start off by addressing McKhan's accusation of an issue regarding my use of sock-puppetry.
I want to attest that the IPv6 Address that was used in editing [168] was definitely me. I didn't log in to my account during the edit. However, from that one edit, the User accuses me of sock-puppetry in relation to this User Kkhan0818 by basing it on an allegation you can see below:
In response to this claim where the User says he doesn't recall me stating I'm an associate is utterly false. If you see in the talk page I had clearly stated Not sure who you're referring to. Maybe he was someone in our cabinet because I myself was an advisor to Rahimuddin Khan during his political career. I assume he took the onus to add material but with no sources whatsoever. PashtunTribal548 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
McKhan himself had deleted the statement which evidently contradicts his claim "I don't recall PashtunTribal548 ever stated before that PashtunTribal548 is an associate of Mr. Khan." He has used that tactic as a basis to declare me a sock-puppet of a fellow user Kkhan0818 and by filing requests concerning subjects of no consequence.
As you can see here, one of his requests were disregarded:
::"@McKhan: As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),'''I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)" :: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes.
If you go to the Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot article, you can clearly see the User uses the exact same reason for reversion like he did in the Rahimuddin Khan article by saying "That source is NOT an open source. Nobody knows what is inside or what page number is that. Feel welcome to add back in once you have got a verifiable source. Reverted." The edit cites the correct sources that support the previous assertions and once again the User has been disproved as he previously was in the Zakir Husain (politician) article.
If you check this User's history of contributions, you can see he's always entering an article to start an edit war, trying to put his point across by vandalizing the article with disruptive editing, making it some kind of a game.
Furthermore, the points I've specified clearly deduces that the user has a personal agenda here, evidently either he's biased against Pashtuns or is doing it for the fun of it by continuously trying to push his POV via disruptive editing. I still can't fathom how Wikipedia can allow such behavior to carry on without being unnoticed. When even disproved on such minor issues, the User is so desperate to push his POV across by going so far as to request blocks inimical to fellow users. I strongly urge the Administrators of Wikipedia to take serious action against this user, in order to refrain him from vandalizing any additional articles. Thank you.
"Za hum Pakhtun yum. Taso ta Pashto darzi?" Translation: "I am also a Pakhtun. Do you speak Pashto?" A question which I have asked Kkhan0818here and here on his trail for canvassing. As a Pashtun, how can I have an agenda against the Pashtuns? That's just an absurd assumption.
Under the light of edit histories of Kkhan0818, PashtunTribal548 and other IPv6 addresses, this statement, "The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance", is categorically incorrect as all of them have been pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of Zakir Husain (politician) (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and Rahimuddin Khan being Afridi and Kheshgi.
My request about verifying the unverified sources wasn't "disregarded". To the contrary, Pajz made it clear that As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.'Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on.As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),'''. If those unverified sources (Please see here, here, here, here and big shot here for sources and diffs. Please also have a look at the recent "sources" added by PashtunTribal548 on Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot page.) were that verifiable then why did Kkhan0818 use such frivolous justifications:
"I'm a fellow Pashtun and Wikipedia user and just want to ask you for assistance in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in vandalising Pashtun articles." and
"As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find "Open Sources" to fullfill our ancestral history but we still manage to get sources and have the hard copies with ourselves."
on the trail of canvassing for support.
I have already provided everything from my side in the above comments as well as the diffs. I will let the admins look into it and decide.
I see many edits by this IP user where they're removing #Episodes from infoboxes, and I also see edits where this user randomly adds and removes page protection templates from articles when they shouldn't be changed (1, 2). Can I get a second pair of eyes on this? What is this user doing? Is it legitimate? What is going on? Thanks in advance for taking a look... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely seem like they are Not Here for contributing; but instead gutting infoboxes and other data bits without any sources. Maybe we should get a CU in on this to see if they're related to current blocked users, maybe not. Regardless this IP deserves a block for it's own behaviors anyways. ♥Melody♥02:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went through and reverted all of their edits as they're disruptive and almost certainly either a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet/block evader. If they're an LTA, we should consider creating an WP:LTA page for them. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!]04:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MinhNhat2K3 is an editor that specalises in adding lengthy lists of unreferenced, and quite often completely incorrect, people to articles, for example theseedits to 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Due to this edit to the talk page of 113.172.189.190 straight after they were blocked, they are obviously editing as that IP as well, and given the same Vietnam ISP and editing style they are are also the first one.
Right before they made a complete mess of First World War centenary, it looked like this. No big list of attendees (the France section does contain a small list), but after many edits by both IPs we have this disaster. Clicking on the List of officials and dignitaries at the 2018 First World War centenary event brings up a huge unreferenced list with many, many errors. For example
Francisco Ribeiro Telles, Secretary General of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries is incorrect, the person who held the post at the time was Maria do Carmo Silveira.
Tigran Sargsyan, President of the Eurasian Economic Union is incorrect, he was Chairman of the Board.
Sergei Lebedev, Secretary General of CIS is incorrect, he's Executive Secretary.
Stanislav Zas, Secretary General of CSTO is incorrect, according to his article he didn't even become a candidate for the job until after the centenary, and wasn't in the position until 2020.
Klaus Schwab, Executive Secretary of the World Economic Forum is incorrect, he's executive chairman.
Yukiya Amano, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency is incorrect, he was Director General.
Epeli Nailatikau, President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be correct, the head of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be a "president" and there's nothing in the Epeli Nailatikau article about him holding the post, or any other post at the time of the centenary.
Coly Seck, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council appears to be incorrect. United Nations Human Rights Council says he was president in 2019, but I can find no evidence he was ever "Vice President" of the same organisation.
Guy Ryder, President of ILO is incorrect, he's Director-General.
Abed Ali Abed, President of the World Peace Council appears to be someone completely made up (or spelled completely wrong, but I can find nobody with a similar name at the World Peace Council. According to the WPC themselves the president is Socorro Gomes, since at least 2014.
Mukhisa Kituyi, President of UNCTAD is incorrect, he's Secretary-General.
Jose Graziano da Silva, President of FAO is incorrect, he was Director General.
George Mavrikos, Secretary General of WFTU may only have his job title of General Secretary reversed, but you have to wonder why the General Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Athens, Greece has the flag of the Isle of Man, a British Crown dependency. (there may be more incorrect flags, it was the only one I noticed and the other errors are bad enough without having to keep digging)
Yuri Fedotov, Chairman of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is incorrect, he was Executive Director.
David Beasley, President of World Food Programme is incorrect, he's Executive Director.
William Lacy Swing, Secretary General of International Organization for Migration is incorrect, according to William L. Swing his term ended in September 2018.
Samir Hosny, President of the Arab League is incorrect. You'd think if he was president Google would have noticed, instead he was some kind of regional official but I can't even show he held a post of that nature in 2018.
Mishaal bin Fahm Al-Salami, President of Arab Parliament is incorrect, according to Arab Parliament he's speaker.
Mohammad Reza Majidi, President of Asian Parliamentary Assembly is incorrect, he's Secretary General.
Those are just from the first sub-section of the guest list, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS GUESTS, I couldn't face doing WORLD LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and Other guests since I know they are probably riddled with errors as well. This has been recently remarked on by a helpful IP editor, who said So many things wrong in the 2018 dignitaries list (fixing them based on references found online as well as general corresponding articles, while also fixing entries placed in wrong continent lists. Other things of course too
So we have an editor who, while logged in and logged out, constantly adds unreferenced content with an unacceptably high error rate, and who apparently has no intention of replying here about this. I'd like to think something needs to be done about this? FDW777 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I stood in doubt whether to ignore this bullying, mocking behaviour, or whether to report it, but after a night's sleep I decided that simply ignoring this would only encourage them to continue in the same vein in the future. So: could some admins please give User:Lugnuts a formal warning that the following behaviour is unacceptable?
[169] "Deletion monkeys are going to delete, keepers are going to keep." (for which I asked them to avoid the personal attacks[170])
[171] "[...]cherry-picking one that someone doesn't happen to like. Could be worse, we could have tons of stubs on non-notable villages in Belgium, if I was to pick something at random."
They then raised two completely unrelated articles I created in that discussion[172] as if that somehow was relevant or proving something, and not just an ad hominem distraction (note that the articles under discussion were not created by Lugnuts, and that no blame was directed at any creator of these articles either)
[173] "You asked me to look at your contributions, but you see every critic of you as a ad hominem! Poor Fram. How's your RFA going?"
The first three, oh well, not helpful or relevant at all, and "deletion monkeys" a clear attack, but with that last remark Lugnuts for some reason decided to truly make it mocking and personal. Can some of you please strongly remind Lugnuts that such attacks are not acceptable at all? Fram (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept that not everyone has the same sense of humour as myself, and I did not mean deletion monkeys to be aimed at one editor, but a generic term applying to all editors who go down the delete !vote (at AfD). Compare with Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, for example. Fram - we clearly see things differently, and I apologise if you think these are attacks against you. Yesterday was and odd day for me, to say the least. Red-hot heat + lockdown does not help. I've had several cold showers since. Again, I apologise. LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I apologize if you think these are attacks against you" is a non-apology. It's hard to interpret the "poor Fram" remark as anything but a deliberate attack against me. Fram (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, I don't know how long you can continue to play the 'sense of humor' card as it really feels like we've been here before. In fact as I recall your block notification had a clear warning that resumption of incivility, abuse, harassment etc. will result in a far lengthier block. As I said you're walking a very very fine line. Glen (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I admit those posts were uncalled for, it's one bad day in a long time. Fram - Again, I apologise for the remarks. I shouldn't have posted it, and I regret doing so. LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: An apology to myself would be nice too. I'm sorry if you've been having a bad time of it lately, but your conduct towards me not just yesterday but in general has been pretty appalling. I'm no saint, and I apologise for my brusqueness in the past, but it's clearly not just me you've been rubbing up the wrong way. – PeeJay10:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued hounding
Following on from this report, HuntGroup has continued to follow me to AfD discussions in an attempt to annoy, with this (which I later withdrew after examining sources more closely) and now this. The user has only ever contributed to AfD on five occasions, three of which are articles I've nominated; firstly in 2017 (not my nomination), then began participating again on 24 July, conveniently, one day after I edited an article the user created. Regardless whether the user is making correct votes at AfD (the second diff is a straw man argument just for shits and giggles with no substance), when the above diffs are added to the below list, and you take into account that 43 of their last 50 "contributions" are directly related to me, it's a clear cut case of hounding. It's childish retaliation for reverting their edits that were either flat out wrong or did not comply with various MOS'. All instances of hounding so far are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. – 2.O.Boxing13:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there might be some evidence that this editor is following your contributions, I don't see anything actionable at the moment. My advice would be to ignore him and let him do his thing. He'll eventually get bored and move on. Complaining about it here shows him that you're annoyed by it, which gives him more reason to continue. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] ||03:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first (ignored) report makes the hounding even clearer. I've seen people warned for less clear cut evidence. As for the repeated PAs, I've seen people blocked for much, much less. I suppose this is a case of, "we're not too keen on this guy. Ignore the report, let it go 'stale', unactionable". We'll see how quick action is taken when I follow the other editor's lead next time they spit their dummy out and have a divy fit over being reverted ;) And just to add, I'm not annoyed or irritated by the weird, stalky behaviour, but my feelings on the matter are completely irrelevant; it's the weird stalky individual's intentions that are relevant. The report is purely to follow procedure...because this is such a serious place and all that *serious face* – 2.O.Boxing08:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is getting ridiculous. I have an interest in boxing and I am more of an inclusionist as opposed to an exclusionist. The deletion page for boxing articles is on my watchlist as are 1,000's of other boxing pages. We have differing and mainly opposite views on issues and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing is merely trying to silence me with continuous childish reports to ANI because he doesn't like anyone disagreeing with him. Grow up. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack?
Never mind, I'm seeing other personal attacks elsewhere, calling people who disagree with them "this shitt" (sic). I'm going to indef, and they'll have to change their tone if they want to return. And I don't want conflicts to spread here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I blocked User:Cape Diamond MM for making personal attacks, and they appear to be expressing the hope that karma will punish me and my family as a result. They claim to be a young person (and I'll AGF rather than suspect trolling), and I fear that if we can't get through to them now then the next block will be indef. I'm not asking for any further sanction, but I think it might help if an uninvolved admin were to offer their thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have hardly agreed with an actual attack (and I'm not entirely sure it was intended to be one - But this shitt are bullying by his delete voter group is very far from clear English). But yes, I certainly agree with his sentiments about attempts to delete articles that shouldn't be deleted. There is a clear difference between agreeing with someone's sentiments and agreeing with their language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this person just joined today and seems very well experienced, please investigate as it seems like a sockpuppet case. I don't care about the page at all. I requested him to launch XFD but he seems to have COI. His account Should be checked via IP checker. Adrian L.55 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a legal threat, but rather foreboding. "What is yours will be yours, you will get what is meant for you. Hope you understand what I mean. Good luck :) Adrian L.55 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)"
Surjitxingha seems to be WP:SELFCITE-ing and WP:REFSPAM-ing a number of pages. I removed them once but he went ahead and reinserted them. Here are the diffs, exactly the same text, from different articles:
The specific user Chaipau had been constantly doing vandalism activity in number of pages. The cited information is relevant from a high impact Journal. The user Chaipau had been on a constant activity of vandalism in wikipedia which can be retrieved from the history. The readers need validated information from a reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surjitxingha (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The cited information is relevant to the topic from a reliable and high impact sources. Most of the information in those pages were constantly deleted by unknown editors, many a times such editors had been doing a vandalism activity by including unscientific information form an unknown sources. The information cited is from a most reliable sources, to defend my statement, the reference is cited along with the source of the article.[reply]
Before deleting, you are requested to visit the source so that the argument cited can be validated. The topic needs original information from the native speaker, further information presented is ethical, and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surjitxingha (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't even talking about the quality of the source: we are judging the fact that you, an editor with an obvious conflict of interest, keep inserting the same poorly written content in a variety of articles, and then you are edit-warring over it. I blocked you for SPAM ONLY, but it could have been NOTHERE as well. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, the expression "Israeli War of Independence" is a totally Israel-centric name. And Debresser does not have consensus for his view: only two very newbie editors, Aroma Stylish and 11Fox11 supports him. (-Bolter21 is "indifferent", while Selfstudier, Nableezy, Zero0000 and myself oppose him), Huldra (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, while you're here, can you please comment on this, [180], since this is a common occurrence here and years back you scolded me for calling this a witch-hunt. I still think this is unacceptable to basically accuse every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock. Sir Joseph(talk)02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean with "this"--what's the antecedent. But if someone accuses every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock, that would indeed be a violation of AGF. In this case, Nableezy, lay off it please. If you have evidence you might could ask such a question, but without evidence, please don't. Sir Joseph, you will have to admit that the user is very familiar with intricate formatting and syntax, and who has 5,000 articles on their watchlist after having edited fewer than 700 articles? But Nableezy, if that's all it was, that's not enough. Now, Sir Joseph, one of the things I have always disliked about your MO is the sidetracking--and you're doing it again. If you have something, don't put it in some other report. This isn't like you're a senator and you can stick a pet project in an appropriations bill. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do have evidence. That is not all. I think you can check my track record on who I've asked that question to and whether they were proven to be a sock or not. I have not, and never have, basically accuse[d] every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock, that remains a bald-faced lie that has never been demonstrated to be anything but. nableezy - 03:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you accuse every new etc. editor of that, but if you have evidence, make the proper case, at SPI. You should know how to do this properly. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of generating further evidence is asking the question. I mean I suppose you could give me a discretionary sanction against asking the question, but as it stands I dont think it violates any policy to do so and if I think that asking that question to be a useful thing I probably will continue doing so. nableezy - 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, the editor has been here since January 2020 and it makes perfect sense to know syntax, etc. Keep in mind evidence is editing similar articles and in many cases it's actually editing in the same timezone or geography. CU's aren't always tech-savvy and many "pro-Israel" editors in California for example are caught as socks merely because they edit in the same IP range or time zone. At a prior SPI, it was mentioned that you can do an editor interaction between any of the "other" editors. The evidence presented is often that a pro-Israel editor edits in the IP conflict area and edits with a pro-Israel bias. Not very compelling evidence. And I'm commenting here because I'm not opening a full case for this and just wanted to mention this because I see it often enough. Sir Joseph(talk)04:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really like parroting arguments by socks dont you? Why dont you tell the class what happened at that prior SPI? Oh shocker, the person I said was a sock was in fact a sock. Horrors. nableezy - 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, sometimes you have to accept that the world does not agree with you. While you may believe it was a war of independence, and I may agree with you, in balance, most consider it a war between two opposing parties with legitimate claims. Once a consensus decision has been made, updating articles that mention the conflict should be uniform. Pick you battles better.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, being upset that people disagree with you isnt typically a reason to come to ANI. I reverted an edit that remains a violation of NPOV and which appears to have a majority of editors agreeing with me. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 02:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a content dispute (and certainly "avoid using a redirect that might violate WP:NPOV" is at least not an unreasonable argument to make.) Your objection seems to be that your politics differs from the editors you're in a dispute with, but they could just as easily represent your side of the dispute as "Pro-Israel editors editing to push POV"; almost everyone editing in that topic area has a discernible opinion on it, after all (people rarely edit topics they have no opinion on.) More generally it is WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct to immediately leap to political disagreements with editors as the locus of a dispute - unless you have a more specific reason to think there are conduct issues, you need to focus on content, not editors; and I'm not understanding what you feel the conduct issue is here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user went out of control and started doing mass changes by citing an irrelevant talk page argument on his talk page, and now he is edit warring to reinstate errors he is introducing through his mass edits instead of engaging on discussion on his talk page.
@RegentsPark:@Fowler&fowler:@Kmzayeem: As per consensus reached in my talk page and expert guidance from RegentsPark I have edited infobox regarding citizenship and nationality status. Before notifying what issue he has with those edits Wareon has been doing mass reverting. Without even willing to participate in the discussion on my talk page.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page discussion which only concerned only 1 or 2 articles isn't enough for making mass changes. You will need consensus of community if you want to make mass changes. Use a proper noticeboard for it and not your personal talk page. Wareon (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down brother admin and other shall intervene what problem you have with citizenship and nationality issue we'll address. Instead doing mass rv you could have told me on my talk page what problem you have with citizenship or nationality issue. Since I just followed what admin and other experience editors advised. Chill brother. All your concerns shall be address. Admin if I have involved in wp:3RR then I'm sorry.--Amrita62 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have rolled back all edits starting from yesterday evening; older edits do not look so problemati to me, and need to be looked at case by case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not logged in because I don't have an account. I just went to the Wikipedia page about Charles M Goethe, an American eugenicist. There was a message at the top of the page telling me that two edits that I had made to Wikipedia pages had been rescinded by ClueBot. I have never made edits to Wikipedia pages. I poked around to see what this was about and found this page. I don't know anything else about it, but think that something is malfunctioning on your site.
These two messages on your talk page are old (one of them from 2018), and your IP address did indeed make these edits, which means that ClueBot isn't malfunctioning. The likely explanation is that your IP address is dynamically assigned and you likely got one that was previously used by someone who vandalized Wikipedia. If you weren't responsible for the edits in question, then I wouldn't worry about it. —{CrypticCanadian}06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vif12vf's persistent misuse of the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert legitimate edits on Golden Dawn (political party) without adequate justification
I would like to report a incident concerning a user by the name of Vif12vf. Recently, while attempting to make an edit to Golden Dawn (political party)'s lede, Vif12vf has continually misused the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert any edit I've attempted to make to the page, and Vif12vf has failed to provide an adequate policy-based justification for said reverts in the edit summary, nor did he specifically point out any potential errors to me. In addition, when I've tried to issue several warnings to him on his talk page about his problematic conduct, he erased them from his talkpage (Once again, using the Rollback tool) without even indicating he has properly read them, nor did he issue a proper response, and the only communication I received from him was a template regarding blanking, even though my edit has not removed any significant portion of content from the article, and were restrained solely to the lede.
Relevant diffs can be found here:
Note: a related discussion was started over at WT:AN#Kevin Deutsch article editathon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. I've blocked the 2605:A601:AD87:300:0:0:0:0/64 IPv6 range for one month. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: User:WikiDan61 did not notify Pillow4 of this thread; I have done so now. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Gamers' Choice Awards
Moved from WP:AIV
Comment: I still insist on blocking Zefr for WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:PERSONAL--Александр Мотин (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
George Mavrikos, Secretary General of WFTU
