Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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)
Start a new discussion

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

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than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources.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

The two most egregious quotes as I see them:

• [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [1]
• [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [2]

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

Detailed evidence with diffs

Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments (diffs posted for all). My apologies that it is so long. There are just so many of them. Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem. [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [3] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.) Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals for the objections I raised. In spite of this, and User:EdChem's offer I am wondering whether hatting this and starting a new thread on the content in the article, perhaps with a summary of the points made above, might be a good way to reboot this conversation [4], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS? Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [5] [19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [6] Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after User:EdChem reminded us on 20 Oct that this is not appropriate in a content discussion. [7] This reminder was because I am not entirely blameless here, having been aggrieved by the comment immediately above and responded more harshly than I should have, but I accepted EdChem's statements after he told us to stop and have been trying to leave behavioural issues out of it there. In fact I think it got worse. [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [8] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.) Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [9] (For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general. Now, I did make a mistake; the parentheses should have lasted until "in general", because Smokefoot's 2016 concerns were about the article Heavy metals – they may be read at Talk:Heavy_metals#Shakey_foundations – and it's me who sees them as applying to his approach in general rather than Smokefoot. This aside, which I have corrected, I fail to see what is "libellous" about this criticism of mine. However, if consensus here is that my statement has gone too far, then I am completely willing to refactor it; I want to follow WP norms.) What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh. Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Note that my qualms with his edits to Noble metal raised above were partly about whether the sources present really supported what they were citing; in this context I find something else problematic. I am unsure about whether this is the right place, but User:Games of the world mentioned it in the previous ANI thread, so I will work under the temporary assumption that it is pending anyone else who is well-versed in these areas of WP telling me that it isn't. Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [22 Oct] @Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up. Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on. Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [10] @Sandbh: And why should we consider what has not been publicly released when it is by definition not verifiable? Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [11] @Double sharp:. Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY. How do you see that? Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [12] I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread. I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. My profound apologies to all the regulars here who suffered through the previous threads and who would most likely have preferred it if they heard nothing else from us again. I understand. Almost everyone relevant to this who has participated previously in discussion of this matter has been pinged above, so I only have User:Softlavender left to ping. I can't thank her enough for pitching in in the previous incredibly long thread (and I am truly sorry that my opening statement is this long – that's why I restricted myself to one or at most two examples per bullet point), and I hope against hope that some way of solving this that does not involve sanctions is possible. Sandbh surely must have a vast library of sources, judging from his previous contributions, and his perspective would be very valuable if he was persuaded to respect policy. Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Size concerns and shortening the OP

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

Original report, reduced size

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. User:Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments. Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, WP:IAR [13] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.) Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals. [14], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS? Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [15][16] [17] ... I am not entirely blameless here, ... [18] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.) Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [19] (For reference, what I wrote was ... Now, I did make a mistake; ... This aside, which I have corrected, ...) What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh. Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [20] [21][22] I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI[23] even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. User:Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of the report

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

Circumstances I want to note: being a long post is OK to me, bc it describes the complicated behaviour patterns that indeed might have an ANI angle. I note that EdChem, who contributed to the earlier ani-posts in this, has stepped in WT:ELEMENTS to contribute to content discussions and giving example of good talkhabits. Re my own contributions: I myself took a low profile (low activity) on the page. I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [24][25]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sandbh about editors behaviour not content

[26] your "no category" agenda: having an "agenda"? Sandbh casting bad faith. [27][28] warnings by EdChem. [29] (1st paragraph) Sandbh not retracting, reconfirming instead.

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

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

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

POLICY denouncing and ignoring

[33] edited the article under discussion, [34] "is disputed" says Ds, [35] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

[40] (17 July, Archive): rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR.

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

Responses

Responses by Double sharp (Ds) and EdChem, there are many, I mostly skipped here. Researching this, I do sense serious attitude and actions by Ds to correct the flow, also signs of desperation, resulting in this ANI report. There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [42][43] (is back now).

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Principles and preliminaries: Here are some contextual guiding principles, policies and statements that I feel are relevant to the thread. I'll be referencing these in my fair account.

[P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

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

[P2] From WP:NOR:

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

[P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:

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

[P4] Ditto:

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

[P5] From the WP:BOOMERANG essay:

"Responders: Investigate fully"

[P6] From User:Lev!vich on Oct 11 [44]:

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

[P7] From WP:ASPERSIONS:

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

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

[P8] This post by User:DePiep, on Oct 10 [45], to a previous WP:ANI thread:

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

[P9] This following statement by me addresses the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI:

User:DePiep has been blocked on 13–15 previous occasions, for incivility and disruptive conduct [46].

Euryalus indefinitely placed DePiep under several editing restrictions in May 2018 [47]; namely [48]:

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

On Sep 27th I filed a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [49]. I summarised the behaviour and provided relevant w\links, dates and times, but no diffs as I didn't know I had to. After I was asked to provide diffs, I replied as follows: "Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs." [50] Subsequently the report was closed by User:Salvio on Sep 28th, on the grounds that, "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented."[51]

On Sep 29th, User:R8R lodged a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [52]. It was in this thread that DePiep posted the hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment [Principle 8, above] aimed at R8R. The thread was closed on Oct 12th, by User:El_C with, "no action with some mild warnings." [53]

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

[P10] The following brief statement by me addresses my WP history and conduct:

• editor for nine years and WP:ELEM member for eight years;
• 18,000+ edits: quality, not quantity;
• never been blocked or formally sanctioned or received (AFAICR) a warning from an admin;
• I behaved like a bull in a china shop wrt to my Sep 27 WP:ANI complaint alleging misconduct by DePiep;
• I posted an apology about this conduct at WP:AN, on Sep 28 [54]
• I have three FA/TFA: metalloid; heavy metals; astatine (with R8R);
• Currently working on noble metal: before [55]; after.

[P11] From the closure report to ANI 2 [56]:

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

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

---

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

Double sharp’s allegations and concerns

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

That's not right. I’m still discussing content. I've been discussing some editors, out of desperation, after citing innumerable reliable sources to no avail. I see my colleague User:R8R has likewise felt the need to discuss the conduct of another WP:ELEM member [57]. After four years of inaction on the part of the other editor concerned, that is reasonable, IMO, and I support R8R in making those comments.

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

You’re entitled to your opinion. Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments you are referring to are relatively benign.

3. I “show…zero interest in following policy

I never said I had zero interest in “following” policy. Rather, I have zero interest in having a festival of policy-citing within our project. I note you are in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above, re WP:ASPERSIONS.

4. I continue…to refer to unpublished sources.

So? Per Principle 2 above, from WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Yes, I do refer to some unpublished sources, within the WP:ELEM talk page, based on my contacts within the chemistry community.

As I said, I do this, “Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY.”[58]

There is also Principle 1 which I set out above, “From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page: "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

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

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

I confirm what I said. I edit a lot, and generally provide citations from the literature, and I discuss a lot at WP:ELEM, frequently with accompanying citations from the literature. IMO, and experience, ANI is the Wild West of due process. That's presumably why Principle 3 above suggests not going to WP:ANI, and if you do, it will be like war. In my experience of WP:ANI there is no surety of due process, and there is no WP policy that I'm aware of that sets out what editors, who raise things at WP:ANI, can expect. WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.

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

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

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

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

As User:EdChem (whom DS likes to refer to) wisely counselled, "The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[59] Ditto, as I said, "…all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them."

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

I addressed Games of the world allegations. [60]

Games of the world has their own block record to reflect upon.[61] They recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.[62]

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

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

While I respect WP policy, understand it, and strive to uphold it, and occasionally fall short of it due to exasperation with the conduct of one or more WP:ELEM colleagues, I'm not interested in it. As far as IAR goes I fall back on Principle 1, as cited above, which asks WP: ELEM members to not adhere to WP rules and guidelines too strictly (linking to WP:IAR) in the interests of building a better encyclopaedia.

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

Per Principle 4—"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."—this was a content issue; as such, it merits no further comment. In any event, EdChem made a suggestion which he acknowledged I was under no obligation nor expectation to act on [63].

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

[20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [64]

[19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [65]“

No evidence has been provided for “non-stop” attributions, in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above.

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

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

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

[23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [66]

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

Yes, I regard Double sharp’s allegations to my approach of article writing “in general” to be unfounded, having zero evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, and effectively trashing my reputation. Double Sharp's concerns with my approach of article writing in general are inconsistent with my WP history, as set out in Principle 10, above, including three FAs.

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

Per Principle 2 above, taken from WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." In this context, I have nothing to account for wrt Double sharp's concern.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

You have provided no specific information.

3. "[67] “You know nothing about ...” (in an other subthread)"

Let me add the context to this extract:

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

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

4. "[68] edited the article under discussion, [69] "is disputed" says Ds, [70] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus."

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

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

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

5. "[71] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all."

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

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

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

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

I further point to Principle 1, above:

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

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

6. [72] (17 July, Archive): “rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives”. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR."

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

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

7. "[73] “WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace” ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies)."

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

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

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

8. "There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [74][75] (is back now)."

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

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

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

Principle 5 above says, "Responders: Investigate fully". Principle 6 acknowledges that this does not happen, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…". DePeip himself said he cannot keep up to date with WP:ELEM dicussions. In this context, I allege DePiep is in breach of Principle 5.

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

---

EdChem’s concerns

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

EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my Principle 2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however.

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

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

Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments EdChem is referring to are relatively benign.

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

Omitted by EdChem is the "(no offence intended)" caveat I included with my original comment [76]. We have it here in Oz, with rusted on supporters of the Coalition, and rusted on supporters of the Labor party. Everyone knows that politics hinges upon speaking to the swinging voters and parties in the middle. I note EdChem’s comment about ANI’s record of dealing with incivility.

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

As EdChem commented, ""The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[77] Bravo!

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

Per my Principle 2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

---

Lev!vich's concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, I suggest such a removal is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

In my view, Lev!vich's comments and conclusion fall short of Principle 5, i.e. "Responders: Investigate fully". Lev!vich himself acknowledge that this does not happen, per Principle 6, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…".

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

---

Softlavender's concerns

1. "It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [78] [79] (and also from one in August [80]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch."

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

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

The 4 August 2014 ANI "Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh" was lodged by Double sharp [81]. Among other things it included allegations of WP:OR on the WP:ELEM talk page. As noted by me, WP:OR does not apply to a talk page. Since Double sharp’s concerns were deemed to be content related [82], Double sharp advised he had withdrawn the report[83]. The WP:ANI was closed on the same day [84].

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

The context for DS's 4 Aug ANI filing was an 8,000 word RFC initiated by him 20 Jul 2020, re matters we had been discussing at WP:ELEM. [85] I objected to way this RFC had been put, including, "…other unacceptable behaviour alluded to on his part, including his hack work on our periodic table article; removing some of my citation supported content; slandering me; swearing; and effectively demanding I provide a falsifiable hypothesis when I was under no obligation to do so."[86]

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

• Extremely strong oppose (I have to make this prominent to balance and counteract the supports above) Just about all the arguments are irelevant and we should just use the traditional form eith La and Ac under Y. If needed we can use the place holder * or **." [the caps and bolding are from the comment as posted] [87]

DS subsequently posted, to me, "Now I have stepped back and thought about it. I have gone overboard, and I apologise for it."[88]

The RFC was closed with this comment, "Per consensus to abandon this trainwreck of a thread as-is. (non-admin closure)" [89]

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

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

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

For my cooperative behaviour, I've been discussing matters of mutual interest with fellow WP:ELEM members, Double sharp and YBG [90], and with EdChem [91]. WP:ELEM member DePiep recently asked me for some advice concerning another matter of mutual interest to WP:ELEM members and I said I would try and put something together for him [92]. I’ve been working on the noble metal article. WP:CHEMISTRY member User:Smokefoot, a chemist who works with noble metals, provided some helpful commentary [93] and I incorporated and responded to, his concerns[94].

In terms of progressing some of the content issues at WP:ELEM, there is a kernel of agreement amongst different combinations of us [95], but not agreement to proceed. I put forward a compromise solution in one matter [96]. Neither of the other parties were prepared to move a little bit. On another matter I have put forward about 28 alternatives [no diffs here; anybody from WP:ELEM can shoot or salute me on this one]. Nobody will move. For R8R I attempted to reach a win-win solution with him [97]; he was not interested, and remains so. On Double sharp's no category agenda, I put forward a hybrid solution to him, here. While nobody else in WP:ELEM expressed an intersted in DS' agenda, DS did recently express a passing interest in my proposal [no diff as I've forgotten where DS posted this comment].

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

On taking guidance or instruction, and following policy or guidelines, I learnt many lessons after my ANI re DePiep, and I apologised for my bull in a china shop conduct, that I showed at that time. While I have no interest in policy, or unasked for guidance from people who assume they know better than me, I follow it, according to the advice given at WP:ELEM, per Principle 1 above, namely:

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

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

On taking advice, I will be following your good advice regarding how to start an RFC. [98]

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

You’ve inappropriately chosen to take what I said out of context. I object to your WP:INCIVIL behaviour in this regard. Here is the full post of mine, as posted to WP:AN, concerning my behaviour in ANI 1 [99]:

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

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

So, I reject your assertion. I may get snarky from time to time with WP:ELEM colleagues, after beating my head against a wall, never mind how many citations from the literature I provide. I suggest this is a far away from being a bull in a china shop. Per my Principle 8 above, and DePiep's hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment addressed at R8R, namely, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R.", which result in nothing other than a mild warning to DePiep, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".

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

In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, a TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread;, and is inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME; and your reputation, from what I recall reading, as a respected editor [100].

I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:OR, noting it does not apply to talk pages; and Principle 5 above, re responders investigating fully; and Principles 9 and 11.

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

---

Andrew’s comment
Oppose sanction – suggest RfC

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

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

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

---

YBG's concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m happy to consider a request to change my behaviours at any time in response to specific, justified, reasonable concerns, and in the context of Principles 9 and 11, above. I’d expect the same courtesy to be extended to me, if I have concerns about the conduct of colleagues.

At the same time—per Principles 9 and 11 above—I don’t expect to be an angel 100% of the time nor do I expect colleagues to be paradigms of conduct at all times. I have a reasonable tolerance for snarkiness. In nine years of editing I’ve experienced intolerable behaviour from just two editors, one who has retired; the other was DePiep, on three occasions, the second of which resulted in my first ever WP:ANI report, and the follow on report by R8R.

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

---

Sandbh's conclusions

1. Principle 11, from the closure report to ANI 2, speaks to a lot of my conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. If I've shot myself in the foot in error, please let me know and I'll fix it. There's a lot to remember in attempting to give a fair account of myself, in the face of a "huge volume of text" as YBG put it, containing multiple breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS.

8. I expect someone will play the Wikilawyering card as per the previous example by Softlavender [101]. That would be funny given the approximately 70+ allegations made against me, in the form of a hugh volume of text, including slander by Double sharp; and the fact the I allegedly don't follow WP:POLICY. Not to mention the absence, across our 6,000,000 articles of any guidance for respondents as to due process at WP:ANI. In presence of that void, all I can do is note the WP-based Principles I feel are relevant to the allegations made against me.

9. In accordance with Principle 3, "Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." I make the following allegations, as set out in my responses, and my comment re Softlavender's breach of WP:BRD:

• Double sharp has breached WP:ASPERSIONS three times;
• DePiep has breached WP:ASPERSIONS once; and twice more [102]
• EdChem has breached WP:ASPERSIONS three times; and
• Softlavender has breached WP:ASPERSIONS once, WP:CIVIL once, and WP:BRD once.

I call for WP:BOOMERANG action in respect of the above bullet points.

10. Alternatively, @Double sharp::

• we can recognise what a cobbler's time-sucking hamburger this thread is, per Principle P11
• you could withdraw your complaint
• WP:ELEM members can reflect on what has happened, and the wild West nature of WP:ANI, and learn from it
• WP:ELEM members can draw up a protocol of expectations for conduct within WP:ELEM, including principle P1
• we can put forward this protocol to WP:ANI as a basis for a set of principles governing how complaints of this nature will be handled here, including due process considerations, and expectations for the conduct of editors who comment here.

Your choice. As you have recognised the resources I bring to WP:ELEM, I recognise the resources and knowledge you bring. Even though, our philosophical approaches may differ in some areas. As User:R8R commented:

"In this beautiful language that you speak and I attempt to speak, there's the magnificent concept of "contest of ideas," something that does not have nearly as much currency as in my own mother tongue."

As EdChem noted, it's the science that counts, at the end of the day. We can seek to build this in to our protocol.

As Andrew has suggested, a few RFC's are always on the table.

Over to you.

---

Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Support TBAN of Sandbh. It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [103] [104] (and also from one in August [105]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch. He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines. In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop" [106]. Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked). Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Off-topic. Whatever this is and whoever posted it, it's not helping. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed. — Richard Feynman, "Los Alamos From Below", Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)

Re-revert by Softlavender. I reverted [107] the above hatnote by User:Softlavender, adding the following reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• DePiep interfering with my fair account. DePiep took it upon himself to replace the horizontal rules in my attempted fair account, with breaks [108]. @DePiep: Stay out of my comments. Do not interfere with them. That is a courtesy I extended to you, following your request, in ANI 2. It seems you are unable to follow the standards of civility you expect of other editors. Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see that Sandbh has finished his very long response. I will try to find some time to read it before finalising my view. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

[109] Was posted after your sign, so not interfering. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments now that Sandbh has posted comments and conclusions

Sandbh, thank you for posting comments. I think a more concise response would have been preferable and it is difficult to decide what to address. Nevertheless...

1. It is asserted that the prohibition on original research does not apply to talk pages. Quoting from WP:NOR, it is "one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." So, the issue of OR on talk pages goes to whether the discussion is about putting OR into articles. Sandbh's comments that I linked to above are exactly as I described them, as they refer "to unpublished insider information is absolutely not a basis for encyclopaedic content based on RS." It reads as a declaration that Double sharp is only able to see the published information, which is put as ≤20% and that you are privy to the other 80%. The implication is that Sandbh's view should prevail due to access to unpublished information, which is inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:V. A talk page discussion can contain OR but article content can't and the post is problematic because it is about what should be included in article content.
2. Adding "(no offence intended)" immediately after a comment does not cause that offensive comment to become inoffensive. Comparing editors to "rusted-on Trump supporters" and implying that those who disagree are not worth working with is not only insulting to those editors, it is unhelpful as a comment on contributors rather than content, and it is inconsistent with the basis of WP as a collaborative project. Contributors at WT:ELEM are not actively denying information / facts that are supported by overwhelming evidence, nor are we / they advocating based on personal beliefs or politics without regard to the literature and RS, in line with WP policy.
3. It is true that I am not a member of WP:ELEM and have only been contributing at WT:ELEM comparatively recently – but so what? Any editor is free to contribute. I offered to help during the last ANI thread. I have been a Wikipedian for more than a decade, I am a qualified chemist, and I bring to the discussion knowledge of science and of WP editing / policy. In response to Levivich, Sanbh writes that "core members of WP:ELEM have been such members for nearly ten years, whereas EdChem, who is not a member of the project, has been participating for a number of weeks. I regard his perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial." Sandbh is entitled to his opinion of me, and I may have a superficial perception of events... but I have knowledge of science and editing and policy that is far from superficial. ANI contributors are well able to assess comments from editors and attempts to discredit others rather than refuting points being made are unhelpful.
4. It is true that ANI threads will look at all contributors. However, it is my view that the references to casting aspersions and calls for boomerang sanctions (against me, Double sharp, DePiep, and Softlavender) are out of place in this case. My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page. Further, unlike some others, I did not call for a sanction on Sandbh; rather, I expressed concerns that a topic ban may become necessary. Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content. I have read the published article that Snadbh link on my user talk page. It is interesting but significant parts are not suited to article space on DUE grounds and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature. Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome... I do not agree with this view of IAR and have commented at WT:ELEM that I see it as dangerous. Maybe Sandbh's views align better with policy that appears in recent comments – his editing history would suggest this – but comments and actions in the discussions of the periodic table could definitely be improved.

EdChem (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @EdChem: for your prompt response. I agree with you that a more concise response would have been preferable, Given 70+ allegations were made against me, a fair number in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm all ears as to your suggestion for a better way of responding, given the absence of any WP:ANI-specific protocols.

1. "The implication is that Sandbh's view should prevail due to access to unpublished information, which is inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:V. A talk page discussion can contain OR but article content can't and the post is problematic because it is about what should be included in article content."

Pardon me for expressing my thoughts frankly and in plain English: this is "bunkum": The views I express live and die according to reception afforded them at the WP:ELEM talk page. If you think a post of mine there, is problematic, then you can choose how much and what kind of attention to give to it.

2. "Adding "(no offence intended)" immediately after a comment does not cause that offensive comment to become inoffensive. Comparing editors to "rusted-on Trump supporters" and implying that those who disagree are not worth working with is not only insulting to those editors, it is unhelpful as a comment on contributors rather than content, and it is inconsistent with the basis of WP as a collaborative project.

As I caveated IGF, I did not intend to give offence. If you choose to interpret my IGF comment as offensive, on the basis that doing so works for you in some way, power to you. My example of "rusted on supporters", is a widely recognised phenomenon across the world. As I said, that's life (even within collaborative projects) and I accept it, and I have to move on e.g. by way of an RFC or seeking a compromise, as I mentioned. You draw a very long bow, bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS by interpreting my comment as "implying those who disagree are not worth working". Where is your evidence for my conduct in this regard? I have continued to work with all WP:ELEM members, and yourself throughout this WP:ANI report. As I have recounted, I proposed compromise solutions to some of the issues under discussion at WP:ELEM. Why do you choose to overlook these things?

3. "It is true that I am not a member of WP:ELEM and have only been contributing at WT:ELEM comparatively recently – but so what?"

I agree, it doesn't matter to me! In fact I posted an invitation for you to drop by for a metaphorical cup of tea. Yes, I said your "perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial." And you said, "I may have a superficial perception of events".

And then you added, "I have knowledge of science and editing and policy that is far from superficial. ANI contributors are well able to assess comments from editors and attempts to discredit others rather than refuting points being made are unhelpful."

Where is this coming from? Where is your evidence that I criticised your knowledge of science and editing and policy, or implied that is was superficial? Once again you are bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

4a. "…it is my view that the references to casting aspersions and calls for boomerang sanctions (against me, Double sharp, DePiep, and Softlavender) are out of place in this case."

Did you read Principle 3? Here it is again:

"[P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:

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

I didn't start this WP:ANI report. Where is your specific, factual evidence countering my allegations of you breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, three time? You cannot get away with blithely saying, "My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page." Where are the diffs?

4b. "Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content. I have read the published article that Snadbh link on my user talk page. It is interesting but significant parts are not suited to article space on DUE grounds…

Oh my. I face 70+ allegations, including those in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. I have explained my approach to WP:POLICY, and cited WP:POLICY extensively. I continue to work with all WP:ELEM members. Why do you WP:SYNTH a peer-reviewed article of mine appearing in an academic journal with DUE? Have I cited the article? Have you raised any concerns about these cites on DUE grounds? Once again, your implications are bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

4c. "…and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."

Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

4d. "Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome…"

Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

Did you read Principle P1? Here it is again:

[P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

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

Please note the link to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

You are entitled to your views on IAR. Please do not judge me in this light. Judge me in light of what WP:IAR actually says, and Principle P1. Personally, I do not care that you "see it [IAR] as dangerous". Fire is dangerous too. Of course, you are entitled to your view, and to express it, and I respect that principle.

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Sitrep: WP:ELEM
​​​​​​ 1. With input from User:DePiep and User:Narky Blert I'm drafting an RFC dealing with how many nonmetal categories we show on the WP periodic table.

2. I understand User:Double sharp intends to put forward an RFC on the composition of group 3.

3. After four years of nil progress,[110] it seems the development of a proposed a new colouring scheme for the WP periodic table, is progressing.

There are no other controversies at WP:ELEM that I'm aware of. User:Double sharp may have some remaining concerns about the approach to periodic table colour categories generally. He's been discussing a preference for a periodic table "blocks only" approach. I put a compromise hybrid approach to him. I haven't heard anything further about this, nor from other WP:ELEM members, that I can recall.
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here. I am not convinced there is atonement. Which implies that the issue we are here for, ANI=behaviour, may not be solved or corraled. I might reply more specific (in a later reply).

Ah and oh, your 00:51 post above contains (apart from harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here), another fine filthy stab directed at me. "Thanks". -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you. Feel free to post a more specific reply. With respect to your allegations of…

(1) "harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here)"; and

(2) "another fine filthy stab directed at me"

…you are, twice again, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. Consistent with Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors.", I'll add this to your list of breaches, for WP:BOOMERANG consideration. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: PS: With regard to your comment, "I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here." please see Principle P5 above, "From the WP:BOOMERANG essay: "Responders: Investigate fully". You may wish to reflect upon the question of whether, "sometimes glancing" would be construed as meeting the requirement of responders, such as yourself, to "Investigate fully". Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I also have plans for a later reply. Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you. No rush on my part. Take your time. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Holy walls of text, Batman! EEng 02:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been wondering how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block. I'm sure Sandbh does useful editing but how could anyone imagine that it is appropriate to spam this page so much, or that doing so would help their case? Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @EEng and Johnuniq: In my posts above I broadly hinted that my friend Sandbh would be better off with brevity than verbosity. From his posts, he apparently feels a need to answer every single claim. Your responses here confirm my concern that he has done himself a disservice, at least in the eyes of some ANI watchers. YBG (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

      @EEng and Johnuniq: Correcting malformed ping above YBG (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng, Johnuniq, and YBG: Thank you. ANI#2, which I did not file, ran to 30,000 words; This ANI runs to 15,600 words. By my reckoning, the opening statements alone amounted to some, 4,000 words. Should this merit a WP:CIR block, just by itself? Other editors have since added about 6,100 words. How much of that is "spam", as you put it User:Johnuniq?

I'm all ears as to how to respond to 70+ allegations, with multiple breaches, per WP:BOOMERANG, by other editors, of WP:ASPERSIONS (an ArbCom policy no less) in another form. Note WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.

Recall, per Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." It's easy for editors to make allegations; it is much, much harder to respond to them. In any event, I recall I responded to about 2/3rds of the allegations against me, rather than all of them.

Let us too consider the remarks made by the admin who closed the "wall-of-text" of ANI 2:

"Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."

I agree. Your thoughts? Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well I've been watching for the past week since being pinged. Sandbh at no point are you helping yourself here. Instead of saying hands up sorry for the personal attacks, you continued to attack other editors and accuse them of this that and the other. Citing things which are not policy and accusing others of casting aspersions. Since most of us here were involved in the previous discussion or are involved with you in other areas where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is not an aspersion, we can all read and remember for ourselves. At no point have you recognised why bringing unpublished material to a talk page is unhelpful, unless it explained a point of view, that was already published, better than said published sources. In addition Sandbh you do not have to answer every single accusation, you could have said a conscise apology for the PA's and that unsourced material on the talk page was unhelpful and left it at that. You do not have to keep quoting this that and the other. Drop the stick - you'll get further in this discussion. But what is really concerning is your comment saying the last ANI was shut and no points were made to me to alter my behaviour. Not true. There were several comments from users asking all members of elements to modify there behaviour and that included you Sandbh. I thought that topic banning you for a period of time was a bit harsh and that a self imposed exit from the site or topic for a period to chill out and reflect on things before coming back and being useful without the bagage would be helpful. But your response on this thread is not helpful and frankly now it looks like that you could end up with a worse outcome for yourself. Games of the world (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Games of the world for your polite comments.

• I appreciate what you said wrt "at no point are you helping yourself here". There is an important principle I'm seeking to uphold here which is to "defend" my integrity.
• I've freely acknowledged prior instances of snarky behaviour. As the editor who closed ANI:P2 said, "Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."
• I make my responses here in WP:IGF. I'm sorry you interpret them as personal attacks, and accusations of casting aspersions. I've provided diffs and evidence; I did not cite AFAICR things that are not policy, nor post WP:ASPERSIONS, the latter being ArbCom policy.
• Per WP:OR there is no prohibition on bringing unpublished material to a talk page. In each case I explained the context for doing so. WP does operate in a vacuum isolated from the real world. I speak with many non-WP chemists, where real chemistry, real research, real WP:RS publishing, and real policy-making happens. Sometimes this motivates me to publish a related article in a peer-reviewed journal. In another case this resulted in offer to me from a non-WP scientist, to collaborate on writing a peer-reviewed article, of direct relevance to WP:ELEM. Whether or not WP:ELEMEM members take note of this is us up to them. At least one WP:ELEM member has expressed interest, e.g. in the workings of the IUPAC. If I know someone outside of WP who knows about this, I ask them, and with their permission, report back to WP:ELEM.
• Contrary to your assertion I have not sought to, "answer every single accusation". As I said earlier in this thread, I answered about two-thirds of them. You evidently missed that one in the context of "watching for the past week". Having Christian values, I apologise for behaviours that give offence. That said, I will not have my name dragged through the mud by unfounded, out-of-context, allegations. As I have said, it is easy to make these; it is much, much harder to address them.
• Re the last ANI being shut, and "no points were made to me to alter my behaviour." The close on the last ANI said, "

"Closing with no action with some mild warnings. First, there is no incivility in the opening wall of text that I was able to discern. None whatsoever. By contrast, there has been some heated language and tone in this thread ("jerk" here, "fucking" there), but nothing that I would consider even coming close to being beyond the pale. This sort of thread, with its original post and following ever-compounding length shows the limitation of of this forum. Obviously, no admin wishes to conclude it (so it may well be me) at this point. We are volunteers, too. ANI reports ought to be succinct, with the complaint clearly and unambiguously highlighting (prioritizing) the evidence which represents the most egregious conduct. That has not been the case with this report. Warnings: DePiep, don't warn other editors that you will block them (you can't, and even if you could, you would not be allowed to per INVOLVED). Don't even say that you will have them blocked. Say that you will report their edits to admins for review. So, that settles that. To the OP, if you're going to file a report here, you need to do better. A lot better. I already addressed what that would entail above, so I won't elaborate further. Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on. El_C 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)"

I see no mention of my name here, noting I was not the OP.

• Thank your frank closing assessment. Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELEM Protocol (very draft)
As I said I would do, here it is. Sandbh (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Break

I'm trying to overcome my urge to TNT this discussion, or archive it and start it from scratch, limiting each editor to ONE paragraph and 5 diffs. This is more than a wall of text, it's a skyscraper of text and any admin who tries to wade through it deserves to be called AdminPlus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I agree that this is a skyscraper of text that no one really deserves to have to read through. However, if you don't mind, I'd just like to point out that after your advice early in this thread I trimmed my OP down substantially and thereafter have only commented briefly: if what I have written in this thread is not brief enough, please tell me and I will be more than happy to trim it down even more. So far as I can see, pretty much everyone is writing reasonably-sized small posts, with one single exception: Sandbh, the editor I complained about in the first place. So, while I fully understand where you're coming from, I would like to very much kindly ask if something can be done about this text-spamming from him? Because I really do worry about your fully understandable urge to WP:TNT this or archive and start from scratch; surely we should not be in the situation that a single editor can derail ANI discussions about himself just by spamming so much text that nobody wants to read it, when everyone else is trying to behave, forcing those who want to take him to ANI to come again and again with nothing substantial happening... Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Liz: The discussion now runs to 17,200 words. ANI #2 (R8R v DePiep) ran to 30,000 words. It's easy to make allegations, including those in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. It's much, much harder to address these allegations IGF, including filling-in the missing context. As Double Sharp said, pretty much everyone is writing reasonably-sized small posts. That is because they don't need to respond to the allegations that are the subject of this ANI filing. Even then, as I noted, "By my reckoning, the opening statements alone amounted to some, 4,000 words…Other editors have since added about 6,100 words."

The bulk of the ANI seems to originate in allegations of OR discussed at WP:ELEM. Per WP:OR, WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The rest of the ANI mostly deals with allegations of sharp behaviour. As the editor who closed ANI #2 said, "Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."

I appreciate the fact that you encouraged DS to briefer, and that DS recognized he had been overly verbose and hatted all but two of his claims. If anybody has any further questions I will be glad to respond. Otherwise, out of respect for everyone's time, I do not intend to further respond to this ANI.

We've made a start on some WP:ELEM protocols.

I'd prefer this ANI be closed, in the same way ANI #2 was closed. I'd prefer not to drag out the stress associated with starting again from scratch. But that's not my call. Sandbh (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: That is assuredly not the case. As User:Games of the world mentioned: you could have easily addressed the allegations. Such as by apologising for attacking and accusing other editors, and stopping to do so. Instead what do you do? You continue. You could also have learnt from the previous ANI and noticed that people have raised concerns about your behaviour, just as they did for others'. And the rest of us indeed have made an effort to improve. Instead what do you do? You carry on as if there was no reason to do it. And you continue the feud with DePiep and continue attempting to throw out WP:BOOMERANGS to us. (Funny how "undue policy citing" is something you speak against in your proposed protocol, yet you have no problem doing it when you think it'd support you.) You derail what was shaping up to be a reasonable discussion with multiple perspectives (yes, including one more favourable to you even) by spamming elevator shafts' worth of text until no one is willing to join in, and then make noises about "respect for everyone's time" when you, with your incredibly long posts, did not show any. Finally you continue with your WP:IDHT mantras, carry on stating your preference that the ANI is closed as a nothing-burger, despite almost everyone here having some sort of concern with your behaviour. In your account, somehow everybody is at fault, except you. There is no way to "improve the article" but yours. And the same thing seems to be true of policy interpretation here.

If we could all stay within general WP bounds, then there would be no problem with us working together. It is clear that we cannot. It is also clear that the problem lies more with you than with me or anyone else at this point. Everybody who tries to mediate the situation gets accusations from you. User:EdChem got them above. User:Softlavender got them above. With everybody else, their approach got good results. Just not you.

Therefore, having had frankly enough of this behaviour of yours, I have decided to join the calls to support a TBAN for Sandbh with Softlavender, Levivich, and DePiep. Because I have very little hope at this point that anyone is going to be able to get through to you. And I am going to support that its length be indefinite with the possibility of immediately overturning it the moment you show some awareness of just what has here generally been considered unacceptable about your past behaviour and pledge to not continue with it. In fact, if you show this now, I will happily strike this support. Naturally enough, I point out here that I am the OP who started this thread. Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging people I forgot to ping in the above post: DePiep, Levivich. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(For clarity: the TBAN I support would be for chemistry-related topics in general, but I would also support one for just the periodic-table-related topics.) Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Sandbh, as respondent: In light of this development I'll need to go back on my intention to not further respond to this ANI. I apologise for the need to do so and to add to the word count of the thread. I intend that my response will not be longer than Double sharp's response, above. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for any unintended offence, past or present, given to WP:ELEM editors, and to editors involved in this thread.

1. Yes, I’ve made allegations in this thread of breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have any evidence of me “attacking” other editors please be specific.
2. My WP:BOOMERANGs were in response to what I alleged as multiple breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS, an ArbCom principle, no less.
3. Yes, “undue policy citing" is something I speak against in the proposed protocol at the WP:ELEM talk page. In contrast, since we're at WP:ANI, and taking a dispute to ANI has been described (not by me) as "like going to war", and other editors here freely cite WP:POLICY, I do as I see others do.
4. What you regard as “spamming elevator shafts' worth of text” I regard as attempting to give a fair account of my actions, based on the principles I set out at the very start of my response.
5. Yes, my preference is to close this ANI as, essentially, a "nothing-burger" in the same way that the 30,000 word Mt Everest wall of text that was ANI #2 (R8R v DePiep) was closed and described as a nothing-burger, along with comment by the closing editor, “"Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."
6. Re, "In your account, somehow everybody is at fault, except you." No. In this thread, I have repeatedly referred to past instances of my sharp behaviour.
7. Re there is no way to "improve the article" but yours. No, I can remember at least one of my RFC’s failing. I put up numerous ideas, suggestions, and compromise proposals at WP:ELEM, and I guess < 5% ever get up.
8. I'm pleased you said, "If we could all stay within general WP bounds, then there would be no problem with us working together. It is clear that we cannot. It is also clear that the problem lies more with you than with me or anyone else at this point."
9. So it's not exclusively about me. According to you, "we" all have a part to play, and it is clear that "we" cannot "all" stay within general bounds. Smells like nothing-burger to me.
10. Yes, I allege EDChem breached WP:APERSIONS. Yes, Softlavender re-revereted me in this thread.
11. IMO, including in the context of Principle 11 at the start of my response, a TBAN is unjustified (let alone one of indefinite duration); and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.
12. On my conduct, I intend to uphold the protocol being developed at WP:ELEM. I thank WP:ELEM member User:R8R, and User:EdChem for their initial thoughts on the protocol.

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Should we approach an uninvolved admin seeking their assessment and closure of this ANI? Sandbh (talk)

• Whoever takes on that job will deserve a medal, a vacation, and dinner for two at the restaurant of their choice. EEng 01:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• To think the discussion began with: To hopefully draw more attention to this, I have copied this brief summary up to the top ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And that's why I think something needs to be done about this. It should not be that one single editor can derail an ANI discussion about himself by spamming it until no one wants to read it. Should we perhaps collapse Sandbh's lengthly posts and ask for a brief summary? I only don't do it myself because I'm clearly involved as the OP. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @EEng and ProcrastinatingReader: Forgotten pings, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with WP:CIVIL and WP:IGF, and presuming due process is observed at WP:ANI, any respondent has the right to address allegations made against them. In this case there were 70+ allegations, including those that breached WP:ASPERSIONS. I addressed about ⅔ of these allegations. Any respondent should be free to give a fair account of themselves, without their attempt to do so being implicated as an attempt to derail an ANI discussion, or being referred to as spam.

I note from Wikipedia:No personal attacks that accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence, represent a breach of this policy. As documented in my responses, there have been numerous such personal attacks made against me. I also regard Double sharp's support for an indefinite topic ban, coupled with (1) the "possibility of immediately overturning it the moment you show some awareness of just what has here generally been considered unacceptable about your past behaviour" and (2) "pledge to not continue with it" and, (3) "if you show this now, I will happily strike this support." as pre-emptive form of threatening behaviour. That is my interpretation of it and I am ready to be corrected, if my perception is regarded by others as groundless.

I agree with Double sharp that WP:ANI does not appear to be well-equipped to deal with reports such as this. It seems to me that, in future, complainants should be given an opportunity to present their allegations; followed by the respondent's account. Repeat this process once. Other editors are free to present their views, once. The responder is entitled to reply to the views of other editors, once. Then assess and close the report. It would be helpful too, to have an article setting out the rights and expectations of complainants and respondents, including an expectation of due process and an expectation that WP:ANI is ordinarily a forum of last resort.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: On the contrary, it was dealing with the report quite well once I understood and adapted to the general norms here and expressed my complaint concisely. We had multiple people commenting and offering various perspectives and it was going on like a pretty normal ANI thread from what else I can see here. Then you came with your walls of text, and all of a sudden everybody else, if they commented at all, was only aghast at its length. (Except for me, because I'm involved and even then I complain about length. And except for EdChem, who commented as well as making comments about the length, and I agree with EEng on just how much he deserves for that.) You in your 05:41 post on 29 October say to me we can recognise what a cobbler's time-sucking hamburger this thread is, per Principle P11 when you are the one who made it that. There you say to me you could withdraw your complaint while recognising nothing about why almost everyone else who commented is concerned. And you continually suggest new ANI protocols when it's quite clear it does not in any way reflect general community norms. And you do the same thing at WT:ELEM when it comes to interpreting policy. For you WP:IAR is still an excuse to ignore policies you don't like because you think it would improve the encyclopedia, even after User:EdChem has already told you that that is not how it works in practice. Just look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#WP:ELEM_Protocol_(very_draft) where you again start suggesting a new protocol (it is the source for exactly what I just said in my previous sentence). General WP norms must be wrong, you come in and interpret them in a way suited to yourself. Absolutely nothing has changed about my complaint with your behaviour: continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse. Well, if you have this much of a lack of interest in general WP norms, then are you here to build the kind of encyclopedia that WP by policy is supposed to be? And if you're not, then doesn't that get in the way of people who want to build that kind of encyclopedia instead of what you seem to want? That's pretty much why I said what I said when I expressed support for TBANning you. Double sharp (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks for the ping.

• I'm sorry to learn you felt things were going well until I had the temerity to respond to my accusers. As you can see from the word count metrics, I responded to 7 editors, with 1,504 words per editor, or about 150 per allegation. I thought that was an OK effort in light of your own word count of 2,801.
• In terms of "walls of text" etc you just posted a 400-word paragraph! Apparently (= I read it on the web) readability studies point to 70–120 words being the most usual paragraph length. You have yourself said you are loquacious. Per WP:CIR I'd regard it as an inability to express your thoughts concisely, in writing. That is OK and could be addressed by learning a few compensatory techniques.
• You allege, I "continually suggest new ANI protocols." Do I now? Where is your evidence? What is wrong with them?
• The WP:ELEM "very draft" protocol is just that. R8R and EdChem have made suggestions which I’ve attempted to address. You can do that to, but have not, so far.
• You allege, "continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse." Where is your evidence? Once more you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.
• Despite my apologies to all concerned; and acknowledging my sharp behaviour; and my multiple options and my proposed compromise solutions at WP:ELEM; and the availability to you of an RFC at any time; you continue to pursue this RFC.
• You have your own conduct pattern of losing the plot and then apologising. Should I plumb the archives of WP:ELEM and post the diffs here?
• How about taking a tea spoon of cement powder, and hardening up?
• It annoys, pains and stresses me to advise that I intend to file a further time-sucking WP:ANI report alleging multiple breaches by you of WP:ASPERSIONS, since that seems to be the only way that could get you to cease and desist. Bear mind that (a) being at WP:ANI is like being at war; (b) that there are no winners, only survivors; and (c) you started the "war"; and (d) you can finish it too.

--- Sandbh (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

In summary form, here are the word count metrics (not counting Double sharp's 23:38 post, of 3 Nov).

Totals

• Double sharp: 2,801
• DePiep: 1,752
• EdChem: 1,407
• Games of the world: 317
• Lev!vich: 268
• Softlavender: 150
• YBG: 134

Grand total: 6,829

• Sandbh, responding to 7 editors: 10,528, or 1,504 per editor, or about 150 per allegation

Since I've been accused of spamming[111][112] and the question has been asked "how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block"[113] I suggest Double sharp, DePiep, and EdChem fall within the scope of this question.

Bear in mind it's easy to raise an allegation. It's much harder to respond to allegations and address zero or more of generalising; lack of context; distortions; and deletions, as I've tried to elaborate IGF in each my responses. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Details follow

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

• DS opening statement: 1,780
• DS follow ons: 236

Sub-total: 2,016

Size concerns and shortening the OP

• DePiep: 587

Discussion of the report

• DePiep: 1,089
• EdChem: 479
• Lev!vich: 268

• Sandbh: 158
• Sandbh principles: 991
  • re DS 1,663
  • re DePiep 1,221
  • re EdChem 651
  • re Lev!vivh 472
  • re SL 1,278
  • re YBG 498
  • my conclusions 642

Sandbh subtotal: 7,574

Comments now that Sandbh has posted comments and conclusions EdChem follow on: 756

Sandbh response: 1,028

DePiep: 76

Sandbh response: 155

Games of the word: 317

Sandbh response: 674

Break

• DS: 216
• Sandbh: 261
• DS: 484
• Sandbh: 516
• Double sharp: 85
• Sandbh: 320

Sub-totals:

Double sharp: 785

Sandbh: 1,097

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 01:12 4 November 2020 (UTC) per special:diff/986964841 YBG (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Important details that my good friend Sandbh omitted: My other friend Double sharp was told that he was much too verbose. His reaction was to hat his original post, leaving only two allegations unhatted. Had it been me, I would have withdrawn the ANI and started a new one with just the unhatted text, that was his choice, not mine. Sandbh was encouraged to be brief, and I believe eventually reduced the volume of his posts. I would have been even briefer and hatted some of the previous text, but that was his choice, not mine. YBG (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the math to help answer how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block. The answer might be: "more than everyone else combined". Lev!vich 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That is a good point. My GF intent was to list the principles I thought were relevant. That would save me having to repeat things, as I'd only list the principle number. I then read somewhere that at ANI you should explicitly spell out everything. So, that kiboshed my original GF intention. The principles are still good, however, since my responses were constantly informed by them rather being all over the place.

Yes, since in putting my GF responses I needed to fill in or address address zero or more of generalising; lack of context; distortions; and deletions, I'd expect the outcome would be to exceed the word count of everyone else combined.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a happy closure

@Sandbh: ... I needed to ... No, you chose to. You never needed to, and in fact, it did not help, which means you would be in a better position now if you hadn't at all, and that's why several editors wish you wouldn't. If you continue to choose to, the community will take that choice away. (That's not a threat, it's just my prediction of what will happen, based on seeing it happen before, and have been in your position myself on multiple past occasions: these things are always easier to diagnose from outside.) If I were you, I would make one more post here asking a simple question: what is it that other editors want you to do or not do in the future? When they answer, tell them whether you will or will not agree. Assuming the requests are reasonable and you agree, I think that could lead to a quick and happy closure without anyone being sanctioned. (If there are also things you want other editors to do or not do, don't tell them. Wait for them to ask first. Lead by example.) Lev!vich 06:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: As I wrote, I didn't intend to respond. Subsequently, I chose to respond to what I read as unfounded, incomplete, distorted, untrue and slanderous allegations, including misinterpretations of WP:POLICY.

While I strongly fear adding to the 20,500+ word count, I'll take your advice in pursuit of a happy closure. Does this look OK to you(?):

"What is it that other editors want me to do or not do in the future? I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. In the case of the latter I'll explain why based on WP:POLICY, and precedents set here at WP:ANI."

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, looks good to me -- thanks! Lev!vich 07:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Will User:Levivich’s proposed solution work for you? Sandbh (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Yes, I am willing to give it a try. So this is what I would like you to do: (1) please stop personalising disputes by attributing motives to others' editors posts, (2) please stop referring to unpublished sources, and (3) please stop treating WP:IAR as an excuse to ignore policy. And finally (4) please stop it with the tone like How about taking a tea spoon of cement powder, and hardening up? [114] Could you agree to these four? Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp's requests are reasonable, but because of subjectivity and human frailty, I would ask of Sandbh (5) please show your receptivity to feedback by responding to any concern raised along one of these lines (a) You're right, I will strike the offending language; (b) I did not mean it that way, I will strike the offending language; or (c) I respectfully disagree with your assessment, but if others agree with you, I will strike the offending language.

I ask for such feedback from my fellow editors and promise to respond in the way I have asked of Sandbh. YBG (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I would like an assessment from you or some other person outside the ELEM disputes / discussions to comment on the claims of ASPERSIONS from Sandbh and on the comments about IAR. If my understanding (and hence actions) have been problematic, I'd like to know... if they aren't, I'd like someone else to comment on this directly to Sandbh. EdChem (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding User:EdChem. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a 3rd party evaluation of ASPERSIONS claims would help. I am encouraged that EdChem voices an openness to correction and assume that Double sharp and Sandbh are also open to such feedback. YBG (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding that I am open to corrections, just as I have been earlier in this thread and elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS says "It is unacceptable for an editor to [(1)] routinely accuse others of misbehavior [(2)] without reasonable cause [(3)] in an attempt to besmirch their reputations." and "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior [(4)] without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." I think this is an exhaustive list of the alleged aspersions (I didn't track who said what), and I don't think any of them are aspersions because they don't meet #2, #3, or #4 (and some don't meet #1 but others arguably might). More specifically:

• IMO, this group of quotes are legitimate expressions of concern about an editor's behavior, made in a civil way, mostly in an ANI thread (i.e., the right place), and with evidence, either inline or elsewhere in the same thread:
  1. "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"
  2. "...there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"
  3. "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."
  4. "Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome..."
  5. "Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content."
  6. "skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR"
• I don't think this second group qualifies as aspersions (they are evidenced and arguably have reasonable cause), but they are more firery, IMO comment a bit too harshly on the editor instead of the edits, and approach incivility. I think this group generally count as the sort of "sharp words" mentioned in the close of the last ANI thread. Not great but not sanctionable; bottom line is the same things could have been expressed in a more-collegial manner, which is what should be done going forward:
  1. "I am not convinced there is atonement. Which implies that the issue we are here for, ANI=behaviour, may not be solved or corraled ... your 00:51 post above contains (apart from harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here), another fine filthy stab directed at me"
  2. "continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse"
  3. "show…zero interest in following policy"
  4. "...it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."
  5. "He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines."

As to WP:IAR, there still needs to be consensus that the action taken under the banner of IAR is "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". If consensus is that a particular edit does not improve or maintain the encyclopedia, IAR does not permit an editor to make that edit. IAR doesn't authorize unilateral action against consensus, it authorizes consensus to make exceptions to other consensus. In other words, whether IAR is properly invoked is a matter of consensus. Not too long ago, an admin IAR undeleted a page without consensus and was desysoped for it. But I think what I'm hearing here is that Sandbh is being asked to invoke IAR much less frequently, and only when consensus supports it? Lev!vich 19:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thank you for your assessment and comments. One thing that I should have said in my earlier request, but didn't, is that I didn't intend a binary situation – either "my understanding (and hence actions) have been problematic" or "they aren't" – as the situation is not a dichotomy where Sandbh is 100% right or 100% wrong. I am grateful that your feedback is more nuanced, and provide examples of comments that are below the standards for collegiality to which we should aspire; even if they are not sanctionable, the editors concerned (which I recognise includes me) can (and hopefully will) benefit from this being noted.

Sandbh, you can obviously reflect on and evaluate Levivich's words for yourself. I believe that comment 4 in the "less than great" group was made by me and I accept Levivich's assessment that it was overly harsh and an example of the "sharp words" that we should all seek to avoid. I apologise for falling below the standards of civility and collegiality that I believe are appropriate. My comment should not have reflected on your judgement but rather been focussed on content, even though behavioural issues are appropriately discussed in a venue such as ANI. A more appropriate comment would be "Sandbh has made interesting contributions to the published literature where content that on WP would be new ideas, OR, or SYNTH can be appropriate and originality is encouraged. Unfortunately, some contributions to talk page discussions and ideas for article space appear to me to be problematic in terms of producing encyclopaedic content in line with these policies."

Levivich, on OR, I was thinking of exchanges like [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]. EdChem (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my above post says "on OR" but it is meant to say "on IAR." I was hoping you might look at these diffs of a discussion involving me, Sandbh, and Narky Blert regarding IAR and comment if you see fit. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, I hadn't read your comments at the time, but my 4 Nov comment above basically says the same thing you were saying on 2 Nov and 3 Nov: I think its implied that whether or not an edit is an improvement is subject to consensus, and that it's virtually guaranteed that OR (in mainspace) would never have consensus, and thus IAR cannot (properly) be invoked to avoid the requirements of OR. (This raises an interesting question, so I've asked at Iridescent's talk page whether IAR has ever been successfully used to avoid a core content policy in the past.) W/r/t Sandbh's replies here and here, I wonder if the disagreement is more about semantics than substance. As I see it, a BOLD edit isn't one that does not have consensus, but rather it's an edit that presumes consensus. So, one could make a bold IAR edit if one presumed that consensus would support it, but not otherwise. Lev!vich 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe comments 2 and 3 in the "less than great" group are mine and I likewise accept User:Levivich's assessment and apologise like User:EdChem did. More appropriate, I believe, would have been "Sandbh seems to have a view of IAR that is at variance with community norms, and I am concerned that he may not be interested in matching those norms" for both. In any case, the same exchange EdChem links very well illustrates the point I was making. I generally feel that all five of the comments in the "less than great" group, however, raise valid and substantiated points about Sandbh's conduct that should be noted, although indeed the manner in which they were expressed could clearly be called too fiery. That nature of rhetoric is understandable given that it seems to be very difficult for others to get through to Sandbh on these issues in any way, whence comment 5 (I believe User:Softlavender wrote it), but indeed it shouldn't make us lose our cool even slightly and we should still try for as long as it seems generally reasonable. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Ping fix: Softlavender) Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh's intentions

Thank you everyone. How does this look(?):

1. I intend to stop personalising disputes via attributing motives to others editors' posts.
2. I intend to refer to unpublished sources where I feel these are relevant, but only on talk pages, consistent with WP:OR. Frex, as Double sharp [122] and I have discussed[123], I will ask Eric Scerri when we might expect a final report from the IUPAC Group 3 project and, if Eric agrees, pass on his advice to the WP:ELEM talk page.
3. I have no interest in policy but respect it. I reserve the universal right to invoke WP:IAR, as derived from WP:5P. In nine years of editing at WP I may have argued for WP:IAR on a handful of occasions, never successfully AFAICR. I cannot recall ever acting on WP:IAR.
4. Consistent with WP:BOLD, there is no requirement to achieve consensus before invoking WP:IAR. Of course, any such edit then becomes subject to BRD. That is why I’ve always checked with other editors before so doing (which I never have).
5. I intend to stop with the tone.

There are two caveats to the above.

1. While I will strive to uphold and observe WP:CIVIL, I'm no angel.
2. The sharp conduct tolerance bandwidth, as set out here at WP:ANI is now very wide, as per the hostile fruity SHOUTY language demonstration (not by me) in this very forum [124]. I’ve never used such incivil language at WP and intend never to.

I'll strike my offending language examples.

I accept the apologies given for the behaviours in the less than great group.

I intend to aim for reasonable behaviour in all cases. I accept that some of my past contributions were perceived by some editors as hurtful or too fiery, and hence unhelpful.

I’ve pleased with the way this part of the thread, thanks to @Levivich:, has developed. Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you. This is certainly a welcome development. However, when it comes to your use of sources, I have a couple more things to ask, because this has gone on for so very long and I would like some assurance that things will not immediately turn sour again once you're out of the ANI spotlight.

1. Over at the group 3 discussion you stated that the single-argument sources for Lu are "unscientific" as a means of discounting them. This is not a characterisation that appears in any reliable source, and it appears to be an inaccurate reflexion of what appears in the literature as they were written by scientists and scientists seem to have no problem continuing to cite them. Do you still think this characterisation was appropriate for a WP discussion?
2. A significant amount of your !vote there is still based on the case of unpublished sources. Do you still feel that this is legitimate when it is influencing a site decision?
3. When you say I reserve the universal right to invoke WP:IAR, do you mean that you plan to use it directly to put things into articles, or only to suggest them on talk pages and see if consensus is for such a use?
4. It seems that the group 3 discussion is not going your way. It currently has a 4–2 majority (i.e. 2/3) among eight editors (two participated but did not take a side) of restoring the Lu form, in which everyone still here from the first discussion (the one more based on the science) is still giving the same opinion they had there. In that discussion (just a few months ago) it was even 6–2 (i.e. 3/4) just because User:Dreigorich and User:Officer781 have stopped being active at the project. If one of us was to act on this consensus and made a general change back to the Lu form, would you be able to accept this in spite of your own personal opposition to the change? (This is as of now theoretical since I am still discussing things over with User:R8R, so the discussion is not quite over yet; but if he should change his mind, then the consensus against your preferred outcome becomes stronger, so I would like this assurance now.) Rephrase to get to the point of the question: If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus?
5. Finally, when other editors have policy concerns with your work, do you intend to follow the general community interpretations of the policies once they are explained to you?

Thank you and looking forward to the answers. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, I have a concern about your request in point 4, above. If you are asking that Sandbh will abide by consensus, that is a reasonable meta question. However, if you are asking whether there is such a consensus on the specific La / Lu question, I am concerned that this is a content question and not suited to resolution at ANI. I note the caveat given a discussion with R8R, and so am hoping you are asking only the meta question. If you are asking for a specific agreement on the La / Lu question then:

1. it is not fair to ask ANI contributors to make an assessment of consensus, particularly on a question where the number of words in the discussion might best be counted in megamoles (non-chemist ANI readers: chemistry joke for very many).
2. it is not fair to Sandbh to make a commitment at ANI on a question where most readers will not be able to judge whether it is reasonable.
3. predicating any consensus as you have is problematic IMO as consensus is determined based on all participants' views and the implementation of policy and not on a !vote count. Theoretically, a discussion could have 100 participants, with 99 saying X and only 1 saying Y but only the Y view being supported by RS and policy. Further, there are participants who have not taken a position (such as me), but that doesn't mean they / I won't take a position at some point.
4. even if R8R were to change his position, any resulting change in consensus / plurality of views, etc, would depend on reasoning and policy. Taking an extreme (and absurd) example by way of illustration, suppose R8R gave as his reason for changing his view that he was visited by the ghost of Mendeleev who told him what to do... in that event, I would say that his new position would add little to the question of policy-based consensus. In other words, it does not necessarily follow from the example that you offer that a definitive outcome in terms of consensus necessarily follows.

While it is reasonable to expect any editor to follow consensus, I do not recall seeing Sandbh ignoring / disregarding a clearly-established consensus. Often the best way to determine what is a clearly-established consensus is to hold an RfC and have it closed by an uninvolved administrator. Sandbh is trying to set up such an RfC, which shows actions in line with policy and seeking consensus. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, my intention was the meta-question as I thought things were looking fairly clear at this point on the group 3 discussion. The reason I asked was because of the first discussion of this matter, in which his reaction to me pointing out that no one else was supporting his stand was "And your science-based point is?" (Should be noted that we were both not exactly being very polite there: the general tone degenerated slowly through archives 42, 44, 46, and 48 where that discussion lives; we've improved since then. Frankly it went rather in circles after a while and only archive 42 is really worth reading, I think.) To make it clear, I have replaced it with the general question: If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus? Hopefully this is better. Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarificiation, Double sharp. I am hoping we can get a resolution and closure here, so I'm glad you have struck and re-focussed your request to avoid the content issue that is best left to talk pages rather than ANI.

PS: Just noting I have moved my question to Sandbh down to the bottom and changed the indenting to match standard practices. EdChem (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: You're welcome. (For the record, I think I got that reaction in Archive 48 just because that discussion was rather messed up from the beginning by mixing of the source-based and scientific cases, so I don't think I'll get it again, but I just wanted to be sure since part of this whole thing was about the impression of policy being seen as an impediment to getting what's seen as "correct" into articles. We were all being rather uncivil there, but I think we've learned.) Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I would appreciate hearing your view of your repeated references to several editors (including me) having violated WP:ASPERSIONS and calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions throughout this thread in light of Levivich's comments. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you for the opportunity to address your remaining concerns.

1. Wow I'd forgotten that. Here it is again:

"On sources: Most of those focusing on the group 3 issue, and finding in favour of Sc-Y-Lu, are based on single arguments. This is unscientific. In contrast, Jensen (for example) commendably attempted a multi-argument approach. His work failed to gain traction since, as Scerri, mentioned, Jensen was too selective in his arguments (Scerri & Parsons 2018, p. 143; Scerri 2020, p. 394)."

Yes, IMO, arguing for the composition of group 3 based on a solitary scientific argument is unscientific, as in "not scientific". That's nothing unusual; there are thousands of articles in the literature with poorly designed approaches, claiming support for whatever.

In contrast, I regard Jensen's approach, unconvincing as it was, as being scientific in intent. As we've discussed, I draw on Jones (2010, p. 169) where he discusses the role of classification in science:

"In science, classification provides an economy of description, a tool for structuring knowledge and can also lead to deeper understanding…Classes are usually define by more than two attributes…"

Jones BW 2010, Pluto: Sentinel of the outer solar system, Oxford University Press, Oxford. p. 169

@Andrew Davidson: given you wrote, "This is naturally of great interest to chemists – an issue comparable with the IAU definition of planet which caused Pluto to lose its former status."

A related consideration is that the internal structure and external shape of a chemical periodic table is determined by chemical facts rather than considerations of regularity, beauty or symmetry (Cao et al. 2019, p. 26, passim). Here, the use of multiple considerations to triangulate a solution is consistent with the role of classification science, and Jones' premise. In other words, in the absence of a supposed categorical solution (as per Scerri) we are obliged to use quantitative or qualitative arguments to establish a solution.

Cao, C., Hu, H., Li, J., Schwarz, W.H.E.: Physical origin of chemical periodicities in the system of elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 91, 1969–1999 (2019)

Yes, I think my characterisation was appropriate for a WP talk page discussion.

2. It's not clear to me which unpublished sources you're referring to. Could you be more specific? If you're referring to my opinion on the group 3 issue, I base this on my recent peer-reviewed article in Foundations of Chemistry, and its 100+ citations.[125]

3. Per prior practice, I reserve the right to quote WP:IAR on talk pages and test the water. As noted, I cannot recall relying on IAR in the article space which, in any event, would be subject to BRD.

4. I agree with the lambasting retired editor User:Flying Jazz gave to WP:ELEM on making decisions within our small project that have a WP-wide impact namely on the appearance of the WP periodic table, and the article's 11.7 million+ views a year. Such a decision, IMO, should be subject to an RFC at the PT talk page. I further suggest an RFC in light of:

• the failure of the recent RFC (proposing Lu) on this very question;
• the IUPAC Group 3 project looking at this very issue; and
• the fact that the La form is still the most popular form in the literature, as R8R recently noted, and as acknowledged by Eric Scerri, the chair of the IUPAC Group 3 project.

I draw a distinction here between personal support expressed by colleagues at WP:ELEM for Lu, in contrast to support for rolling this out into the article space. In light of the above three bullets, the latter seems to me to be a horse of an entirely different colour i.e. personal preference (for one's own book or journal article e.g.) v encyclopaedic considerations.

@Double sharp: Re: "If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus?"

Yes, I would, as per a past example set by R8R. Sandbh (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

5. Yes, provided the explanations are consistent with WP:5P and the associated WP endorsed policy.
--- Sandbh (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you. I'm indeed very pleased with your answers to Q3, 4, and 5; although I am not totally in agreement with the need to go to a full-blown RFC for these issues, your suggestion is definitely in line with the idea of seeking consensus, so I have no worries on that front at all when it comes to behavioural issues.

Regarding Q2, what I was referring to was your statement there You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up.

As for Q1 and Q2 – I would prefer to have someone else like User:EdChem comment before I say more. My question is more or less about the general behaviour than about the specifics of this individual case, and I hope it may be treated as such here. Double sharp (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, it is true that there is much in the literature that is of questionable quality or value. There is even material that should never have made it past peer review. I ask that you consider, however, the use of the term "unscientific" when applied to an argument or a paper as opposed to in reference to a person. For example, I am a scientist. It is a core part of my identity. I tend to approach problems in rational and evidence-based ways, in line with both my education and the accepted methods of the communities of practice into which I have been accepted and whose cultures I have adopted. If someone calls me "unscientific," I am likely to feel insulted / offended as a result of an attack on who I am. In fact, I took up the issue when an academic colleague said that I "don't write like a scientist," even though the comment was made as a compliment. My colleague (from an Education Faculty) meant that my writing was of a quality that she found was atypical of a scientist – and I could see her point, some scientists can write in a dreadful way while still describing quality scientific work – but I still found her comment objectionable. I believe I write very much like a scientist – logical, ordered, evidence-based, etc – but as a literate scientist as I have skills with words and expressions that many scientists do not. So, rather than going over content arguments, can you see and respond to Double sharp's point that dismissing an argument as "unscientific" is unhelpful in the absence of RS that make that point, and that it is literature views of existing work rather than personal views that are the central consideration in deciding article-space content?

On question 2, I am interested if you can get any word from Scerri of a timeline for a decision from the working group. However, I think Double sharp is referring to your statements implying that you know more than everyone else, from which it is easy to infer that we should all just accept what you say. I hope you agree that deferring to anyone on the grounds of "insider" knowledge is neither appropriate for an encyclopaedia nor is it a reasonable basis on which WP can function. Would you provide a clear statement that what you know but can't disclose and which is not in RS is not relevant for determining what RS provides for inclusion with DUE weight and in an NPOV way in article space? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem:
Q1. To clarify, I've never said (in person or online) to a scientist that they or some of their work is unscientific (nor did you intimate this of me).

Some things are so obviously unscientific that they ought to be able to be referred to as such. Indeed, both Double sharp and I have said of sundry authors that "they most be wrong" or "are wrong" or words to that effect. I agree it is literature views of existing work that are the central consideration of deciding article-space content. That said, some discretion is warranted, given the phenomenon that "there is much in the literature that is of questionable quality or value," as you say. Indeed, by its very (so far) irreducible nature, chemistry itself calls for a lot of this:

"If one allows oneself to use a multiplicity of criteria, bonds may exist by one measure, not by another. This is not a reason to wring our hands, nor complain how unscientific chemistry is (or how obstinate chemists are). Chemistry has done more than well in creating a universe of structure and function on the molecular level with just this ‘‘imperfectly defined’’ concept of a chemical bond. Or maybe it has done so well precisely because the concept is flexible and fuzzy."

Alvarez, S., Hoffmann, R., Mealli, C.: A bonding quandary—or—a demonstration of the fact that scientists are not born with logic. Chem. Eur. J., 15(34), 8358–8373 (2009)

The title of this article is a cracker!

Q2. If you think Double sharp is referring to my statements implying I know more than everyone else, from which it is easy to infer that "you" should all just accept what I say, then I cannot help it that you and he chose to interpret or pay attention to my contributions in this way. Yes, I am old (experienced, not yet ossified). Yes, I talk to a lot of chemists and scientists. Yes, I have an academic publishing record, with more articles in progress.

What started me off on academic writing was being a member of WP:ELEM and recognising there were contributions to the literature that I could make, rather than complaining about whatever it was, at WP:ELEM. So I wrote to Scerri asking him if could do this in the absence of any science qualifications. He wrote back, encouraging me, noting there had been an appreciable number of non-scientists who had made significant contributions to chemistry.

Yes I expect I'd have spent about 10,000 hours on metalloids, and about the same on the group 3 question. So I suppose I know a bit about the elements. So what?

In any event, never mind how many citations I provide, no one takes any notice of what I say judging e.g. by the number of WP:ELEM members who support Lu in group 3. But that's life. I guessed earlier that of my numerous suggestions, ideas, and compromise solutions, < 5% of them ever get up. On ignoring my citations, this includes the citations I provided in my original statement above addressing DS Q1 i.e. Jones 2010; Cao et al. 2019.

My reputation must precede me if other editors take note of what I say I know but can't disclose.

I found your IGF request, "Would you provide a clear statement that what you know but can't disclose and which is not in RS is not relevant for determining what RS provides for inclusion with DUE weight and in an NPOV way in article space?" to be quite troubling. What I know but can't disclose nevertheless influences my thinking, and my discussions at WP:ELEM e.g. when I'm asked to express an opinion on something. We do this all the time at WP:ELEM i.e express opinions. Now, should I express my opinions, and hide what they are based on? Or should I disclose what my opinions are based on, in the interests of transparency?

I note DS' statement was, "A significant amount of your !vote there is still based on the case of unpublished sources" and no evidence has been provided for this statement. I said, "It's not clear to me which unpublished sources you're referring to. Could you be more specific? If you're referring to my opinion on the group 3 issue, I base this on my recent peer-reviewed article in Foundations of Chemistry, and its 100+ citations."

I'm still in the dark as to what evidence DS' statement was based on.

I regret having to revisit these matters the broader implications of which are repeatedly elaborated in terms of my conduct, not by me, and without any evidence in the form of diffs, which is the ANI standard. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BOOMERANG

@EdChem, Levivich, and Double sharp:

Thank you EdChem for your interest, concern, and laser-like focus on better relationships within WP:ELEM.

I take a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS. For example, I regarded this allegation by DS: "I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general" as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence. And I regarded what Double sharp wrote namely that I "show…zero interest in following policy" as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence.* All I said was that I have zero interest in WP policy. I never said I have zero interest in following policy. My primary interest is in building a better encyclopedia.

*I acknowledge Levivich was of the view that this one was accompanied by, "evidence, either inline or elsewhere in the same thread".

Note my use of past tense.

Anyway, given the way this "looking for a happy closure" sub-thread is going now, I've more or less forgotten about the multiple alleged aspersions, and I intend to forgive all those editors who I alleged made aspersions (i.e. those without e.g. diffs) against me. Sandbh (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, your stated intention "to forgive all those editors who I alleged made aspersions (i.e. those without e.g. diffs) against me" is somewhat less than I was hoping to read. You can "take a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS," but unfortunately that view is not the one presented at the page WP:ASPERSIONS nor is it the one that is applied at ANI. Levivich will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of Levivich's contribution is much more that there has been no contribution that is a clear violation of ASPERSIONS, and even though some comments were below the desirable level of incivility, there has been nothing from any of the editors against whom you have made claims that is even close to actionable. In other words, the allegations of ASPERSIONS violations and the calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were and are unfounded and unjustified based on the community-accepted meanings of those policies. I can accept that you believe that different definitions should be applied so long as you will abide by the definitions that are applied.

In most cases at ANI, I would let your comments slide and take your intention to forgive as a token gesture in the right direction. However, with this heading to a close with no action based on your undertaking to try to avoid future problems – and with one of those undertakings related to accepting policy as it is broadly interpreted – I would like to see a better response. I have tried to be fair to everyone at ELEM, offering apologies where I have made mistakes, and objecting to comments that I see as unfair from whoever they have come. I feel your behaviour towards me with regards to ASPERSIONS and BOOMERANGS has been unfair. I believe that describing Double sharp's comment as "accompanied by zero evidence" but adding a caveat that Levivich was of the view that there was evidence "either inline or elsewhere in the same thread" is unfair – it is reminiscent of comparing a group of editors to supporters of President Trump and then adding a parenthetical declaring no offense was intended. You have commented elsewhere about your own lack of incivility and I do not recall your using excessively harsh words or profanity of the like. I believe that the civility pillar extends further, however, and that it is possible to be superficially civil whilst also being offensive or rude. Describing an argument as unscientific, for example, when speaking with a scientist is making a criticism that reflects on the core identity of that person and may be taken as offensive in some circumstances. Similarly, if I was to say to you that "I am far too polite to call you an ***" where *** stands for some offensive term that I don't directly state, the implication would be that (a) I am saying you are a *** (whatever that might be), though in a way that gives me an out, and that (b) I am implying that I am superior to you in regards to politeness... and you would be justified in feeling offended.

In short, I believe that I deserved better, though I cannot force you to say or do anything that you choose not to say or do. I ask that you make a statement that acknowledges and agrees to adopt Levivich's explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward. I ask that you provide a clear statement that you allegations of ASPERSIONS were and are unsupported by policy and that your calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were unjustified. I can accept if you want to preface these statements with a personal view that ASPERSIONS should have a different meaning so long as you also undertake to accept the meaning that it does have for the Wikipedia community. I believe that editors of good will and with sufficient knowledge of science and of Wikipedia, such as exists at ELEM, can work together to produce excellent encyclopaedic content so long as they can work together. My "laser-like focus on better relationships" is very much meant to aid in the development of the encyclopaedia that we all value. I don't want to see you removed from that process, Sandbh, but I also know that the project is more important than any one editor. I hope that you can contribute your knowledge as part of a community of editors at ELEM. EdChem (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

---

EdChem, thank you for bringing your remaining concerns to my attention. Responses follow.

A. Aspersions: My reference to taking a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS is based on my reading of it as being simply put, e.g.:

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

If there is something I'm missing here, could you please let me know what it is?

In ANI 1 (Sandbh v DePiep), I listed and described what behaviours concerned me and included a timeline of events, and precise times, cross-referenced with w/links to the locations that these things happened. My report was closed as I did not provide diffs, thus:

"No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. Sandbh is reminded that a. he does not get to control who responds to an ANI thread, b. he is supposed to provide diffs, when he accuses another editor of disruption, c. when reporting another user, a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility. Salvio 12:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)"

I didn't provide "diffs" as that was my first ANI report. Subsequently I experienced physical and metal health issues arising from the stress associated with what was happening at ANI. In this light I asked for an extension of time to provide the diffs. My request was ignored. Subsequently ANI 2 was filed (R8R v DePeip).

Note that I was reminded that a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility.

That closure made quite an impression on me. I took it as the standard of evidence applied at WP:ANI i.e. the diffs.

Relevant here is the exaltation at WP:BOOMERANG for responders to "investigate fully." It seems unreasonable to expect a responder to investigate fully sans diffs (as I learnt at ANI #1, to my chagrin).

B. The analysis by Levivich: I read and appreciated Levivich's analysis as an attempt to calm things down. I note Levivich earlier supported a topic ban against me. In that context, I had some concerns about his status as an uninvolved editor. But I thought I'd let that go, (let it slide, as you put it) in light of what appeared to be his overall intent.

C. A token gesture: I feel your comment, "I would…take your intention to forgive as a token gesture in the right direction" is hurtful and unhelpful. A token gesture is, "an action or a decision that is so small or inconsequential as to be only symbolic". You know nothing about what the notion of forgiveness means to me. I referred to forgiveness IGF rather than as a token gesture.

D. Aspersion by DS
I regret the need to revisit this.

In the context I set out above following the Aspersions lead-in, and as noted, I regarded this allegation by DS…

"I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general" [italics added be me]

…as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence, let alone diffs.

E. POTUS: Re, "it is reminiscent of comparing a group of editors to supporters of President Trump and then adding a parenthetical declaring no offense was intended."

Here's what I said:

"I am calling out these behaviours since nothing else seems to work. I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. Essentially, I can only appeal to the middle ground, and hope there are enough "votes" to swing the balance. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)"

I compared the behaviours concerned (rather than the editors) to the scientific phenomenon of perceptual filtering, e.g. that of rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). The "no offence intended" caveat meant rusted-on Trump supporters are entitled to their views, just as the rusted-on supporters of any other political party are. I did not mean that the phenomenon of rusted on supporters was peculiar to supporters of President Trump. Here's an academic reference[126] to "rusted on" voters.

Of course, this was a less than civil comment by me since it referred to conduct rather than content.

F. Unscientific: Re, "Describing an argument as unscientific, for example, when speaking with a scientist is making a criticism that reflects on the core identity of that person and may be taken as offensive in some circumstances."

I understand the example; I don't understand its relevance to me. AFAICR I have never described an argument as unscientific when speaking with a scientist.

G. Profanities: I have no issue with the occasional use of a profanity. These days, I expect most people would't either. For example, in ANI 2, DePiep's statement, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R" was dismissed as nothing. Indeed, this study[127] found that' "inserting a mild profanity like "damn" into a speech increases the persuasivenss of the speech and listener's perception of the speaker's intensity." That said, I regard DePiep's comment as an obscenity rather than a mild profanity and, since nothing came if, an indication that the incivility bandwidth at WP:ANI is very wide.

H. My aspersion allegations re you: Here they are, much as I regret having to resurrect them. Note these are all quotations reproduced from earlier in this thread.

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

Sandbh: "EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my Principle 2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however."

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

Sandbh: "Per my Principle 2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS."

4c. EdChem: "…and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."

Sandbh: "Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS."

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

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

Sandbh: "I didn't start this WP:ANI report. Where is your specific, factual evidence countering my allegations of you breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, three time? You cannot get away with blithely saying, "My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page." Where are the diffs?"

As per Wikipedia:ANI advice, "Do gather all of the appropriate diffs".

J. Undertakings:

1. "I ask that you make a statement that acknowledges and agrees to adopt Levivich's explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward.

2. "I ask that you provide a clear statement that you allegations of ASPERSIONS were and are unsupported by policy and that your calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were unjustified.

3. "I can accept if you want to preface these statements with a personal view that ASPERSIONS should have a different meaning so long as you also undertake to accept the meaning that it does have for the Wikipedia community."

1. Given (a) Levivich's status as an involved editor; and (b) what WP:ASPERIONS actually and simply says, I have no intention, at this time, of agreeing to his explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward.

2. In light of what WP:ASPERSIONS actually and simply says I have no intention, at this time, of doing so.

3. I undertake to accept the meaning that WP:ASPERSIONS has for the Wikipedia community (which I presume is what is set out quite simply and concisely at WP:ASPERSIONS).

The above said, I appreciate Levivich's effort towards a happy outcome. I did not want to open another can of worms by analysing Levivich's analysis, in the context of what WP:ASPERSIONS plainly says, which is that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." As per the practice repeatedly applied at WP:ANI, and which was applied to me in ANI 1, evidence = diffs.

I hope you can appreciate the preceding context and the simple and plain nature of WP:ASPERSIONS. I've attempted to be polite; to stick to the facts; and to leave out the tone (historical quotations aside).
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, let me be crystal clear. I do not want to be "forgiven" by you having as I have not done anything wrong. No one but you thinks your interpretation holds water. EdChem (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, +1 to User:EdChem. And I am also disappointed by seeing another wall of text pop up here. Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If you agree that the comparison to Trump supporters was not a civil comment, then would you perhaps mind not quoting it over and over again even with that caveat? Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Yes, of course, unless another editor mentions it without providing the context. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp:: I too was unhappy to see another wall of text to pop up here, to which I responded. Sandbh (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Upon reflection, I apologise to you for my incivility. My intention is to forget my allegations of breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I said, "I had some concerns about his [Levich's] status as an uninvolved editor. But I thought I'd let that go, (let it slide, as you put it) in light of what appeared to be his overall intent." Would you be comfortable with now moving on from this topic? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC).

Sandbh, I am certainly comfortable to move on. I have called for this thread to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved administrator and hope that that will occur soon. EdChem (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished sources

@Double sharp: Good-oh. Thanks for that.

Yes, I made that comment, in response to your assessment of my opinion on the group 3 issue:

"Therefore I am not convinced by Sandbh's points. In general, I feel that they overestimate the significance of La-supporting sources and underestimate that of Lu-supporting sources, and I feel that in particular Scerri is being read selectively, and a definition of "unscientific" that is far broader than what scientists seem to use is being adopted, in order to do that. In fact, the way only parts of Scerri's articles are referred to, containing his argument that Jensen was being too selective and his admission that La is more common, but the other parts of the same articles where Scerri (and in one case Scerri with Parsons) supports Jensen's Lu stand for his own reasons are ignored, troubles me greatly. Because that means putting only part of Scerri's view under a paragraph headed "Scerri's view", and ignoring the part that is strongly in favour of Sc-Y-Lu that Sandbh is opposing. And hopefully I have kept this statement of disagreement content-based and not personal; if not, I can do some rewording. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)"

In response, I said:

"You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up.Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on.

We each expressed personal opinions. Mine were informed by a combination of what the literature says plus my correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists, plus my decades of working in large bureaucratic organisations akin to IUPAC. I've never worked at the IUPAC but I've read enough to form a view of what that must be like, including Scerri's published "heroic" criticism of the IUPAC;[128] the establish history of chemists ignoring IUPAC recommendations; the confusion over the status of the "IUPAC" table (Scerri talks about this in the video); and Jensen's classic rant:

"As scientists we should base our conclusions on a critical examination of the chemical and physical evidence and not on an appeal to authority or the arbitrary whims of committees and popularity polls. Above all, such demands should be tempered by the sobering recollection that IUPAC is the organization that brought us density in units of kg/m3, 4πF0 in the denominator of Coulomb’s law, and the finger-count labels 1–18 in the periodic table."[129]

Re Scerri and Parsons, Eric has since said that their argument did not work (Eric Scerri, pers. comm., 14 Feb 2020), as cited by me in my article in Foundations of Chemistry, as edited by Scerri.[130]

I didn't know what you're referring to with Scerri being supportive of Jensen's claims. Could you be more specific? As you know, Scerri has discounted Jensen's claims as being too selective.

Yes, Scerri supports Lu personally. If you've watched the YouTube video via the link I posted to WP:ELEM, you'll hear Scerri say there's a lot of disagreement within the IUPAC project. Please let's not forget the distinction between a personal view, and a view/role as a chair of an IUPAC project. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Except that the first part of what I say there still seems to not be addressed (see my Q1). You have watched the YouTube video – so you will also have heard Scerri say "I certainly will be arguing to IUPAC that they should adopt number two [Sc-Y-Lu]" there, and "the one I'm suggesting and other people on this committee have suggested is lutetium and lawrencium should be the official version". In other words, his personal support also carries over to his activities as chair of that IUPAC project. And you have also seen those two sources you mentioned (this is one, the other is Scerri's book The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance), so you will also have noticed that Scerri never formally mentioned any distinction between what his personal view was and what his view/role as the project chair was, which seems exactly consistent with what I just noticed he said. Neither did he specifically say that his view supporting Lu was personal and that his comment that he thought physical/chemical arguments couldn't decide it wasn't, yet you only mentioned the latter but not the former. And as I recall regarding Scerri and Parsons, you only mentioned that Scerri agreed that his second Madelung argument doesn't work, not his first "don't split the d block" argument; and indeed in that YouTube video he explicitly uses the "don't split the d block" argument again. (Incidentally, when I say Scerri supports Jensen's claims, I mean that he supports Jensen's conclusion that Sc-Y-Lu is to be preferred. Not that he supports everything about how Jensen gets to that conclusion.)

Therefore my worry remains that when you have a strong opinion on something, which is especially important here considering that you've just gotten a La-supporting article published, your use of sources may not be quite neutral. As shown in the above example I have concerns if your reading of the sources is focusing on what they actually say instead of "reading between the lines". And that, to me, is a problem because many of these sources are difficult for other users to access and if they are not used properly by those with access to them, a discussion may be skewed away from the more policy-compliant outcome. (Yes, I still agree with what you quote me as saying.) Moreover, I still don't see recognition from you that your correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists is not really an appropriate source to bring in when discussing content: it's simply not verifiable because it's not published, so there's no point in bringing it up on the talk page because it can't be used in the article anyway by policy.

I'll just note that I have made a strong attempt to be strictly source-based in my cases here, as can be seen in the discussion at WT:ELEM#The actual formal group 3 proposal where I am not referring to my personal opinion of the scientific correctness of the La form. (FWIW, that is very negative, but if I have done this right you should not be able to tell that I feel that from what I wrote there, because I stuck to the source-based case.) There are a number of PT issues where I think something is scientifically correct, but where I do not push it; and in one case I am even arguing for something I personally think is scientifically not ideal (blocks alone as categories without even showing which elements are metals and which are not), because I believe that that's where the source-based case goes. If I understand policy correctly, that is how behaviour in content discussion on WP should work. I may not always be living up to it 100%, but I'm trying. Double sharp (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Tx Double sharp. As I noted, Scerri wears two hats. One as a member of the Group 3 project, with his personal view; the other as the chair of the project. Presumably, there are many things he could choose to say or not say in a video, bearing in mind his discussion of the group 3 question was a "bonus", not the main topic. Yes, no doubt at least Jensen has suggested Lu. But what of Lavelle, and Restrepo who are on the committee, and have both published in support of La? And what about the former editor of Nature, Philip Ball, who has expressed a preference for a compromise solution, whatever that means? As I noted, Eric refers to considerable disagreement within the project

Yes, on the split d-block argument, I’ve addressed this in my open access article in FoC. On the Scerri-Parsons argument I addressed this in the same article in FoC.

On the use of my sources not being quite neutral, my article was peer reviewed three times, and accepted for publication by Scerri, after I accommodated the many peer review comments. As the editor of FoC, Eric read the article too.

On my correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists, should I conceal the basis for my opinions? I’m one editor with one opinion, no more no less. Even EdChem is interested in hearing from me if Scerri (a non-WP chemist) has an idea of when the group 3 project might deliver their report.

Re, "it's simply not verifiable because it's not published, so there's no point in bringing it up on the talk page because it can't be used in the article anyway by policy." I bring these things up on the talk page to illustrate, at least in part, the basis for my opinions, noting there is no prohibition on OR at a talk page. I decide on the point of bringing it to a talk page, noting it can’t be used in article by policy.

Re the discussion at WT:ELEM#The actual formal group 3 proposal, I set out the reasons for my opinion:

Oppose a change, at this time. 

Briefly:

1. the relevant IUPAC committee may or may not accept the report of the Group 3 project;
2. as such, there are no plans for the relevant IUPAC committee to draft a formal recommendation and seek input from the chemistry community;
3. Sc-Y-*-** is NOT due to be deprecated—that will be matter for discussion within IUPAC as a whole, since the periodic table appearing in The Red Book is simply that used within IUAPC rather being formal recommended by IUPAC for external use; and 4. IUPAC has never decided in favour of any form of table—I’ll expand on this later.

I note nobody else at WP:ELEM was influenced by my opinion. —- Sandbh (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Simple question: you say Scerri "wears two hats". I noted that in the two pieces by him you cited, Scerri never explicitly distinguishes between what he does as chair of the IUPAC project and what he is personally advocating. And I also noted that in that video Scerri explicitly says that on the IUPAC project he advocates his oft-expressed personal view in favour of Lu. So where exactly are you getting Scerri wearing two hats out of? Exactly how is this a valid use of sources? My concern that you do not stick to what the sources say when something of personal interest to you is at stake remains.

When you publish in the literature, you can very well write a paper promoting your own view. That is not at all the same as what we are supposed to do on WP, however. You mention the "basis" for your opinions – but in doing so you're perforce admitting that that your opinion is not based on published sources. That is all fine and well outside WP, but if you use that opinion to support or oppose a change on WP, then you are supporting that WP show something that is not based on published, reliable sources. And that is why I feel that if you go on like that, I have no choice but to reiterate support for topic-banning you because this kind of behaviour is not one of an editor that is helping to build Wikipedia in accordance with core policy, specifically WP:5P2. If you're willing to change that, then of course I will strike that support of mine. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you. Scerri mentioned his (surprising to me) two hats approach in another forum I'm a member of. I don't understand your question about valid use of sources since I haven't cited Scerri on this point, in the article space.

There are hundred of things I read, hear and think about, every day e.g. I understand our internal monologues run at about 1,300–1,500 words per minute. These things, the majority of which are unreliable, influence our opinions. I submit it's unreasonable to expect any editor, automaton-like, to base their opinions on a talk page purely on RS. No doubt that's why WP:OR says it doesn't apply to talk pages; free thinking is allowed. For example, as Scerri has opined, there is no categorical argument that can settle the group 3 question. That being so, some subjective discussion, weighing up, and judgement needs to be applied. My personal opinions in this matter carry no more weight than any other editor's opinions; indeed my personal opinions are frequently ignored. That's what happens in the "magnificent concept of [a] "contest of ideas," as WP:ELEM member R8R put it.

On WP:5P2, this says: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." I comply with this policy in the article space. I invite you to present evidence of my contributions in the article space that are in breach of WP:5P2.

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Simple. You are using that point in order to justify your !vote on a discussion that will determine article content. That's why I have a problem with it. Double sharp (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And now a word from Charles Dickens

This scarecrow of a thread has, over the course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two editors can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties to it without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with it. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when the thread should be closed, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of admins has come in and gone out.

EEng 04:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Call for Closure

I am saddened that this ANI thread has grown out of control. I have participated (likely with too many words) in the hope that a positive outcome might result. The most recent posts from Sandbh, including his outright rejection of the advice from Levivich and the clear suggestions from comments to Double sharp and elsewhere, suggest to me that he will continue to interpret policies and guidelines like OR, IAR, and ASPERSIONS in ways that he sees fit, and consequently I see little point in this thread continuing. I request an uninvolved administrator close this extended thread, imposing whatever restrictions and sanctions on any participant as are justified. I think it is desirable for this thread to end with as much time as possible before the heat death of the universe... on present trends, I fear this being only a matter of minutes. EdChem (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Close it? Someone needs to read it the Riot Act and disperse it. EEng 08:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:EdChem. Double sharp (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

On "outright rejection" I noted Levivich was an involved editor, and said I was willing to let that go, given Levivich's overall intent to seek a happy outcome. I intend to observe and uphold WP:OR, WP:IAR, and WP:ASPERSIONS, as they are written.

No evidence has been presented of any breach by me of WP:OR in the article space; of any breach by me of WP:IAR, or WP:ASPERSIONS.

I've lost track of the number of:

(a) apologies I've posted for my lapses of WP:CIVIL, which were minor compared to this post by User:DePiep, on Oct 10 [131], to a previous WP:ANI thread:

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

(b) commitments I've made to observe WP:CIVIL etc.

On 2 Nov I asked Double sharp[132], who filed this ANI on 24 Oct:

"Should we approach an uninvolved admin seeking their assessment and closure of this ANI?"

I rec'd no reply.

The thread subsequently continued for a further 12,700+ words (about 43% by me).

Sandbh (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: The problem is that how you read what they say is not at all how the general community understands them. As for OR, I have already expressed concerns with your use of sources (which to me seems bordering on OR and SYNTH) at Periodic table#Categories over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 51#Regarding the latest additions to Periodic table, and significant parts of it still apply; I just don't post them here because that's a content issue first of all and only becomes a behavioural issue when you don't take instruction. And there is already skewing of a content discussion by using unreliable sources to support one's view, and so far there still seems to be a clear intent to observe policies not according to general understanding, but according to your own understanding. I have noted this clearly several times here, and suggested you change this, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Well – I've had enough of going in circles when it keeps going back to you posting walls of text, resurrecting issues that have supposedly been closed, and taking every opportunity to quote something of DePiep that has already been agreed by the community not to be actionable. (I don't ping him because I doubt he wants to hear more about it.) Unless you're willing to admit that you might be wrong about what policy means when the rest of the community disagrees, and back it up with action rather than falling into the same pattern again, I support an indefinite TBAN of you from either PT- or chemistry-related topics. As without that, I have absolutely no confidence that we won't end up needing to be back here again for round 4.

Now that I've clearly expressed it in one, short post: I'll leave it to the closing admin, who will as EdChem said impose whatever restrictions and sanctions are justified. Double sharp (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Concluding statement by Sandbh
@Double sharp: Thank you for leaving it at that.

I'm disappointed to think that after nine years of working together at WP:ELEM, including exchanging several hundred+ citations in the course of our discussions, and collaborating on an IUPAC submission (which you have since disowned), you seek to topic ban me, indefinitely[!] at that. Essentially you do so on the basis that I sometimes pass on, at our WP:ELEM talk page, what I hear from non-WP chemists and scientists, via PM or in other forums. I do so as such, and IGF, rather than pretending these things are my own opinions, which I could do but choose not to on ethical grounds.

Your further allege that the unreliable sources I mention at the WP:ELEM talk page influence my editing in the article space, when you have presented nil evidence, and nil diffs.

My use of sources. I added content to our periodic table article (761 words, ten citations), after discussions with fellow WP:ELEM members indicated a preference to not add further notations to the lede PT image.

One's view. I prefer to express my views on talk pages on the basis of civil, honest, free-thinking discourse. As a lone editor, other editors can salute, shoot, or shun my opinions. I submit that it's impossible for any editor to discuss matters on a talk page based exclusively on RS since personal opinion, as informed by values, beliefs, and "rules", and whether based on RS or unreliable S, will always come into play. Even the choice of RS is subjective. Editors are not automatons. Please pause and consider for a moment. Why does WP:OR say it does not apply to talk pages?

Unreliable sources. You indicated a general interest in hearing from Eric Scerri on the status of the Group 3 project. I posted his e-mail advice to me, at WP:ELEM., as a (pers. comm.) and therefore unreliable source. While you "attack" me for my alleged inappropriate use of non-RS, you and EdChem each courteously thanked me for that post.

WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. I allege your support for an indefinite TBAN of me from either PT- or chemistry-related topics is unfounded and, in any event, much as it disappoints me to say so, comprehensively out of proportion with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

Harassment. I'm tired of having to check my notifications each day to read of the next recycled (context-deficient; misperceived; and generalised) allegation made against me, including those embedded in walls of unstructured text. This ANI has been running for 2 weeks and 2 days. I feel like it represents a form of harassment. (I ack Wikipedia:ANI advice describes ANI as a form of war). Seemingly I'm the source of all "evil" at WP:ELEM. In fact there are no such problems. Three RFCs are underdevelopment, which will progress matters currently under discussion. The "colouring the PT thread", is moving along. I’m tired of repeatedly apologising for every minor infraction of WP:CIVIL, when the WP:CIVIL bandwidth at WP:ANI is so wide, such that a hostile shouting obscenity of the kind DePeip posted at WP:ANI is tolerated.

I’m tired that my IGF efforts to occasionally connect WP talk pages to the opinions of real world non-WP chemists and scientists are interpreted as breaches of WP:OR, when WP:OR says it does not apply to talk pages.

With this ANI now running to some 32,500 words, I look forward to a WP:CIVIL return to editing exclusively in the non-ANI space. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis (again)

User:Deacon Vorbis seems to have been angered by my recent edits to Square root, which were attempting to implement the results of a recent RFC. I include below the back-and-forth on my talk page for a bit of context leading up to the extremely vulgar message at the end of the exchange. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Moved from User talk:Beland#Radicals (see history to verify diffs)

Please stop changing this. Just please. It doesn't need to be done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Improving_rendering_of_radical_symbol, where consensus of the RFC was judged to be in favor of adopting the MOS:RADICAL text which says <math>...</math> style markup is to be used instead of {{radic}} style markup "whenever technically possible to do so", which currently excludes image captions. I have updated the MOS, and it is now time to implement that style preference in articles. I've started doing that on square root and intend to do so on all other affected articles. I'm sorry that the markup style you favored did not attain consensus, but it is important to the operation of the encyclopedia project that all editors respect consensus, whether or not we agree with the outcome. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making these changes and leave them for someone who has a better handle on math layout issues. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please just stop. This doesn't need to be done at all. Find something actually productive. Please. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Your preferences were taken into account in the above-referenced discussion, and consensus was to change markup to the opposite preference. Simply repeating the preference that did not carry the day is not an argument to stop implementing the proposal that was adopted by consensus. This repeated begging is starting to become harassment. I'm happy to let you or another volunteer implement the proposal if you wish; I have plenty of things I'd rather be spending my time on. I'll be doing the implementation work myself until I see someone else start in on it. -- Beland (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Beland#... (see history to verify diffs)

You know what, do whatever the fuck you want, you fucking asshole. I fucking quit, and it's because of fucking assholes like you. I'm fucking tired of this shit. You don't know what the fuck you're doing, so you can take your goddamn bureaucratic MOS bullshit and shove it up your fucking ass. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Some of the reverts are discussed in open threads on Talk:Square root, but most of my changes have been accepted after fixed some style issues identified by Deacon Vorbis. It would have been more civil and productive, in my opinion, for them to simply fix those issues, but instead they seem to have been using those other problems as an excuse to revert my changes wholesale, sometimes reverting changes they didn't dispute. As noted in the long discussion of a previous complaint, Deacon Vorbis has a history of aggressive tactics, and has previously been blocked for a vulgar personal attack for which they refused to apologize.

Given this history, I feel Deacon Vorbis needs to improve their emotional maturity to the point where they can respect a group decision they disagree with, and interact in a productive and civil fashion with editors with whom they initially disagree. If they are willing to engage in some self-reflection, perhaps some sort of mentorship would be helpful. Failing that, something needs to be done to prevent this user from perpetuating a hostile editing environment and scaring away other volunteers from the project. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Deacon Vorbis has changed their user pages to declare that they have retired from Wikipedia. Perhaps that problem solved itself, assuming that decision sticks. -- Beland (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah maybe you should have noticed that before you opened this? Christ. --JBL (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Good work! You have forced some silly math markup into an article and driven off a productive editor. MOS:RADICAL explicitly says "...the {{radic}} method should be used in image captions" and the advice you were given (to leave math markup to others) was good. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly a much more civil and productive response. But the advice to leave math markup to others makes me a bit uncomfortable. We can't expect to recruit new editors to work on that sort of thing if we expect everyone who does so to have a perfect command of all of Wikipedia's quirks. Even math professors and people who are masters of LaTeX will have a learning curve and need some friendly corrections and pointers. If all the math editors are prickly at the slightest violation of some arcane standard, it seems likely the population will dwindle and quality will suffer. The community actually believes in this principle strongly enough that it's a behavior guideline — Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Deacon started editing Wikipedia twelve years after you. He did not "bite the newcomer". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm apparently considered enough of a newcomer to math markup on Wikipedia that I've been discouraged by both Deacon Vorbis and Johnuniq from using it or even trying to learn more about it. Which is a bit sad, given that unlike most editors I've been reading LaTeX-marked-up computer science and math documents for decades. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So ... you agree that your previous whine about "biting a newcomer" was complete bullshit, then, and you retract it and apologize for wasting time with this crap? --JBL (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a newcomer to Wikipedia; that would be silly when everyone can see that I'm not. I am worried that when actual newcomers to the site encounter behavior like Deacon Vorbis occasionally exhibited over the years they were here, the new folks will give up editing right away. I do think we need to use the same principles (to the degree they apply) with veteran editors, particularly when they move into an area of editing that is new to them. And I certainly felt like I was being treated as a newbie to math markup specifically (whether justified or not) while I was having my head bitten off. As a community, I think we actually need to spend a lot more time on efforts to improve civility and welcomingness, as our retention numbers are on the decline and our geographic, ethnicity, and gender demographics are heavily skewed, and that's why I have started raising behavior like this rather than just ignoring it. As for this particular complaint, the powers-that-be can feel free to close this thread; trying to avoid spending time on an already-resolved issue is why I posted that this problem seems to be solved as soon as I noticed that Deacon Vorbis had retired, though as I seldom participate in these discussions I was not sure if it was standard WP:AN/I practice to enforce that retirement for some period or issue an admonishment in such circumstances. When I read his message on my talk page, I thought he was quitting the radical markup dispute; it never occurred to me that a veteran editor who is so headstrong and stubborn would quit the whole project over such a trivial matter. Finally, JBL, In the future, if you would like serious answers to your questions, I ask that you please refrain from vulgarities and personal insults as you have used above and below. I welcome disagreement and personal criticism here, but that sort of incivility simply contributes to the toxic atmosphere we're trying to remedy. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in "serious answers to my questions", I am interested in you engaging in some self-reflection and (ideally) fixing the problems with your behavior. This dispute has driven exactly one productive editor away from WP, and you're the one who has done the driving. --JBL (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

OK...well, I very much tried to be civil and reasonable, and follow the established dispute resolution process on the site, and avoided responding in kind to what I perceived as Deacon Vorbis' attempts to bully me into doing what he wanted even though I (and later, a consensus of editors) disagreed that it was the right thing to do. I don't think future editors who have similar ideas for improvement should face the same hostility, even if I personally disagree with them. If someone else responds to the implementation of an RFC they opposed by having a temper tantrum and storming off, I kinda have to feel like that's on them. It violates the social norms expected of editors here, namely to remain civil, to respect consensus, and to work with people who have different perspectives to build on each others' contributions. As quoted above, after the RFC closed I tried to explain that to Deacon Vorbis in the politest way that I could, even throwing in an "I'm sorry" in the hopes it might heal hurt feelings. We can't abrogate the results of RFCs just because one editor is annoyed at the outcome; that would destroy the project's ability to make decisions and seriously reduce productivity. And I disagree that the work of only one editor was in the balance here. How many productive editors did Deacon Vorbis drive away from STEM articles or Wikipedia in general in their time here, and how many more would they have driven away had they not retired? -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that Deacon also dropped an f-bomb while removing Beland's ANI notice (see Deacon's talk page history). Will that result in any action even if he's retired or...? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Using the f-word is fucking allowed on this fucking site, and does not justify fucking sanctions. Though gratuitous usage is discouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The F-bomb should be reserved for necessary emphasis (from Punch). Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I don't think this should have been brought here. And I'll be very unhappy if we end up losing a good editor because of it. And in the grand scheme of things why should anyone really care about a few "fucks"? Paul August ☎ 17:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And your "problem solved" indicates clearly to me that you value "winning" over the good of the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fucks are fine but this isn't. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The "problem" I want to "solve" is editors creating a toxic atmosphere that makes it difficult to recruit and retain new volunteers. If I "lose" an RFC or a deletion discussion or whatever, I respect the outcome and I don't go around begging other editors not to implement the group's decision. It would have been a much better "win" for Wikipedia if Deacon Vorbis had been able to emotionally cope with being on the "losing" side of the RFC, had learned how to work more productively with other editors rather than telling them to fuck off, and had stuck around to continue making useful contributions, even if that means we are sometimes on opposite sides of questions like this one. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not a newcomer, you are a longstanding editor and also, apparently, an officious git. It would have been a better "win" for you to drop the stick instead of repeatedly pushing. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: Yes, we all want to solve the problem of "editors creating a toxic atmosphere that makes it difficult to recruit and retain new volunteers". But goading DV into a rage and causing him to leave does not solve that problem, or even begin to. The only problem that your "problem solved" could be referring to as being solved—apparently to your satisfaction—is the "problem" of the continued presence of DV here, and thereby your "winning" this ANI. Paul August ☎ 14:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, do you have any evidence to back up your accusation of goading? Admins should choose their words carefully, especially when commenting on a noticeboard discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, why didn't you simply listen when you were told "This doesn't need to be done at all.", even adding a "Please."?? - I'd tell you the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Because we had just gone through an RFC, and consensus was that this markup should be changed. One editor doesn't get to veto a consensus style decision after everyone has already listened to their concerns and didn't agree with them. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I have no time to dig into math mark-up, but see a difference between "should be changed" and "needs to be changed". - We just had a discussion to delete a certain template. Does it need to be changed? No. - A user threatened to leave Wikipedia if it's removed. So I don't remove it - in articles they created. I cherish editor retention, more than mark-up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

      Yes, this, 1000 times. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

      • Sorry, but no. We have all had to swallow a consensus here that goes against us. To suggest that we should ignore it because one editor threatens to leave is a terrible idea and goes against the whole consensus approach. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate to have lost a productive editor in DV. At the same time, Beland was not unjustified in their markup edits (the RfC was closed as there is consensus that using <math>...</math> tags to render expressions containing radicals is superior to the old {{radic}} option by L235) and the labeling of another editor as a fucking asshole is never appropriate. An unpleasant situation and net loss all around. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  +1, my thoughts exactly. FWIW I'm on Windows using Chrome, which is the most popular configuration out there, and I don't see a gap between the lines when radic is used, and I think the math markup is much uglier, more difficult to read, and not searchable. Nevertheless, there was an RFC about this, which had a result, and while I personally think it was the wrong result, I think Beland was properly implementing that result (and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that unless I missed it?).

  I also think DV was taking this math dispute much too seriously. These are stressful times and there's a lot of that going around. DV's retirement is a loss to the project, and I hope it's temporary, and that they don't take these markup disputes so seriously when they return. The "fucking assholes like you" comment was out of line, and neither Beland nor any other editor should have to put up with being on the receiving end of a message like that (particularly not for properly implementing an RFC result, assuming that is not in dispute). At the same time, the "fuck-off-I-quit goodbye message" is so common, for understandable reasons (we're all human), and so we always let that kind of venting slide, and we should let is slide here, too.

  I don't fault Beland for failing to notice DV's retirement template before posting this, as the two events happened only an hour apart. I do wonder, though, whether there's any point to this thread remaining open at this time. Lev!vich 03:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  I also think DV was taking this math dispute much too seriously. This is also true. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MarkH21 and Levivich: there was a consensus for the change, Beland was justified in making the changes, calling someone a “fucking asshole” is never appropriate, and DV was obviously taking this dispute too seriously. *But* that doesn’t mean that Beland shouldn’t have handled the dispute very differently. He didn’t have to insist so vigoursly. He could have temporized, he could have even just paused. He certainly didn’t need to bring this dispute—over what amounts to, in the grand scheme of things, a trivial math formatting issue and an the overreaction of a clearly stressed and extremely productive editor—to ANI. Paul August ☎ 15:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So where do you go if someone calls you a fucking arsehole if not ANI? AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere. ANI is for chronic and urgent problems. Is it a "chronic" or "urgent" problem that someone called someone a fucking asshole, once, right before retiring? I have a hard time thinking of problems less urgent (granted, "math markup using wrong symbols" makes the list). While it's a transgression, not every transgression requires a response. I don't think "fuck off drama quits" require a response, generally speaking. Lev!vich 22:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Does there always have to be a place to go? Paul August ☎ 22:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have taken this here if I had known it was I-quit-Wikipedia drama, and this certainly wasn't a one-time offense. What about cases where the editor in question is not leaving the site? Is there a better forum for raising problems of civility? -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest a diary or perhaps a feelings journal? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: You are correct, this was not a one time offense. But I wouldn't characterize it as chronic either, and ANI should be something of a last resort. If you think the incivility is so bad that it can't be ignored (sticks and stones? turn the other cheek?), and needs to be addressed, then the first resort ought to be with the editor in question: nonconfrontationally, without animus, and with goodwill, patience and understanding. This will mean setting aside personal slights, eliminating any desire to "get back", and considering only what's best for the encyclopedia. Granted this may not always be easy but—if done sincerely and well—it can often work. Paul August ☎ 12:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If I had an editor hurling obscenities at me, my first step would not be to address it with them one-on-one. I might simply choose to ignore the situation, but I am absolutely not going to try to talk things out with someone who clearly isn't willing to have a civil conversation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Well, while ignoring will often be the best thing, an outburst like this does not necessarily mean that the editor won't be willing (perhaps when they cooled down) to discuss things more civilly. Especially if they are approached in the right way. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's really not up to the person on the receiving end of fuck you to approach the person giving the fuck you "in the right way". To put the burden on the recipient to handle it correctly is a form of victim-blaming. I disagree that people who are being verbally abused should first try to work things out on the abuser's talk page. We should never require, or even encourage, that. I think "ignore" would have been a better choice than "ANI" in this particular case, but "ANI" is still a justified choice. "Discuss on their talk page first" is a good choice for many situations, but it's not a justifiable expectation for responding to personal attacks. Lev!vich 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well said. The responses of several editors in this thread have been nothing but bizarre. We have at least one admin levelling accusations of 'civil trouble-making' on the OP's part without providing any evidence of misconduct. And we have the spurious, evidence-free assertion that Beland is somehow responsible for DV's retirement. No, if Deacon Vorbis cannot cope with the results of the RfC and chooses to leave, that's a Deacon Vorbis problem. Blaming the OP is laughable and ridiculous. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You're a fucking arsehole is not borderline incivility but a blatant personal attack. And it is not an isolated incident. Sure it could be ignored, maybe should have due to the retirement (although I have been around long enough to take a retired banner with a grain of salt), but there is certainly a case for bringing it here. It doesn't deserve the response it received from some editors that should know better and the patronising comment from Dumuzid is most definitely out of line. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate habit at ANI of focusing on bad words and ignoring the underlying cause. In this case, Beland was single-handedly (no support that I can see) trying to introduce truly ghastly markup into Square root based on a misreading of MOS:RADICAL. Like many civil trouble-makers, Beland pushed the issue and DV blew up. Now we are asked to piously assess the appropriate punishment for the bad words without any concern about the issue. It sucks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You realize Beland linked to the RfC that was held about this? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Improving_rendering_of_radical_symbol. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying that Beland's actions are not supported by the recent RfC linked at the beginning of this thread? I'm a little confused by the details, but I trust that you aren't accusing Beland of being a trouble-maker simply for carrying out the results of an RfC. What am I missing here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am rather confused and concerned by this comment as well. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still open to sanctions on Deacon Vorbis, since it's unclear he understands how bad his behavior was. I noticed that he has retired several times before during ANI threads, very likely in order to evade sanctions, so by this point it does look a lot like a ploy and it's unlikely he's sincere about retiring. Deacon Vorbis engaged in egregious use of offensive and intimidating language in order to prevent the implementation of an RfC consensus, and since he hasn't apologized for this extremely disruptive and uncollegial behavior, it's likely to be repeated unless preventative sanctions are introduced. Krow750 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Update: Deacon Vorbis posted a message on his talk page saying that he would be taking an indefinite break from editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive reverting edits by Alexandermcnabb

It all started when I want to make minor changes, slight minor edits that may not require sourcing, but it means the same thing, just rephrasing the sentence. According to Abu Dhabi, on the climate section, I tried modifying the sentence changing it from The months of June through September are generally extremely hot and humid with maximum temperatures averaging above 41 °C (106 °F) to The summer months, June to September are generally extremely hot and humid with maximum temperatures averaging above 40 °C (104 °F). This user, Alexandermcnabb; just keeps reverting my edits and keeps disagreeing and thinks that "I am adding incorrect information" which I am not. He is telling me that I am adding wrong information by me which is not true, since I was just changing Over 41 °C to Over 40 °C, and he made it a huge deal. He ended up arguing with me the whole time telling me that all of my information is wrong, and I just ONLY changed and rephrased the sentence a little bit. Then I added a reference sources, and still he keeps reverting my edits, Again thinking that I am providing false information. If I changed for exampleOver 41 °C to Over 38 °C, then he is right, but he is literally arguing on just 1 °C. He drove me mentally sick, I got frustrated at him as I was planning to block him. Or at least warn him. I know Wikipedia rules. I am not disrupting it in any way, and besides, I was born and raised in Abu Dhabi. I don't know about [User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]], but I have been living in the UAE for 24 years (25 in June 2021). Ramy5077 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ramy5077 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"I am not disrupting it in any way" is, quite simply, untrue. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: this was a pretty serious overreaction. There were already two admins trying to work through this problem with the user on their talk page, and while they have a legitimate complaint about the other user's behaviour we were working towards resolution. They probably shouldn't have posted here, but your knee-jerk block certainly hasn't helped as they've now ragequit. I'm going to take a look at the content they were trying to work on and the other users' conduct, but please try to understand situations before you rush to block well-meaning contributors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

They were trying to repeatedly spam this site repeatedly as an account and an IP. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thanks. The block was not in response to the ANI report, the block was in response to threats reported at WP:AIV (Special:Permalink/987065418). I saw the ANI report having being created, but it just proved the point instead of making me hesitate. I'm also skeptical about the sudden change of mind to have allegedly happened within minutes after the block, but do not object to you (or anyone else) unblocking the user if you consider that to be beneficial to the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"and while they have a legitimate complaint about the other user's behaviour" - how so Ivanvector? Constant, silly and incorrect changes made by an IP to an article were reverted, with edit summaries. That user became not only bellicose (I remained civil, BTW) but eventually threatening. I edit under my own name and the guy apparently lives just over an hour down the road from me. I am deeply grateful to Praxidicae and ~ ToBeFree for their action. And if you take a minute to glance at the [133] edit summaries on the article, the language used by the IP was actually part of a worrying pattern. I'd be concerned, BTW, at a fast unblock. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer Clearly not getting an answer to the above, so there's no reason not to close this, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Link corrections by User:0blcsp

0blcsp (talk · contribs) has been making edits recently that include what he calls in the edit summary "link corrections". What he means is replacing [[target|something else that redirects to that target]] by [[something else that redirects to that target]], like the example I posted on their talkpage: [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] to [[Russian SFSR]]. Am I correct that this should not be done? Debresser (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that they're simplifying code via the source editor? It seems like they're reducing the article's byte size from edits generated by the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Without looking into those edits in detail, the relevant guideline is WP:NOTBROKEN. As a DABfixer, I see many links which could be "improved". I mostly ignore them, both because (a) if it works, don't fix it, and (b) life's too short. I try only to change otherwise-good links if the replacement would be more intuitive and therefore more helpful to readers. I would never alter something like [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] or [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|RSFSR]] - the mouseover might save a click for any reader who knows the longer name. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert This is more than WP:NOTBROKE, the complete target is actually useful, as you write too. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: That is well possible. Do you mean to say that Wikipedia:VisualEditor is doing this on its own? That seems like something that should not happen. I'll alert them to this post. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, VisualEditor, from what I heard, adds some extraneous data to elements like tables; it's not perfectly optimised (and technically is still a "beta" feature). What could have happened is that an editor may have used the VisualEditor to create a link (e.g., Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) before changing the link text to "Russian SFSR". To my knowledge, that would generate [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]]. Unless the redirect Russian SFSR doesn't target the original link, I find it to be a harmless change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

0blcsp continues with these disruptive edits.[134][135] He is unresponsive on his talkpage. I propose a block till such time as he acknowledges that he should not make such edits. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User ignoring requests to source their edits

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

Despite several warnings and a personal plea, EvanTheMusicMan continues to add unsourced information to articles as can be seen in these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. It should be noted that the examples I've listed were all made after my personal request and final warning. They also refuse to communicate on their talk page with concerned editors such as myself when raising these issues. I understand the user is new but perhaps they are in need of some administrative reinforcement of certain policies such as WP:V and the importance of communication on this project because warnings and pleading is not working. Robvanvee 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of this could be construed to be implicitly cited to primary sources, like liner notes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@ NinjaRobotPirate, some of it? How does one tell if it is or is not and at what point does this start to violate V? The editor is familiar with adding citations from liner notes and websites so why not in these cases? Just a hover over their contributions shows tens if not hundreds of unsourced edits that could or could not be attributed to liner notes but this editor neither sources their edits (in most cases), uses edit summaries, responds to concerns on their talk page and they appear to be doing exactly what you described below as "Editor seems to be ignoring this complaint". Could you explain how this is different? Robvanvee 12:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete disregard for warnings

Aj Matillano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This problematic editor has received at least 7 warnings as well as 2 previous blocks for this very issue: the repeated addition of unsourced genres. Since Materialscientist's last warning and block they continue with these disruptive edits as can be seen in these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On top of that, they have yet to make any attempt to discuss these issues with concerned editors on their talk page. Please could an admin take a look at this as it seems the 2 blocks have not had the desired effect. Robvanvee 16:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor seems to be ignoring this complaint. Blocked indefinitely with a note that all Aj really has to do is make an unblock request that promises to cite sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help NinjaRobotPirate. Robvanvee 11:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor adding "inside information"

• Toadforthe7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Toadforthe7 keeps changing the date of birth/birth place of Paddy McNally (which is sourced) using edit summaries like "Reverted to original edit, based on inside knowledge." and "Have you even heard the man speak?". There are several warnings on their TP about making changes without providing WP:RS but the editor will not engage in discussion. MB 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of their 86 edits but so far I have not found a single one where the information they added was supported by any kind of citation. They've been warned enough; blocked for 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: immediately after their block they returned to make the same edits. In addition to the unreferenced nationality chanhge they are using references such as the Telegraph to claim Paddy McNally owns a building (it actually says it's owned by a property development company, and says McNally is overseeing a restoration project) and the Daily Express (tabloid newspaper), and it doesn't say anything about his age or date of birth (other than the phrase Some 20 years older than I, and "some" in that context cannot be seen as an exact figure). I think the edit summary including "As a close relative and friend of McNally, I declare you idiots" suggest they don't intend to play nicely. FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is going in the next revision of the textbook on how to very quickly get yourself indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Shane Frederick reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

Account is only used for disruptive editing. [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] This is despite several warnings on his talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, shouldn't this be placed on WP:AIV? I see no reason why it can't be there. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I did go over there, but they said it wasn't vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I see the point the admin is making. We can deal with it here. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 05:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• any admin going to raise? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• This user continues to make disruptive edits despite being warned. No response on their talk page. User mainly goes down articles and changes the text on wiki links resulting in sentences that don't make any sense or are incorrect. Limmidy (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've blocked them, and will try to explain why redirect links should not be bypassed. It appears there is a significant cleanup effort required here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, 60 hours? He'll do the same thing once the block runs out. I think an indef block is in order. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Mvcg66b3r: yes, 60 hours. WP:AGF is still policy, yes? It looks to me like these are good-faith contributions by a new user who doesn't quite understand how linking works, and is also confounded by the visual editor. I gave them some advice. If they continue breaking things after this block expires then I'll reconsider. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Overtly racist comment by IP 98.228.253.244

I'd like to report an overtly racist comment by IP 98.228.253.244 at Talk:The_Culture_of_Critique_series. I took it upon myself to remove the comment. Here's the diff: [[141]] Thanks y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, hello, thank you for reporting this. However, this case does not need administrator action, just place a warning using {{uw-npa1}}. If you would like to request oversight, you can. However, I doubt that it will as I do not think it meets the policy for suppression. Thanks! (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, please do not take HeartGlow30797's advice here, you did the right thing by reporting this. There is no need at all to warn editors not to post racist slurs on this website, that's a thing you're expected to know, and we're not here to coddle racists. The IP has been blocked for six months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly related further reading: WP:NORACISTS. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jewish" isn't a slur... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"slur: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo". The comment is clearly an antisemitic slur. And maybe re-evaluate the life choices that led you to provide inane pedantry in defense of racist trolling! --JBL (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In any case the IP is now blocked for 6 months by AmandaNP, and was warned a few times, and edits reverted. Perhaps 6 months is longer than required, but no more action is required from this report. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons admin needed

It looks like we had a serial election maps hoaxer active earlier this year, User:The Empire of History. See this revision of their talk page for some of what got caught earlier. Basically, their M.O. is to create hoax maps of election articles, showing incorrect results (note, the site they seem to be making these on, US Election Atlas, does use nonstandard red/blue alignment for the US major political parties, so it's not just a color inversion thing). Rather, these results are fabricated. For instance, compare File:Georgia 2016, U.S. Election Atlas.png to the correct File:Georgia Presidential Election Results 2016.svg. I've been prodding these as I've found them, but some, including the Georgia one mentioned above, have apparently found their way onto Commons. Obviously, these need deleted ASAP as hoaxes, but it's fairly late where I am, and I don't have the alertness to go through the whole Commons deletion request bit for the Commons one, as I'm not particularly familiar with the Common setup. It's possible some of these are correct, so they'll all need checking, but every single one of the ones I've looked at so far is so error-ridden that it's either a hoax, made up by the user, or just poorly done. I can't stay up all night cleaning this up, so hopefully someone else can take a look, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The place to report this is Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I have batch nominated the images on commons (almost 450!) for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_The_Empire_of_History (scroll down to the second nomination). I did not conduct an exhaustive search, but given my experience with this particular editor (creating fictional/alt-history election maps), I have little faith that any are worth keeping. I have also blocked The Empire of History as NOTHERE since they've apparently continued playing their history games in their sandbox since I last deleted it...you can't tell from xtools, but they have made 3600 edits, and over half of those are in the deleted sandbox history. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that appears to have caught most of them. I've been hunting down the last few survivors. They were quite ... prolific ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe want to speedy or bulk-XFD the ones here instead of PROD? That will get it done either "faster" or "with centralized record", so we can remember to revisit in a few days and check if any got missed. Same goes for after the suite of commons files get deleted. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed on the talk page of the trade war article

• China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In relation to thhe exchanges here and here, I am filing this request to ask for administrative intervention in relation to the relevant debates on the talk page of the China-United States trade war article (subsections 17, 19-22) which unfortunately has yet to happen. An involved editor has opened an RFC and I have raised the objection (on multiple occassions) that that should happen (if at all) only after an administrator has went through and made remarks on the aforementioned debates so that the RFC issue can be resolved in a manner that satisfies all the involved parties. Flaughtin (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. After being warned previously about battleground behavior, User:Flaughtin is now trying to derail an RFC originally started by User:Chess and then by me, first by removing the section [142][143] and then by asking other editors not to comment[144]. For context, see two previous ANI discussions: 1 2. In both discussions, sanctions on Flaughtin were proposed, but the discussions were archived before anything was done.

I would really appreciate help resolving this dispute. It feels like every attempt to find resolution gets derailed by Flaughtin's disruptive behavior. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that I'm trying to derail an RFC is nonsensical. I never said I'm against having an RFC. What I am against is your RFCs which I removed because they were fundamentally malformed. (it should be pointed out that I have let your latest malformed RFC stand in the interest of desisting from any further edit warring) What I am saying is that if we are going to have an RFC then it has to be done correctly. You just don't like what I am doing because you just want to cut the corners. I mean I really hate to be uncivil but for fuck's sake the guy asked you what your RFC would be about and you just went ahead and initiated it without his prior input; the least you could have done is waited for him to respond before starting your RFC. It's a pretty simple request I'm making and one that already has external support: given the complexity of the issues, an administrator should look at what's going on, and if there is consensus over how how the RFC issues should be dealt with, then that will be the basis of further action. Nothing extreme about it unless of course you are in a rush to ram through material that a plurality of editors on the talk page have already extensively objected to. Flaughtin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Those discussions look to be a mess. I think the chances of getting an editor to wade through them all and determine if there is consensus is probably slim. It would likely be better to use an RfC to get wider input to try and seek consensus without such a messy discussion. Of course it would be better if all of you could at least come to some consensus on a reasonable RfC before hand. If you already have 6 options and evidently need more that doesn't seem particularly reasonable. Is it really that hard for you all to compromise and discuss things so you can agree on something that doesn't require more than 6 options? Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• You keep asking for an admin to intervene to settle a content dispute. But that's not what admins are for. That's what RFCs are for. If other editors are attempting to settle the issue and you keep deleting the RFC, undermining it, and attacking other editors, then the only likely admin action is going to be removing you from the topic so that the editors who are actually interested in discussing the issue can settle it without your disruption. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"That's what RFCs are for." I am aware of that which is why I said at the outset that I'm not against having an RFC. I'm not undermining the RFC, I'm correcting for its defects. (Administrators are welcomed to correct me if I've misunderstood what the defects are) Did you even read what I wrote? Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with you that admin intervention is needed here. It will probably end with you being topic-banned from this area. You cannot have several different options in an RfC. The guidance for RfCs at WP:RFCBRIEF explicitly gives as an example an RfC question with six different options. The RfC with your additional options added has six different versions. At a certain point you need to coalesce the issues here into a succint set of questions. That is what I tried to do and that's what Mx. Granger is also currently trying to do. It is true that the options won't be able to encompass all the possible viewpoints and some possibilities won't be included. But that's what needs to happen in order to achieve consensus. We need to compromise in order to get stuff done here and that involves making difficult decisions and cutting down the number of options to make an effective RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've given my explanation for my inclusion of the other options here. That is the lowest number of options for the RFC due to the length of the related exchanges and the malformed nature of the initial RFC. Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest an admin reviews Flaughtin's's behavior which in my view possibly has had the effect of disrupting attempts to gain consensus, especially after winning an edit war. Behavior includes use of excessive bludgeoning of discussions. Very serious is removal of others contributions from talk pages and unilateral ending of two good faith RFCs which resulted in disruption of good faith attempts to resolve the dispute, the second one of which [145] I choose to re-instate [146]. Flaughtin's additions of three additional versions to the RFC has been commented above as excessive and unhelplful; though a "None of above" may have merit. There seems possibilities Flaughtin will continue to disrupt moves to consensus and possibly goad another editor into getting blocked. It is surely necessary to show such behaviors will be challenged by admins, and perhaps a case for asking Arbom committee candidates about their views on how to handle. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that I'm disrupting consensus is nonsensical when the consensus was (and still is) for a version of a text tat I preferred, and particularly so when the offending editor who did disrupt the consensus (see this) has had an established history of edit warring. (See this and this) As I've stated on the archived ANI I will going forward self-correct if administrators have determined that I was in the wrong when I removed the initial RFC - adminis and non-admins will note that I haven't removed your reinstatement of the RFC. Please do not make such comments again on things you are unsure of (or just know nothing about). Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Flaughtin‎: Given you've raised this ANI and given my comment above it is not wrong though probably not best practice to "de-clutter" your talk page [147] at this time as peoples may think there are things you do not want them to see. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My page, my rights. I have nothing to hide so when you say that there are things I may not want people to see it doesn't apply to me. If there's something somebody wants clarification for, they are welcomed to ask. Flaughtin (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Targeting Kamarupa and Varman dynasty; possible WP:BE by dynamic IP editor - requesting semi-protection

Both the articles Kamarupa and Varman dynasty has been targeted by a dynamic IP editor. Kamarupa: [148], [149]; Varman dynasty: [150], [151]. The aim seems to be to "brand" these articles. The single purpose focus, behavior, mannerism and editing style are similar to those of a series of socks that were identified and blocked: PerfectingNEI (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) etc. Since this user is now using dynamic IP as username, I am requesting semi-protection for these two article for a period of time. Chaipau (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This is false accusation. Addition of reliable content isn't a target of any page. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit and add reliable content. I added a genuine points from two highly reliable references Kamarupa#cite_note-16 and Kamarupa#cite_note-17 accepted by majority scholars with correct conjectures but This person was trying to WP:OWN the page and he was edit warring with very problematic tag of WP:UNDUE. After seeing history of this editor, I came to know that edit warring is very common to the editor Special:Contributions/Chaipau. I searched meaning of WP:UNDUE and i found that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." but this person is against some point of views even from highly reliable sources like Peer-reviewed EPW journal and publisher Walter de Gruyter . According to wikipedia definition of WP:NPOV, This person's edits are actually not neutral. 2409:4065:D91:6E63:48A1:B249:F3FC:FFE8 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not reporting a content dispute but reporting a persistently WP:DE behavior that includes WP:BE.

• After the socks mentioned above were banned, the disruptive editing via IP address began ([152], [153], [154] etc.) A range block was discussed and MelanieN discovered protection was the best solution [155].
• This user then thought he discovered my identity and created a user account to mimic my username Amitakhya Phukan Chaipau (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and attempted to leave salacious edit summaries in different pages. The account was blocked and the edit summaries removed by JzG (Special:Contributions/Amitakhya_Phukan_Chaipau)

Given that this user utilizes a range of dynamic IPs, persistently edits disruptively and evades blocks, the only productive remedy seems to be disengagement on content and protection of the page.

Chaipau (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Since i'm not regular editor and Wikipedia allows IP editors to add reliable content, So, I didn't create an account. This editor is trying to dictate wikipedia principles. Protection is required if IP editors vandalise the page but When IP editors improve the page then IP editors are invited to create an account and contribute more. This editor seems to be unaware of goals of wikipedia.

This editor himself/herself involves in edit warring and disruptive editing. This editor seems to have behavioural problem with all editors in Bengali–Assamese_script , Chutia_Kingdom etc.

And also this editor seems to have natural habit of accusing all editors and victimising himself/herself to gain sympathy to hide his/her edit warring and disruptive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D91:6E63:807D:8F65:ECE1:E088 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2409:4065:D91:6E63:807D:8F65:ECE1:E088 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This user is continuously edit warring.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamarupa&diff=987815767&oldid=987504016 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varman_dynasty&diff=987815831&oldid=987495694 2409:4065:A:9771:5984:4850:2CE5:27A2 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour in Dimasa_Kingdom , Varman_dynasty and Kamarupa by Chaipau. 2409:4065:A:9771:5984:4850:2CE5:27A2 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP range should engage in discussion before adding new content in those articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like WP:CANVASS. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fylindfotberserk&diff=987972834&oldid=987959940 2409:4065:E01:C0CD:FCB0:670:B8FB:29D0 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The three articles—Kamarupa, Varman dynasty and Dimasa Kingdom—have been semi-protected. Requesting closure of this discussion. Chaipau (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Bangalore A Division

This is a seriously bad close, it was only started three days again and wasn't open the full seven days. Can someone have a word with User:TheAafi. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no way the article can exist given that it's sourced only to a blog, so even though the full seven days weren't used, I think draftifying it would be where it would end up anyway. Having said that, @TheAafi:, non-admins should not be closing AfDs out of process. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

TheAafi already had to revert one previous close he did, seems to me lessons are not being learned. As for the article, I really don't see a point of it ending up in draft space, it will probably just die there! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've reverted the close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• This isnt the first time the user in question has closed an AfD early; and also as a possible SNOW; again unwarranted in this situation. The AfD in question needed further input from administrators when he NAC was made. I think some sort of intervention may be needed to prevent the early closures. (edit conflict) Nightfury 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mirhasanov

Dear Admins. It appears to me that Mirhasanov who is very active on the talkpage Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, commenting virtually under every topic, is not here to help to build the encyclopedia, but to create an alternative view of the history of the subject and to advance the official views of Azerbaijani government. He tries to create illusion that no changes to article could me made without (his) consensus. He claims his aim is to make the article "less biased" and "clean it from pro-Armenian propaganda", although it feels the contrary. He constantly bothers an involved administrator asking for solidarity. Unsurprisingly, he denies the Armenian Genocide in the same talkpage, saying The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed. - a standard denial trick. Here is a list of his contributions, I can see there were issues with behaviour before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mirhasanov&offset=&limit=500&target=Mirhasanov

Even your complain content is your own opinion and you can't back up with facts about me disturbing or doing any revert war. Silence is an answer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum%27s_edits_-_removing_Putin%27s_reference_to_Sumgait - Where my purposal also accepted by admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#IAGS_open_letter - Where I refer IAGS official letter that I have but you refer to Armenian site to include the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Genocide_Watch - Were I insist the site is not reliable. Site already proved what I said, by deleting all relevant content from the site published previously. genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh - the content was deleted.

I am doing research here and try to reach consensus first to avoid any one sided content to be published. An all my activities are clear demonstration of it. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are just some of the Mirhasanov's edits that are worth of administrative attention, but as I said earlier, the whole behaviour and skewing the sentences rather than separate edits are suggestive of agenda / POV-advancing.

• Here and here he tries hard to a modify Putin’s statement about Sumgait pogrom against Armenians starting this war into a revisionist conclusion that Sumgait pogroms were preceded by “ethnic crimes” by Armenians, and then “pogroms against each other” happened, then refuses to bring any sources apart from his own POV, accusing me of serving the “propaganda machine”.
• Here and here, he makes every effort to put Genocide Watch organisation under a dark light only because their statement contained accusation of Azerbaijan of genocide The chair is known for his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statements (stating that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians is a pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statement in the editor’s understanding). He expresses his POV denying each of “10 stages of genocide” without sources, going as far as denying Armenian Genocide himself.
• Here he claims he had “an email from IAGS” that rejects the ownership of their letter” and wants his words to serve as evidence.
• Here he offers getting in touch outside Wikipedia with two user both of which were recently blocked / banned from editing the article. I suspect those out-of-wikipedia online meetings are advancing of Azerbaijani POV as a group.
• Here, an involved admin confesses that he is getting tired of the user constantly pinging him to every little issue on this page, particularly ones where it's not clear what is he expected to do.Armatura (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one incredibly uncomfortable with anyone who denies the Armenian genocide being allowed anywhere near articles which deal with Armenia in any way (including anything relating to the current war)? Is denial of the Armenian genocide so widespread among Turkish and Azerbaijan editors that we'd cut off most of them if topic banned them? Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkey and Azerbaijan are the only countries in the world that (unsurprisingly) officially deny that there was an Armenian genocide.Armatura (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having worked on the article in question since the outbreak of war in late September and reviewing contributions, I'm of the opinion to support a topic ban against Mirhasanov from WP:AA2 topics. While I think that some of the evidence provided by Armatura is not as bad as it's made out to be (mostly the objections to Genocide Watch, a source which has received a mixed response in a recent RSN discussion and which was sharply denounced since then, from an Armenian POV no less, in an open letter by the president of the IAGS [156]; I think that the comments regarding the inclusion of content about ethnic violence the Background section also fall below the level of requiring sanctions when reviewed in the context of that discussion as a whole). However, the apparent engagement in offsite coordination with other pro-Azerbaijan editors is very concerning, and trying to use (alleged) private correspondence in a discussion is just plain bad editing. I'm honestly unsure what to do about the Armenian genocide denial in abstract; I abhor it, but also recognize that it is genuinely a (the?) predominant perspective in Turkey in Azerbaijan. Ultimately, I think that having Mirhasanov editing these articles (or more accurately, their talk pages as he has not yet received ECP) is a net negative. Unlike other editors that could be accused of POV-pushing a 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Mirhasanov has largely failed to make any constructive, proactive contributions in discussions. At best, he's echoed good suggestions made by other editors when they happen to coincide with a pro-Azerbaijan POV. His attempts to ping me in like an attack dog whenever he sees something he doesn't like are genuinely a waste of my time, and I'm mildly horrified that as much as I already feel over-pinged, probably a full half of the times he's attempted to ping me have failed because he didn't sign the original message properly (for the record, several other editors working on this article, particularly those who appear to have pro-Azerbaijan sympathies, have also been pinging me quite a bit, some of them more than they should. Mirhasanov nonetheless stands ahead of the pack in this regard, at least as far as the last two weeks are concerned). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Image Editor making mass undiscussed changes to bio infobox images/edit warring

The Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been making unilateral changes to infobox images (usually of people) without discussion for months. They usually leave edit summaries claiming their preferred images are "better" or "more recent". They have a habit of removing paintings in favor of photographs, and replacing black-and-white photos with color ones. They also have a tendency to edit-war when reverted. They have been warned many times—by GoodDay, myself, and Sundayclose—and have agreed to seek consensus before making these changes. They've been reverted by many other editors. While they have opened some talk page discussions after being told to do so, they've also continued making unilateral changes, which are highly disruptive. By my count, they've received ten warnings after their agreement to wait for consensus before making these changes. They've also routinely uploaded blatant copyright violations, such as a screenshot of the first 2020 presidential debate that they tried to use as the infobox photo for Chris Wallace. Most recently, they changed the portraits at Template:Joe Biden series and Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series: [157], [158]. They have ignored most of these warnings, but responded to my most recent warning, arguing that their changes are supported by their "interpretation of the guidelines of Wikipedia", and that their continued undiscussed changes are acceptable because they discuss "most" of their changes now. I and others have assumed good faith and given them the benefit of the doubt many times, which they have chosen to abuse. A block is now needed to stem future disruption.

Diffs of undiscussed image changes

[159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333],[334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341], [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354], [355], [356], [357], [358], [359], [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366], [367], [368], [369], [370], [371], [372], [373], [374], [375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390], [391], [392]

Diffs of warnings given: [393], [394], [395], [396], [397], [398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405]

― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support a ban after briefly looking over his history. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, if that's what it will take to get the message across. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support some sort of sanction along with a warning that continued changing of images without discussion will result in a more severe sanction. This editor seems to have appointed themselves as the Wikipedia authority on both image quality and copyright. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Some time ago I got the impression that the community supported the notion that attitudes could edit text without prior permission (with some rare exceptions), but the replacement of images with a different image (as opposed to adding a new image) was frowned upon without getting consensus. With rare exceptions, if I plan to replace an image with a different image I first post my intention on the talk page and wait to hear to see if there's any dissent. I want to support editors who have image editing skills, as there are many examples of images that could be improved either by editing the image itself, or tracking down a superior image. However, while someone with such skills might feel confident that a color photograph is better than a black-and-white, a photograph is better than the painting, and a cropped photo is better than an un-cropped photo, this doesn't necessarily follow. The communities' judgments might differ from the particular editors judgment. For that reason, I think editors should be generally encouraged to open a discussion on the talk page before making any such changes, and mandate that option if they have made such changes in the past and had them challenged. It's my understanding that this editor agreed to open discussions prior to making changes, and I support enforcing that. I'd hate to block someone if they simply misunderstand the communities view but given the number of warnings on the page it's hard to accept that as a possibility, so I reluctantly support a short block and hope the editor will agree to seek consensus before making any more changes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I looked at 7 or so of the example diffs, & only 2 were imo improvements - Chadwick Boseman, though that should be cropped at the bottom, & the Evan McMullin. Albert Einstein uses a colourized image, which we don't like. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support On one hand the suggestion that anyone has to check with others before making edits is ridiculous on its face and against the wiki spirit. "You really should stop making unilateral image changes across articles." How dare the unwashed masses trod upon the holy temple of infobox images. The issues with edit warring and refusing to discuss after being reverted are the actual issue here. I suggest a topic ban on adding or replacing images until the editor agrees to mentoring and shows an understanding of copyright policy and edit warring guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Laser-brain (and disagree with Sphilbrick) in that the problem is not changing images without prior discussion, since that's no more than normal Wikipedia editing procedure. The problem is replacing good images with ones which are not improvements. A more recent photo is not necessarily better than an older one, depending on the photos, nor is a color image automatically better than a good black and white one, especially if the b&w image presents a subject in their prime and not their old age. Even an image with better resolution is not absolutely better with one that's lower in resolution. It all depends on the images involved! It's an editorial judgment call, the kind we all make all the time with text, no different than that. If Editor X's judgment is bad, and they're favoring a less good image over a better one, than that change needs to be reverted and explained to the editor. If Editor X constantly makes those kind of poor judgment calls, then a sanction, such as a topic ban or a short block, needs to be put in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of editor and Wikipedia political bias

Jroehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Keeps on making accusations of bad faith over at Talk:Parler, I have asked them to stop, and they just moved the last comment [[406]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I have warned him of WP:AGF, the user also seems to have a past problem with copyright issues. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, he did not listen to me, maybe he will to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, he has made several accusations, one to an admin (GorillaWarfare) no-less, and seems to be very passionate about this page. There might be a problem with edit-warring as well. Heart ^(talk) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He has had an "official" warning now, so lets leave it until (and if) it continues.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And now WP:IDHT, about this warning..Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Could this be the same user? WP:TEAHOUSE#Parler Social Media Article/Page. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about this tells me it is, even it it is its not against the rules to edit as an IP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if it is the same person: I believe it does violate Wikipedia's policies on editing while logged out. If I am incorrect, then that is totally my fault. Heart ^(talk) 16:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that it seems unlikely to be the same person. There has been a fairly significant spike in attention to the Parler page (see pageviews), I think due to rumblings of a "conservative exodus" from Twitter to Parler, and so I suspect it is simply one of the many people who have had eyes on the page rather than a logged-out sock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, yes, i do recognize my errors and are improving on correctly identifying sockpuppetry. Heart ^(talk) 04:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator could look, I think at a minimum the user should be blocked from the Parler page, possibly blocked from American Politics connected topics in general per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. The conduct has included:

1. accusing GorillaWarfare of being a paid employee of Twitter [407]
2. doing so again [408]
3. making a very weird aspersion based on her having made 38 edits to the talk page over a long period of time [409]
4. making the same aspersion yet again, mixing it with once again accusing GorillaWarfare of being an employee of Twitter [410]
5. weird mental gymnastics trying to change the meaning of the concept of anti-semitism [411]
6. Some commentary that's very much in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory [412]
7. calling for a "vote", clearly not understanding wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Competence is required issue) [413]
8. Accusing Auxilarius as well, saying "Now you are part of the team? I thought that GorillaWarfare would get several fellow travelers and vote NO. That tells me your side is weaker than I thought." [414]
9. Another casting-aspersions post, this time in the RFC section [415]
10. Specifically adding their casting-aspersions post to a !Vote on the RFC section [416]

They also seem to be getting egged on by others, which isn't helping the situation. Bus Stop

1. conspiracy theory stuff about "social media oligarchs", post by Bus Stop [417]
2. deliberately missing the point, again by Bus Stop (link to GorillaWarfare's reply for context). [418]
3. a long sequence of Bus Stop demanding that their original-research claim that Parler has no higher level of anti-semitic content than Twitter be the basis for content removal despite reporting in reliable sources, ending here: [419]
4. a similar original-research demand, on the RFC section [420]
5. a combination of Whataboutism and right-wing conspiracy theory stuff about supposed social media bias against conservatives [421]
6. second round of Whataboutism and right-wing conspiracy theory stuff about supposed social media bias against conservatives [422]
7. accusing others of "abusing the ledes of articles to advertise our opinions" [423]

Ultranothing

1. misrepresentation of sources and Whataboutism by user Ultranothing [424] who has almost no history and whose last post was a month prior casting aspersions at Talk:Chris Pirillo [425]

Gregnator

1. attack section created by user Gregnator (noting: I removed this section afterwards per WP:NOTFORUM) [426]
   1. user responded by posting "Block me, idc. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of ideological battles. Shame on you." in a reply to GorillaWarfare [427]

RampagingRembrandt

1. vandalized the Parler page while the RFC was in process [428]
2. posted a large WP:NOTFORUM screed about how "Just the summary of this page reeks with left-wing bias" echoing Bus Stop's WP:OR and Whataboutism in their text. [429]

2603:8081:6403:6c00:fd53:88ae:35dd:44b3

1. Long edit-request that appears to be a WP:NOTFORUM violation including "I will never again contribute to or recognize Wikipedia as a reliable source if I continue to see this type of bias on the site. " [430]

There does seem to be bad behavior going on. Others more experienced than I am may be able to make more sense out of the timing and other aspects. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that Jroehl doesn't seem to be toning it down much. They are continuing to attack those who support option 1 of the Parler RfC, now calling us "Parler slanderers": [431]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that this edit crosses a line too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=987711708 IHateAccounts (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does nobody here talk about the hate speech, in the first paragraph, of the Parler.com Wikipedia article? You can't defend that. So you are attacking me. When you contribute to Wikipedia, you should put your personal political proclivities aside. Please explain to everyone why you are spending so much time and effort to cast a microblogging and social networking service as "right wing", "anti-semitic" and "conspiratorial". When EVERBODY knows that ANY site, of it's type could be described this way. I would like somebody here to download and scan every post at Parler.com (millions) and identify every "anti-semitic" post. Then give us a percentage of those posts compared to all other non-anti-semitic posts. Do the same with Twitter.com. If the amount of "anti-semitic" posts at Parler.com is, say 10%, I might agree with you. I believe it would be less than 3%. So my question is, how many posts, on Twitter.com OR Parler.com do you think are "anti-semitic"? Over the last 1 day, 1 week or 1 year? If you can't answer this, then there is no reason for the slanderous language to be included in the first paragraph of the Parler.com Wikipedia article. Everybody knows this. It is self evident. But you persist. Jroehl (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You ask why no one talks about what you're calling "hate speech"—did you miss the multiple discussions and the formal RfC I created on the article talk page, despite your opening the discussion in what I believe to be bad faith, in which I have solicited more editors' opinions to help assuage your concerns?

"Please explain to everyone why you are spending so much time and effort to..." I have made more than 80,000 edits over fourteen years, of which the conversations I've had at Talk:Parler make up a whopping 0.18%. What you're casting as an outsized amount of time that is apparently clear proof of my engaging in UPE on behalf of Twitter is actually not even a drop in the bucket compared to my overall editing. More importantly, the amount of time I devote to this page is not at all relevant to the content dispute that is happening. You are once again attacking contributors rather than civilly discussing the content of the page.

As for your question about Parler vs. Twitter, 1) it's better-suited to Talk:Parler and Talk:Twitter, but 2) please read WP:OR—we go by what reliable sources say, we don't do our own analysis of Parler or Twitter's content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: you still do not appear to have read Wikipedia's policies, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research. Your comment saying "Could you please access Parler.com and post, here, on this thread, 3 Parler.com posts..." [432] is definitially a request for something the kind of "Original Research" not allowed on Wikipedia. Content on wikipedia primarily is built from Secondary Sources (see: [[433]]) and the words you are complaining about are VERY strongly cited to multiple reliable secondary sources, despite your unsubstantiated attempts to misrepresent them as "hate speech". At this point it appears that the policy Wikipedia:Competence is required is going to need to be mentioned because you have failed, despite multiple editors trying to point you to the policies, to read or understand them. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted in my brief reply to Jroehl on that talk page, the call for editors to conduct original research is inappropriate. And demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, which I think is also demonstrated in many of the other comments the user has made on the Parler talk page. I've tried to be civil and patient with this editor, as I usually try to be with new or inactive editors that wade into areas they have little experience editing, and tried to explain how policy dictates what is included in an article, and how consensus works. Interested editors can see our interaction on the talk page. Instead of taking a new tack with how to approach this, the editor has continued to make unfounded accusations, demonstrated that they don't fully understand the article prose or the material being discussed, and accused editors of a COI (including myself). I found the latter more worthy of a chuckle than taking offense, but there is clear disruption here. The disruption has extended to the RfC and the same issues proliferate. It's also become a mess to read, due to the impassioned comments that Jroehl is making in response to nearly every comment on the RfC, without properly formatting their replies, and a clear inability to hear what other editors are saying. There are very clear and apparent competency issues with this editor. I'd propose either a partial block on Parler or, should other editors agree, a CIR block until such time as the editor shows that they have read (and understand) the policies continually being linked to them, that they show they understand what constitutes appropriate editing on Wikipedia, and agrees to stop making personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The real questions is, again, why would an encyclopedia imply, very prominently, in the first paragraph of its description, that a website, with 3 million users, is antithetical to any racial/ethnic group. And then cite 3 sources from from 3 obscure websites opinion pieces to back that up? Did the 3 cited sources conduct any research to conclude that Parler.com is anti Jewish? Well, there is really no research at all. You accuse me of advocating "original research", yet your so called sources have conducted no research at all. Your "sources" are just that writer's opinion(s). So I could create a website and call it the "World News Picayune Jornal Express" for around $12.95 a month and write an op-ed piece were I claim that Parler.com is very pro Israel, very antiestablishmentarianist and everything thing posted there is non-conspiratorial. Then I could cite that website when I delete your slanderous sentence and cite my website as a source. Should I try that? Jroehl (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are really driving home Symmachus Auxiliarus' point about WP:IDHT by again repeating questions that you've already received answers to at Talk:Parler (most recently by Grayfell, on the off chance you missed it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to stop addressing GW and other editors as opponents or fellow travelers - you can do Wikipedia a service by amending your approach to your fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been explained in the proper venue (the articles talk page). Also I suggest you read wp:legal, as you seem to be about to step over into a breach of that. I think at this stage a short block may now be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disappointing with IP user

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

---

Please see my talk page that range of IP address, from same IP user, come up to attack and leave abusive message. --Aleenf1 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Aleenf1, I must admit, viewing these comments are hilarious, but these are not tolerated. I have warned the use for the second to last time as he has not been properly warned. I have issued this warning as it is clear that he will not stop attacking this user. I have also added the talkback notice that the reporting use had forgotten to add. I look forward to reading more of his comments. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also believe that 151.45.159.101 and 37.163.41.239 are sockpuppets. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

They're dynamic IP addresses. I've added three days semi-protection, since it's clear the IP is just repeating itself at this stage. I believe it will be more productive if all editors focus on any substantive issues in an appropriate place, and follow the dispute resolution process if they're unable to reach a resolution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The comments are hilarious, but the problem is real. Now, I can be accused of being repetitive and annoying but what the guy did/keeps doing is all but cooperating with other users. I don't expect you to give me reason but before judging look carefully at the "great job" he did: if you have the courage, read everything and say he's right...in a place where there's a minimum of common sense, no one could say it imo. And since I didn't decide to contribute on Wikipedia to get mocked by such a ridicolous person, that's what I can do to defend myself, since the guy doesn't seem so smart to understand a single thing of what I'm trying to discuss and given that in every thread like this he is always the one doing the right thing and the unregistered IP is the bad guy. Maybe, I guess it's too easy to judge a person only listening to one side of the story...unfortunately, there're a couple of edits showing how Aleenf1 works. --37.160.75.250 (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be surprised at my lack of judgment. I have carefully read your comments here, and if you haven't done the same with mine please do so. To clarify, this here is not a dispute resolution noticeboard. If you have a content dispute, go sort it out somewhere else in a civilised manner, get a third opinion or something. Here's a link: WP:DR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(←) Sorry, I was answering Heart who finds my comments so funny. And to be clear (since I don't want to say a bunch of lies like our beloved freak Aleenf1 did at some point in our discussion) those IPs are mine, a thing which I already explained since I'm not always at home (btw, it's so comic that I've to show my whereabouts because of Aleenf1)...instead, what I found funny is that I still didn't read on any guideline that certain things should be done in a certain way on that article and what's funnier is that when I asked it to Aleenf1 we got here. --37.160.75.250 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm in a mood today, but the latest IP is blocked for personal attacks and trolling. Grow up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive POV edits from Belteshazzar on Bates Method and related articles suggest block or topic ban

Belteshazzar caused controversy on the Bates method article in March and May 2020, he still continues to edit this article and the talk-page. Many of his edits are pointy or violate NPOV and are usually reverted. If you check his block log or talk-page he was blocked in May for 31 hours and for 2 weeks in June for disruptive and POV edits on the Bates method article. The same user was also reported to this admin board [434] in July.

On 6 June 2020, I complained about Belteshazzar's disruptive edits [435] which were being made on a basis of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Basically this user started to edit the Bates Method article to remove criticisms or challenge the "ineffective" statement in the lead. His purpose on Wikipedia was to dispute the claim of the Bates Method being ineffective. After he lost, to make a point he went onto articles related to the Bates method and did the complete opposite, you can see some of those edits in the diff I list above. After being blocked, now he has gone back to challenging the ineffective statement again.

Belteshazzar does not appear to have a good understanding of what the scientific method is. Now there is nothing wrong with this but at least four different users have explained to Belteshazzar why anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, but he continues to ignore this. Instead he relies on anecdotal evidence for the claim that the Bates method is not ineffective. His flawed reasoning behind this is that if the Bates Method is ineffective then it couldn't have improved Aldous Huxley's eyesight. There has been a debate about that on the talk-page recently "ineffective", and I explained to him not to confuse anecdotal evidence with scientific studies with controls. If you check the talk-page itself, all we see is Belteshazzar, Belteshazzar and Belteshazzar. He's basically disrupted the article and talk-page for months. You can check the archives. He's been there since March 2020 creating countless sections [436] on the talk-page which pretty much all equate to the same agenda trying to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead. This same user has caused problems on other articles related to the Bates method including Margaret Darst Corbett, The Art of Seeing etc.

As of 8 November 2020, Belteshazzar, is still editing the Bates Method and has recently said he wants to challenge the "ineffective" statement on Wikipedia regarding the Bates method [437]. We have been here many times before with this user. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. This user has been given many warnings and received blocks etc but never changes his behavior. A comment on his last block by an admin was "Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour". I believe this user has violated this. As others have requested before I believe this user should be topic banned from editing the Bates method or anything related to Ophthalmology. This user is lucky because he has received so many warnings and advice from many different editors, yet he ignores everyone. I personally think an outright block might be appropriate, the user in question is not acting in good faith. We need to ask ourselves what is going on here. It's disruption plain and simple, the user is not here to build or improve the project. His editing is agenda based to remove "ineffective" from the lead on the Bates method article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my explanation for my post on my talk page. I don't intend to propose this myself, and I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented anyway, barring a surprising development. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summary by PG, editer is an immense timesink, now just disruptive. Support outright block as proposed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been idly following Talk:Bates method for some time, and I'm afraid I must also agree with Psychologist Guy, and advise anyone reading this to seriously just take a scroll through it and recent archives. It is not an exaggeration to say that Belteshazzar is very near to half of all the comments written on the talk page and archive pages 21 through 23, essentially all of them pushing pro-Bates POV and trying to remove "ineffective". Leijurv (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Much of it was me trying to better explain reasons the Bates method might seem to work, although the improvement may not be genuine or attributable to the Bates method. The initial discussion led to such explanations being removed from the article. Interestingly, sources from 1943 and 1957 are still used to source one such reason. [438] So there is some inconsistency regarding sources. I returned to "ineffective" when I realized that there is a known mechanism by which some aspects of the Bates method might genuinely work, although no valid source directly makes this connection. Also note that others have opposed "ineffective", but quickly given up. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• In my refined argument (which Psychologist Guy tried to link to here), I didn't bring up Huxley or any anecdotes. Psychologist Guy returned to what I previously said about that, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've not commented on Talk:Bates method since October 21, and for a while now my edits to the article have not concerned this aspect of the subject. The current situation was triggered by a comment I made on my own talk page, intended for possible future reference if the Bates method becomes less fringe. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• The July ANI report was made after I did something perfectly legitimate, as I explained here. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Here's a case where I fixed an actual pro-Bates pov: [439] Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• [440] [441] This was a minor point, but it illustrates my confusion over "pov-pushing". We currently have exactly one source which makes or even mentions that argument, so how can we say it is a "frequent criticism"? Yes, that point comes up frequently in casual discussions about the Bates method, but so does pseudomyopia, which isn't currently mentioned in the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987

Kenji1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In February, I raised some issues with this user's editing here. (To briefly summarize: with the exception of a small amount of pointy argumentation, their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a handful of problematic academic publishers. Talk-page contributions consist of endless piles of civil POV-pushing.) These issues were endorsed by everyone who weighed in, but the thread eventually drifted away without any action being taken. Kenji subsequently has taken two long breaks from editing, punctuated by more of the same tendentiousness (see all of Talk:MDPI/Archive_3) and this addition to their talk-page, which accuses a bunch of "biased" and "corrupt" editors of "hijack[ing]" the article MDPI. I raise this now because Kenji has once again returned to editing, taking exactly the same tendentious, POV-pushing approach as before [442], and directing more attacks at other users from their userpage [443]. I request that this user be topic-banned from the area of scientific journals and publishing. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time, I said I wasn't not sure if "WP:NOTHERE" applies, but that there there's certainly was problem with WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE, an a general obsession with the questionable publishers. I wasn't sure if a topic ban around academic publishing was be warranted last time around. But WP:POINTY like this has me over the line. WP:NOTHERE applies. There's a weird WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality going on, that if Wikipedia doesn't swoon over the open access MDPI, then Wikipedia must drag other (for profit) publishers in the mud... or something. I don't know what's going on, but WP:NOTHERE applies. A topic ban around academic publishing is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I make use of my freedom of expression on my talk page. I don't intend to make further edits to any of the pages, as I expected this to happen, and I simply lack the Wiki know-how how to tackle this. If the editors catch me hijacking pages or anything else which could decline the quality of the pages, I am fine with a ban. But for now I just added a note on a talk page, which does not go against Wiki policy. The fact that certain pages are heavily monitored, and double standards prevail have prompted me to stop editing the page. That I have yet another ANI is exactly the reason why I have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Its a sad state of affair. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

One thing I learned from Wikipedia is that sometimes we have to accept that those in power can prevent you from participating in discussions, editing pages, or by just stating your opinion if it is collectively decided you have a conflict of interest or your views are defiant from general opinion. People can easily accuse me of having a COI, asking me to "go away", or reversing any edit that I make based on these simple grounds that those that are well versed in the Wiki universe or those with the social connections here can simply have you banned if other methods simply dont have an effect (ranging from bullying to reversing any edit made). This really upsetted me, and made me retire from editing. But even if simple facts are added to a page which certain editors already 'blacklisted', reversions are made, and we all act like it is normal. For example one person edited the number of employees working for MDPI in 2020, and this was promptly reversed, due to.... Yes due to what? Thats why I object on my talk page, the only place on this website where I can truly express my opinion? But no, I am dragged back to ANI, due to my 'battleground' mentality. And for what? For mentioning that a certain Norwegian index is a bit tacky as they gave Nature research a 'non-scientific' rating. I find solace in knowing that this all goes into the logs, and perhaps some day someone will go through it. Whatever the result is, I alone can't solve it. I no longer want to feel upset over this again, I realize it is not so much me, that is being handled, it is the deviant opinion. Kenji1987 (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Re the employees number thing, these edits were reverted because they were from a now-blocked WP:PAID IP WP:SPA spammer [444]. So yes, please, lament the plight of the poor MDPI shill that got banned. And for your information, you do not have right to 'free expression' on your user page or talk pages or anywhere on Wikipedia, see WP:FREE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I see factual information being reversed, that a spammer added this information, is unfortunate, but factual, neutral information should be updated if new data is available. But I am not well versed in Wikipedia, so maybe there is a clause that stipulates that pages do not need to be updated WP:noneedtoupdatepages which I am not aware of, like I was also not aware that there is no freedom of speech on one's talk page. But if my talk page violates wiki policy, ill be happy to have it deleted. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

And anyone is free to restore that information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not if editors have decided that you have a COI. I remember us having rewritten the controversies page, which was promptly reversed by another editor, as it was me who added it, but you and me know we jointly contributed. I iniated, you made relevant edits, I added it, others removed it and slapped me extra in my "cyber face" by adding that I had a COI. I hoped to receive some support from you, but it is easier to ask for a topic ban. I "banned" myself already, as I felt really frustrated that any of my edits would automatically be reversed. I have accepted this, after realizing that alone I can't solve this issue. I did share my thoughts on my talk page (without naming and shaming anyone), but if this is not allowed on WP, due to wp:dontuseyourtalkpagetoshowdiscontent, or whatever clause is out there, which I am simply not aware of, then Im willing to face the consequences, I naively assumed that freedom of speech was allowed on the talk page, but this is incorrect as your wiki clause stated. Don't worry I wont edit any pages (I didnt know that adding something on a talk page, would trigger a new ANI discussion), it frustates me deeply, and for my own sanity, I just shouldnt do it, as someone can just reverse it and slap me in the face again. I am just not versed enough to report people for misconduct or to deal with these kinds of things. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Not if editors have decided that you have a COI." Anyone can update such information, provided they have the sources for it. It's in fact one of the types of edits we recommend that COI editors stick do. See WP:JWG#Editing with a conflict of interest: If you are in a conflict of interest, it is best to limit yourself to this guide and stick to adding/updating non-controversial information (see what to include and what not to include) such as updating journal articles related to your publisher to have the most up-to-date impact factors, document history (merges/splits, current/previous editor(s)-in-chief), uploading missing cover images, fixing links to official websites, or expanding the further reading section. Updating existing routine information based on updated sources is also non-controversial. Emphasis mine.

What we don't tolerate is spamming, whitewashing, constant and consistant refusal to drop the stick, and general tilting at windmills. Some of this applies to the IP, some to you, some to both. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is assuming I have a COI. But I haven't made any edits for the past half a year or so, nor do I plan to make any more, as also "non-controversial" edits are constantly reversed (it's a pity you do not refer to the fact that we have jointly edited a draft controversies section, which has been reversed with simply stating "kenji must have a COI"). A post in the talk section alone, after half a year mind you, led to this ANI. Why did I post this? As having a 0 as a publisher does not mean you are NOT scientific. But I agree the website is tacky, they keep assigning scores to publishers that have merged or do not exist anymore. Anyway, before someone is accusing me of doing civil-somethingsomething (I really don't know all the terms), I leave it at this. If I receive a topic ban, then I'll assume that there must have been a very good reason for this. This is better than pondering about other reasons. If my talk page is not suitable for Wikipedia, then also do let me know. I still feel that some pages here are hijacked, if I am not allowed to state this, then also do let me know. Let me know what I am allowed to state, and what not. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I thank Kenji for providing ample examples of the endless tendentious arguing that is central to the complaint here. --JBL (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by multiple editors about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries.

Editors who want to edit in contentious areas should expect pushback. They should expect to have to defend every edit, to have other editors push back, to have to talk and talk and talk before making even small edits. PDC makes sweeping edits to an extremely contentious area – Tibetan Buddhism and China – and if another editor disagrees with their edits, they immediately go to accusations of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, and hounding, both in posts and in edit summaries. I’ll note that I have only a general understanding of the subject, so I have no idea whether PDC’s edits are helpful or not. My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations.

PDC now has nearly 2500 edits. They are no longer a newbie. They are ignoring our policies on assuming good faith, and they’re doing it flagrantly and unrepentantly and repeatedly. I hate to suggest they be topic banned from their clear area of highest interest, but I am at a loss, here. Personally all I want is to see them forbidden from making any accusation of bad faith of any kind against any other editor (broadly construed; that is, no referring to "bad faith edits") either on talk pages or in edit summaries.

Many editors have tried to help PDC understand this. These are just some of the more recent:

• Usedtobecool tried to explain Sept 21

• PDC continues to accuse others of bad faith editing September 30:1 2 3

• Message on PDC's talk from Cullen328, who on October 1 asks for an explanation. 4 PDC replies, including further accusations of bad faith in the reply and subsequent replies: 5

• Warning from me October 2, which included a plea for PDC to stop accusing any other editor of bad faith, noted as seen: 6

• Continuing to accuse others of bad faith edits, misrepresentation, and hounding October 19: 7 8 9 Warning about it seen and removed: 10 Warning given by Girth Summit October 21: 11

• November 7: 11 Warning at article talk seen: 12

• November 8: warning seen and removed with an edit summary accusing the editor leaving the warning of acting in bad faith: 13

—valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The ANI is completely without merit as it's a coatrack of diffs crafted together with an alleged "concern" about good faith.

• Most recently, the involved admin, with a history of coordinating with an author of a blatant PA (see above), has stepped actively and aggressively into two requests for moves[445] and[446] in a topic area for which they admit (see above) to not having knowledge. The admin has previously been warned by El_C to either edit or admin pages, not both simultaneously. Then while again blending roles, the involved admin ignored a blatant PA, then mischaracterized edits as "edit waring" then doubled down to further mischaracterize the events as "disruptive editing", then tripled down to mischaracterize the complaint of the PA itself as a personal attack, then quadrupled down to bring it to ANI.

• Which makes the notice all the more curious since good faith is always assumed. But, PA's are not defined in policy as examples of "good faith", nor are repeated unfounded accusations of personal attacks and accusations of disruptive editing, nor are disturbing messages left by the involved admin on talk (02OCT on talk[447] then[448] then[449]. Then on another talk[450] then[451]).

• To detail why the ANI is especially inappropriate at this time, a blantant PA was found on a request for move (that also totally mischaracterized posting of diffs showing work by the editor responsible for moving the page without CON). The PA was deleted, per policy[452]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[453]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[454]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[455]. The very involved admin then mischaracterizes the policy-approved deletion of PA as "edit waring"[456]. The failure to cite the blatant PA by the involved admin is made[457], and the complaint of the PA, which was deleted by the author of the PA, was posted here[458] and on the talk where it was first posted[459]. The admin further mischaracterizes quotes of PA as a personal attack from me[460] and both involved admin and author of blatant PA accuse me of disruptive editing and personal attacks on my user talk[461].
• An ANI citing "concerns" for good faith is not in any way appropriate, and especially not appropriate for these repeated unaddressed blatant PA's by another editor, nor for escalating mischaracterizations by both the involved admin and the author of the repeated blatant PA's. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, as I said at the article talk in question, I warned the other editor on their talk, just like I did on yours. Also as I said there, twice, I am acting only as an editor w/re that article and have not done anything administrative. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  PDC's response here may well also illustrate the issue you describe (which may require administrative correction), but you can't exactly blame him for not placing much trust in your warnings. I mean (if I remember the old ANI correctly) you did once upon a time block him, an exclusively mobile user, for not formatting his talk page posts correctly. For the record, that ANI was closed without finding your block inappropriate, and you conversed with him fairly in the linked discussion now, but my point is that it's not unreasonable for the editor to now think you don't have his best interests at heart (even if this isn't true), and so refuse to trust/follow your advice. For better or worse, the snarky edit summary in diff 13 is pretty much what the avg established editor would also write in such a situation (ime). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, disregard warnings and the result is on you. That's the main reason blocks and other sanctions occur; individuals, for whatever reason, disregard warnings/advice. If one has a problem dispassionately assessing what they're being told they will have a difficult time here. Tiderolls 17:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I don't blame PDC for not thinking I have their best interests at heart, either, lol. What I have at heart is our policy on assuming good faith. Really, that's all. If PDC would just stop talking about other editors and instead talk about edits (without referring to them as "bad faith edits", though), we wouldn't be here. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I don't think it's quite so straight forward in the abstract. Look at my ANI case above, where I was "warned" by administrators. There can be some validity in an editor feeling a warning is not coming from the right place. In such cases, it helps to have an uninvolved, totally objective admin assess the situation and issue appropriate guidance. Of course, in this case that was Girth on 21 October (who provided some excellent, objective advice). But I'm just saying, the point of a warning isn't a checkbox towards a block/ban, it should come from a position of total objectivity & trust as advice to rectify conduct, otherwise it'll be ineffective. As it relates to Pasdecomplot, as someone who saw the last two ANIs on this editor, I don't think they're intentionally trying to be disruptive (not that intent is the end-all when it's disruption). But I think they think everyone is out to get them. And to be fair, sometimes they are baited. There's obviously things that need rectifying here, but (if it's at all possible) I think it'd be nice to see that happen without permanent/long sanctions. How exactly, I don't know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, and by Cullen at his talk, and by EI_C at both their talk and PDC's, and massive advice from UTBC at UTBC's talk. This isn't something new. This has been going on for months. The amount of time other editors have spent trying to help PDC understand what 'assume good faith' means is very large. I've literally been trying for months to avoid bringing this to ANI; I'd always prefer to deal with issues anywhere else. The point of warnings is to get someone's attention in hopes they'll take the policy behind it onboard, and to let other editors see the issue has been raised with the person before. —valereee (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale removals of reliable information from political article with 1RR restrictions

• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Idealigic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:GS/IRANPOL

User:Mhhossein is turning the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page into some kind of WP:ATTACK page, often through a WP:PLAYPOLICY modus operandi. I have been trying to work it out with him on the talk page to no avail.

For a long time Mhhossein has been packing the article with repeated allegations that the MEK (the biggest political opposition to Iran's Islamic Republic) is a “cult”, citing that "WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" while at the same time removing opposing viewpoints [462] [463] [464] [465] with reports indicating that the Tehran government has gone to great lengths to demonise the MEK. Here are some examples of Mhhossein's removals :

1 "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK.”

2 “On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

3 "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."

4 "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5 "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

6 "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."

7 "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”

8 "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."

9 "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

10 "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

11 "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

12 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

13 "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

14 "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran".

15 "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

16 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division"

Myself and other editors have asked Mhhossein to explain these latest removals on the article’s talk page [466] [467] [468], but his answers often address only certain parts of the text and not others, or are self contradicting, or don't make much sense (at least to me).

Mhhossein has received many warnings in the past and was blocked in April for tendentious behavior and original research under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics. Idealigic (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a fairly frustrating content dispute where neither side wants to compromise. I have tried to make increment improvements on the page but they get reverted. I don't think Mhhossein's behavior is problematic, although I do disagree with him on certain content matters. I'm not sure why this is at ANI?VR _talk 15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When you remove this much reliable content without giving a guideline based explanation then this is no longer a content dispute. I would appreciate @Mhhossein: providing a guideline based explanation for each of his removals here (no bludgeoning please, just a short and clear explanation) so others can decide whether this is a content dispute or more tendentious editing from Mhhossein. Idealigic (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic (talk · contribs) I asked you a question about some sourced content removal you advocated here. I made sure to ping you in that comment, and I noticed you didn't respond. I am WP:AGF that you simply forgot or got busy. Just because someone doesn't immediately respond to a question doesn't mean you take them to WP:ANI.VR _talk 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - enough please. I'm involved in this page and Mhhossein's constant removal of information and misuse of Wikipedia's policies to enforce a non-neutral point of view has become ridiculous. This sort of behavior has gone on for quite awhile. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MA Javadi (talk · contribs) on the talk page, you support wholescale removal of reliably sourced content too.[469][470] I'm not sure how you can accuse him without looking at your own behavior.VR _talk 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree this is disruption. We had little admin involvement in the last ANI report about Mhhossein where he denied doing anything wrong even though uninvolved editors said there was strong evidence of non-neutral editing, trying to WP:GAME the system and playing WP:IDHT games, as well as treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. In that report Mhhossein received a strong warning, but his ways at the People's Mujahedin of Iran article have not improved, they have gotten worse. Alex-h (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

References

History of promotional edits to south Florida subjects

JclarkeFLA (talk · contribs), mostly adding non notable news stories. Warnings for promotional intent go back over a year. No sign of acknowledgment or stopping. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits to Colorado entry

Hi. A user named "Moxy" reverted my edits to the Colorado entry today, before I could finish them by adding footnotes that indicate sources. I do not understand why one person can make such a unilateral decision or why I am not permitted to finish my editing work. I would like to do so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COScienceWriter07 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @COScienceWriter07: Per policy at the top of this page and in an edit notice when editing, you must notify the user in question on their talk page about bringing them to the ANI. I have done so for you this time. I see you left a message on Moxy's talk page—is there a reason to escalate to the ANI now rather than wait for their response? It appears Moxy has also left you a reply. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

IP user constantly adding unsourced and promo content to page

Hi. An IP user 113.59.201.230 has been reverting my edits to Seelaratna Senarath (from this to this) for the last week or so. They've edited it back to a version full of incorrect grammar, fillery promo content (there is no need to list someone's children's name on their wikipage per WP:INHERITED) and a lot of unsourced information that they claim is "the local context". They've deferred to referring to me as the "non Sri Lankan", which is bizarre as my nationality bears no relevance to this situation. The editor in question has refused to listen to what I've said, refused to even add sources to the claims they're trying to make or follow WikiPolicies and are generally being disruptive. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ser!: Jab aside from not being a certain ethnicity, is there a reason why a discussion about the content wasn't raised on the article's talk page? I see nothing in its history that attempts to talk about the addition and removal of the content in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Point taken yeah. This is my first time at the rodeo re dealing with a dispute like this so I'm not too well versed on what exactly to do - I did discuss it in the comments in the edit summaries and got only snarky responses and the aforementioned jab back. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we're here now. Some steps were skipped before bringing this to the ANI, but I'll leave it to the admins to determine if such a comment from the IP is actionable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Banner

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to goad me, relentlessly.
Here, during the first short block I suffered, which followed the controversy he was involved in with me at ANI.

The Banner was warned on his own talk page about his conduct here.
And here again: “If you're not careful you'll play into the scenario that you're harassing them and gravedancing ».

The Banner ignored the warnings, and continued his harassment on my talk page, here, on the very day my block was lifted.
Whereas I had previously indicated on my talk page that I retire from Wikipedia, right after my block was lifted.

After I had reverted him for "goading and harassment", he tried to start an edit war and again immediately reverted me here, pushing further and goading me harder: “is the truth too harsh for you, edit restored".

He was then warned again here.

In addition to WP:REMOVED, WP:NOBAN states: "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior."

Needless to say, I have had no contact with The Banner, whatsoever, during this course of events.

The Banner’ block log shows that he has a history for harassment, having been blocked 9 times in the past, among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion".
--Emigré55 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So, another attempt to harass me. I think this time a boomerang block indef is warranted for Emigré55. The Banner talk 11:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Background is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Emigré55. Emigré55 is fresh off a one-week block for reasons including vexatious litigation at ANI specifically in relation to The Banner, and has made zero article edits since their block. It seems pretty clear Emigré55 intends to carry on this dispute and the one-week block did no good at all. FDW777 (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Battleground, won't drop the stick, block expired three days ago and only activity since has been to continue his search for justice. User page says he's retired and it's time we made the reality match the assertion. Indef. EEng 12:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Later: If someone's willing to act as mentor, I guess that might be worth trying. EEng 04:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Emigré55, I'm completely uninvolved and don't have any history with you or The Banner. There are two parts to being a good editor: 1) Producing good content 2) Working well with others to produce good content. If you cannot figure out how to improve the latter, you will eventually end up blocked (which is fast approaching). If it is your intention to stay, I would ask for a mentor and attempt to withdraw this.   // Timothy :: talk  12:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I think it's also worth noting that it was poorly done for The Banner to revive the argument at Emigre55's talk page while they were blocked ([471]) and then to revert when their comment was removed ([472]). Maybe more than one stick needs to be dropped... Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, The Banner has been around long enough and knows better than that. Especially the part about restoring their comment after the OP removed it validly from their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

True, I admit that I did snap over Emigré55s constant goading and harassing. I am only human, sorry for that. I should have not have done that.

But it is interesting to see that Emigré55 still has not provided proof that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian of note and has also not provided any proof that the posts from Couwenbergh on his personal blog are peer-reviewed, reliable sources. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc_Couwenbergh. And that is the root of the case.

Beside that, Emigré55 is hammering on my blocklog, skipping the fact that my last block was in 2015. The Banner talk 17:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you want this editor boomerang indef'd, or do you want to hear their opinions about art history? Lev!vich 17:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I truly do not know yet. I want him off my back. And I want to protect the articles involved. How, I do not care at the moment. In fact, I am feeling very unsafe here. The Banner talk 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, FWIW I know what I want: Emigre to be indef'd and stop wasting our time, and you to forget about them and return to enjoyable editing. Please ignore them, don't post anything about them, let our admin colleagues handle it from here. Lev!vich 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• So far from being entirely the victim, TheBanner stirred the pot while Emigré55 was blocked. The Banner, please note that one does not restore a post to a user's talk page once they've removed it. (The exception being declined unblock requests when a user is still blocked.) Don't care about the content dispute. Is there any possibility that a two-way WP:IBAN will end the disruption? DO we need some blocks? Partial blocks for user talk pages? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Both editors seem to genuinely feel that the other is goading and harassing them. Perhaps an WP:IBAN would help. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm that talk page post may look like pot-stirring, but it's worthwhile noting that it is in response to a loooooong long rant by Emigre in which all the blame for their block is placed on Banner. I agree that Banner should have stayed away, and I have known the Banner long enough to know they wouldn't, but the old "it wasn't me" was deceptive also. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• I came here fully expecting to support a boomerang, but the OP has done nothing worthy of further sanctions since their block expired. I was disturbed by the OP's behavior that led to their block, but they've been blocked for that. It seems unreasonable to reblock them simply for complaining because The Banner won't leave them alone. What we have here are two editors who may need to be kept away from one another by means of a two-way interaction ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree The Banner's should have kept his mouth shut, but one notes that he's made hundreds of useful edits in the last few days. Emigre has made zero. EEng 04:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Well if that's the metric, I'm screwed. Lev!vich 04:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, but that's not a reason to ban Emigre. He was already sanctioned for his prior misbehavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Right, but now he's back wasting more time about stuff that happened days ago. Net negative. EEng 06:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe. I'm just really loathe to reward the talk page baiting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree a two-way interaction ban seems to be the way forward here. Emigré has "retired" evidently other than relitigating this case against Banner which they were already blocked for, meanwhile it's evident they have only done so because of Banner's shitpost while they were blocked. Both users describe this situation as being harassed by the other; banning them from interacting with each other ought to put a stop to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• I am generally not in favor of two-way IBans when one party is the primary instigator of problems, and the other is occasionally reactive. I think a one-way interaction ban for Emigre towards The Banner is the correct sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Emigre has already been blocked for their problematic behavior in relation to The Banner and they have not engaged in any sanction-worthy conduct since that block expired. Sure, one might argue that filing this thread was ill-advised, but I don't believe it meets the criteria for being actionable. The cause of this latest flareup was a pair of inappropriate edits by The Banner at Emigre's talk page. It would be highly dubious to one-way iban the OP for reporting legitimate misconduct. Your proposed solution would re-punish Emgire for edits that were already addressed by their block while theoretically leaving the door open for The Banner to continue the behavior that led to this thread. Regardless of which editor is more at fault, it seems pretty clear that there is legitimate blame on both sides. Since the ruckus has died down, maybe we can close this with only a stern warning, but a one-way iban would be severely at odds with the facts of the dispute. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with Lepricavark here. A one way iban is unjustified. A two way iban isn't quite so bad but seems unnecessary at this time. Yes both editors have had problems in their interactions with each other, with Emigre being worse and unfortunately both seem to have problems just dropping it. But a stern warning, and frankly reading this thread should be enough of one, for both editors will hopefully be sufficient. If Emigre keeps trying to pursue action or keeps complaining about Banner without sufficient justification, or especially if they keep trying it while not doing anything else then yeah we can consider further action. If Banner keeps baiting Emigre or won't leave Emigre alone when Emigre is doing nothing, or doing nothing relevant to their previous dispute with Banner, we can take action. Banner has already recognised they went too far anyway. If Emigre decides to end their retirement and starts to engage on that article talk page with Banner again, we can hope their interactions with each other will be better, if not we can reconsider that iban. You could come up with a bunch of other 'ifs' but this is one time it's best to just leave them be 'ifs' and not worry. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor that's WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Yogabrata is an editor who is making lots of tenuous edits (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Italicised nicknames), not engaging with other users (instead just blanking their talkpage), and has a massively inappropriate userpage with links to their LinkedIn, PayPal, Instagram, and to poems they've written. All in all, this demonstrates that they are not here to build a collaborative encylcopedia. I was suggested to come here rather than just leaving their userpage tagged as a U5, please can an admin review? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

He constantly deletes his talk page, that's a red-flag to me. And he just deleted the content on his user space, but all that information is still in the history for people to see! And I don't think that should remain there. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

They're now asking to be blocked: [473], [474]. Please can an admin oblige? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Strange one, it's probably a MEATY account, my gut is telling me he probably has other wiki-accounts. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an editor who edits disruptively and refuses to engage in discussions. I support a block, but am INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 16:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Oficial Page of "Capitão de Longo Curso"

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

---

Hello, I'm a Brazilian Admiral and I'm here to denounce a collusion between administrators of Portuguese-speaking wikipedia. I am trying to restore an official Brazilian Navy article but these administrators and reviewers insist on republishing false information. Example: A long distance navigation is not exclusive to a Long Distance Captain, as they are falsely publishing. Long-distance and coastal navigation can be commanded by a nautical officer. Another situation was the capital letter in front of the Officers' posts. It is disrespectful and against grammatical rules to place profession in lower case. These reviewers have no idea what they are talking about and insists on maintaining disinformation on the wikipedia page. The bad reviewers are: 79a, Gremista.32, A.WagnerC and EVinente who even blocked me so that their lies can continue on the official page. Almirante Bittencourt (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almirante Bittencourt (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Almirante Bittencourt I'm not an administrator, but I can say two things. Firstly, English language Wikipedia has no control or authority on what happens on Portuguese language Wikipedia, as each project is an independent project. Secondly and most importantly, we have a clear policy on no legal threats- unless you rescind the legal threat above, it is likely that an admin will block you from the English language Porject. 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Incident at Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches article

Before I depart Wikipedia, I would like to first input that, despite the New York City's history section being purged which had information pertaining to the religious violation of Jews and Christians by Mayor Bill de Blasio, with the contributor continuing to revert such contributions explaining yet forgoing adding that information in other appropriate spaces; and despite championing Wikipedia as a source of verifiable information (which the above information has been verified, even in ABC News and cited; I have grown tired of contributing here. This recent incident at the article, Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches takes the cake for me as Magnolia677, despite examining the full extent of the contributions at hand, has allegedly overused shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win an argument pertaining to those contributions. In the article, I replaced the infobox organization with the Christian denomination infobox; I also corrected the capitalization and grammar of the article, and utilized the English names of the Christian churches forming the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches; the Mexican National Catholic Church (now the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church) was also corrected and re-linked. I explained in detail, as I often do via edit summary as to what the contribution entails, yet they instead of reasoning together continued to insult my contributions as "sloppy" (look at my personal talk page). In sum, I would love for Wikipedia administrative input on the matter at hand as I do not have the time nor emotion to continue being insulted, or fighting vandalizers on Wikipedia such as in previous instances which I have successfully reported in this noticeboard. If perhaps, I am in the wrong indeed, I shall remain absent from here indefinitely. Thank you. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLionHasSeen (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: I don't see how anyone has overused shortcuts to win an argument considering Talk:Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches hasn't been edited since January [475]. No one can win an "argument" or discussion when there is no argument. If you want to make a change and it's disputed, as always, please take it to the article talk page. Not to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I see Talk:New York City has been edited. But not by you. Unfortunately, if you aren't willing to discuss your changes when they are disputed and try and seek WP:consensus, you're not going to get far here. While it's good you're using edit summaries, this doesn't guarantee no dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We attempted discussion within the edit summaries, and a consensus was reached in the edit summaries of New York City, yet they did not, having better knowledge of the pandemic at hand, than I did to utilize their contribution and place the relevant information elsewhere deemed appropriate. The primary issue at hand is reviewing the summaries of the Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Tiderolls 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, examine all the edit summaries, the information within those contributions between both parties, and my personal talk page for Worldwide Communion of Catholic Apostolic Churches, instead of showing what I personally deem a lack of desire for investigating this issue via the statement "Discussion does not take place in edit summaries." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries are for providing brief descriptions of your edit, they aren't a forum for discussion. If there is a dispute about an edit or edit reversion, it should take place on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I would note that Magnolia677 did approach you on your talk page an explain one reason why they were unhappy with your edit. From their comments, it seems easily possible if you would just keep using line breaks in the infobox this may be enough to satisfy their concerns. A good start to the discussion would be to ask them if it would be okay to make your changes, including the change of infobox type, if you keep the linebreaks. It's probably fine to continue to discuss on your talkpage for now, although there's also no harm simply moving to the article talk page right away and directing Magnolia677 there. If Magnolia677 disagrees with your changes even if you preserve the line breaks, it's likely more extensive discussion will be needed. So then it should really be moved to the article talkpage to make it easier for others to participate and ensure it's easy to find in the future. Whether it would have been better for Magnolia677 to simply re-add the linebreaks rather than point blank reverting is not something which is useful to explore at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to respond. I will do as you have specified in this comment. Forgive me if I have come off as a bit irked as well, but their comments regarding the contribution and outright reverting as you have stated, in addition to university woes have probably taken a toll on me with extracurricular activities. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: If you could just re-insert the line breaks that would be great. It keeps a consistent style and makes it easier for the next editor to add stuff. Thanks! (where's my cake?) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It shall be so. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of my block of User:Ether161

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

---

I have blocked User:Ether161 for their second recreation of an AfD-deleted article. The editor initially created Cathy Yanni, which was deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Yanni (in which discussion I participated). The editor then recreated the page with much the same content a week later, at which point User:Herpetogenesis tagged it as COI and for speedy deletion, which I carried out, salting the page. Ether161 then recreated the page at Cathy Yаnni (with the "a" in Yanni from a different character set). I considered this to be egregious enough to consider the editor WP:NOTHERE. However, since I participated in the initial deletion discussion, I feel that I should get a second opinion. Note: I have reduced the block to 24 hours pending discussion. BD2412 T 01:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like a spammer to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good deletion, good block. Persistently recreating articles with slightly different titles to avoid salting is something only spammers do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• @BD2412: I think you had it right the first tie. Endorse indef block for WP:NOTHERE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• More info: see Draft:Cathy Yanni, and this user's contributions to Edelson and, if you can see them, Fandb, which they also recreated after deletion. Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me, in that they're here to promote non-notable corporate entities, not to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Clearly disruptive behaviour. A comment on the Cathy Yanni article: the first two reiterations describe a lawyer with a list of 'notable' cases but the third reiteration is quite different, it describes an academic and looks more promising but is woefully undersourced for a BLP. Edit: Actually the sources don’t appear to support the content in any way... Further edit: the third reiteration is mostly copied from Anita L. Allen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  The first revision of the extant draft is an unattributed cut-and-paste from Cynthia McClain-Hill, and so is the October 5 creation of Cathy Yanni. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  And evidently all of their contributions to Pioneer Springs Community School were copyright violations as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• (nac) "[Cathy Yanni] is recognized [...] as one of the top meditators in the United States." I may need to think about that. Narky Blert (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Without reviewing the sources, and purely on the face of it; from my legal training, Draft:Cathy Yanni looks to me like what practising lawyers call a "CV" or "résumé". Narky Blert (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Pursuant to the above, I am reimposing a WP:NOTHERE indefblock. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User bringing Commons disputes over here

Mawcowboybillsbrick7 has not made a mainspace edit on English Wikipedia since 2012, and their only contributions in the last month have been to complain about deletion on Commons with thinly veiled personal attacks e.g. [476], [477], [478]. It is clear that they are not here to provide any benefit to the English language encyclopedia, only to continue on disputes from Commons. Thus, I believe that they should be blocked here, as if they want to discuss images on Commons, it should be done on Commons. And personal attacks and accusing people of being robots should not be tolerated. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand. What about those edits are personal attacks? It looks to me like they're just asking for information. I have no idea what they're doing with their user space but it doesn't seem to be malicious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

More to the point I guess: what disruption to English Wikipedia would we prevent by blocking them? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

They are accusing users of being robots (multiple times), and wasting English Wikipedia user's time by constantly pinging them, see User talk:Mawcowboybillsbrick7#Unable to stop automatic deletion of image for illogical reason, which is at least the third time they've started a discussion pinging editors about issues on Commons. Commons issues should be dealt with on Commons, and this user clearly cannot understand that. They're using of userpage/user talkpage as a web host is wasting users' time deleting rubbish from there e.g. [479], and User:Mawcowboybillsbrick7/Personal Biography Information is just a waste of time. Anyone with no mainspace edits for 8 years that is taking up reasonable amounts of users' time should be blocked. They have made 0 attempts to edit mainspace, and so are clearly not here to add value to this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:If they are pinging, you can mute them. @Ivanvector: are they nothere? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Please see related discussion at the Teahouse and on their talk page. They are here to complain about deletions of their uploads on Commons (content on their talk here also revdel'd as copyvio) and to compalin about their block on commons. Looks WP:NOTHERE to me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• There block on Commons expires November 12, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, boy. Their uploads on Commons look entirely related to their nothereness here. Certainly they look "out of scope" for commons. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Their Commons contributions were worse than that, 6 similar things have been deleted today. And the deleted/remaining contributions are causing irritation on English Wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mawcowboybillsbrick7: The best advice I can give is that you deal with Commons issues on Commons. Pinging people here, editing your user spacenon constructively, and asking at the Teahouse about Commons issues, are not helpful to you or constructive to the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see where they were "warned" at all on Commons. I can't see deleted contribs over there but it looks like they made their last edit there at 8:43 on Nov 5. Herbythyme dropped a series of image deletion notices on their talk page starting at 12:43, blocked them one minute later, and kept blasting more deletion notices for another three minutes, but made no effort at all to explain how to fix the uploads, or really any advice or warning of any kind, at all. Four hours after the user's last edit they were bombarded with a whole bunch of image deletion notices and then they were blocked without any chance to respond. As far as I can tell nobody ever tried to explain anything to the user, and now they're over here looking for clarification. They're obviously trying to do the right thing (whatever they think it is) but apparently nobody can be bothered to even try to help them. Some more sadistic administrator might block for asking for help but I'm not going to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For what it may be worth, he was warned here 17 months before the block but apparently continued uploading copyrighted files. —teb728 t c 19:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, someone seems to have told them to start providing licensing information with their uploads, and so they started trying to embed their own copyright notices in the images (i.e. File:Prevent-harm-2.002.jpg, also this comment). So they're trying, but not apparently comprehending the instruction, and frankly, providing that information in exactly the right way is confusing. If they were also doing that with the screenshots they were trying to upload, well then they're claiming rights they don't have, and that's also problematic. I think the root of the issue here is not the uploads, but the fact they seem to be trying to write an autobiography (Mark Washburn, deleted in 2011 but not really any content; not sure if that's what they're doing with their Personal Biography Information page) and they've proposed a comparison between two software packages (the ones they're pulling screenshots from, probably), one of which they claim to be the author of, but there doesn't seem to be an article on it (we have Keyfile and CORBA as separate things, I'm not really sure what they're getting at here), and neither of those are really appropriate uses of Wikipedia. So this might come down to WP:CIR or WP:RGW, but I think they're at least WP:HERE, if misguided; meanwhile the communities on two different wikis have been barking at them about what not to do for a decade but nobody has ever suggested what they should do. Anyway, with no surviving article edits since 2012, I don't see how their trying to find their way in userspace is all that urgently disruptive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • As a descriptive example, take their Teahouse thread about File:AGATE IMG 4478.jpg, which was one of the files they uploaded on November 5. They clearly provided that the image is their own work and that they are the author, but the image was shortly afterwards flagged with a template complaining that the file will be deleted if source and author are not provided, and as icing on that cake, the tagger also blocked them, so even if they could interpret just what the hell they're being asked to do, they can't, and the file will be automatically deleted before they can do any damn thing about it. I presume if they just try to upload it again after their block expires that you have some kind of WP:G4-like criteria and will just delete it and block them again, probably also with little explanation. Given their apparent inexperience they probably have no idea they could ask for help on their Commons talk page (if they can, I honestly don't know) and so it makes absolutely perfect sense that they would come here instead, and I'm not going to block them for that. I'd be pretty fucking frustrated if I were them, and my queries about it would not be as politely phrased as what they politely asked at Teahouse. Maybe the image also doesn't have any encyclopedic merit, since they're only using it on a userspace draft page on which they're writing some kind of poetry, but that is not the issue that has been raised, it seems purely about not filling in exactly the right lines on exactly the right template or some dumb thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• As has been noted bu others, it's a different world over there. They do have a {{{helpme}}} template. However,Mawcowboybillsbrick7 must seek relief there and not here. As has beed explained on their talk page, they've a whole slew of uploads that are "out of scope" for Commons. Most if not all of their current files under discussion look out of scope. . . . .Perhaps @Herbythyme: can illuminate us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم and Syrian Kurdistan

I believe User:عمرو بن كلثوم is editing tendentiously. The Talk page of the article Syrian Kurdistan is almost exclusively a complaints page from a wide variety of editors, over the past many months, about the behaviour of this user, and evident from the discussion is an obvious POV based on denialism, to whit: the user would rather the term Syrian Kurdistan did not exist, and is convinced (against all and repeatedly offered evidence) that the phrase is a neologism produced by expansionist Kurdish nationalists this century. The user would have the world believe there was never any such thing as a Syrian part of Kurdistan (i.e. within the 20th- and 21st-century Syrian Arab Republic); and the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy cooked up since the Syrian Civil War. The user has here embarked on an attempt to gain support for their POV here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise? and when another user sought assistance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_the_PhD_candidate_Mustafa_Hamza_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_a_Syrian_Kurdistan? and will not take no for an answer. I suspect administrator action of some kind is needful. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is really interesting. At the RSN, user Sixula suggested that it was not the right place for this debate so I quit following that page, but a few minutes ago I was notified of this complaint here. I revisited the NOPV noticeboard to find that user Pinkerton jumped out of nowhere and made conclusions for everybody, and then ran to report me here and accusing me of refusing to compromise. Obviously, they did not bother to visit the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page to see what's going on. There has been a discussion going on for days, we have provided enough evidence, including the all-important Treaty of Sevres map (for non-experts, that post-WWI treaty in 1920 shaped all Kurdish statehood claims) and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". We also provided sources showing the initial use of this term. For example, this report by the highly-regarded International Crisis Group reads:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

This issue is really too long to explain here, so I would rather have people visit the Talk page mentioned above. In brief, two or three users are trying to show this as an entity that has long existed and three other users (at least) do not agree with that, and argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. Finally, this is a content dispute, and I have not broken any rules. Actually, admin intervention in that page would really be welcome. May be at least provide protection for now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, the user has illustrated succinctly the problem with their WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT attitude and refusal to accept reality. Below, one can see a long list of sources that very much do talk about Syrian Kurdistan, explicitly, and by name. As a synonym for Western Kurdistan it can be found in geographical research before the First World War. The claim of the all-importance of the Treaty of Sevres is a lie ignorant of history and wilfully oblivious to the sources editors may peruse below. This user's insistence on claiming that a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan" is exactly the kind of false narrative they have been bludgeoning people with for months (years?). Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. Some sort of admonition is surely required.

• In the Dispersion. World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section. 1962. This book tells the tale od the Kurdish Jews who lived in the one hundred and nintey towns in what is now Iraqi, Persian, Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan
• Ghassemlou, Abdul Rahman (1965). Kurdistan and the Kurds. Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. (i.e. the present-day Turkish, Iraqi and Syria Kurdistan)
• Chaliand, Gérard, ed. (1993) [1978]. Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan [A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan]. Translated by Pallis, Michael. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-194-5. Are these three regions - Kurd-Dagh, Ain-Arab, and Northern Jezireh - part of Kurdistan? Do they form a Syrian Kurdistan, or are they merely region of Syria which happen to be populated with Kurds? ... Syrian Kurdistan has thus become a broken up territory and we would do better to talk about the Kurdish regions of Syria. What matters is that these people are being denied their legitimate right to have their own national and cultural identity.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1982). Self-determination in the Middle East. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-062408-7. While the Kurds in Turkish, Soviet, Syrian, and Persian Kurdistan were held in place with and iron fist, the Iraqi Kurds fought virtually alone throughout the 1960s.
• Bruinessen, Martin Van (1992). Agha, Shaikh, and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-018-4. The plains of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan are the granaries of Iraq and Syria, respectively.
• Izady, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-8448-1727-9. All of Syrian Kurdistan, half of central Kurdistan in Iraq, and about 15% of western Kurdistan is located in this warm zone. It contains the cities of Diyarbakir, Siirt, Mardin, Urfa, Qamishli, Afrin, Sanjar, Sulaymania, Arbil, Qasri Shirin, Ilam, Gelan, and Pahla.
• Kreyenbroek, Philip G.; Allison, Christine (1996). Kurdish Culture and Identity. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-329-1.
• Bruinessen, Martin van (1978). Agha, Shaikh and State: On the Social and Political Organization of Kurdistan. University of Utrecht. I shall refer to these parts as Turkish, Persian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan. ... Most sources agree that there are approximately half a million Kurds in Syria.
• Mirawdeli, Kamal M. (1993). Kurdistan: Toward a Cultural-historical Definition. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies. Turkish Kurdistan, an Iraqi Kurdistan, an Iranian Kurdistan, and a Syrian Kurdistan
• Bulloch, John; Morris, Harvey (1992). No Friends But the Mountains: The Tragic History of the Kurds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508075-9. The British and the French made it clear from the outset that they were unwilling to surrencder those parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan which fell under their control, and that an independent Kurdistan, if such an entity were to be created, would have to be in what was still Turkish territory.
• Jaff, Akram (1993). Economic Development in Kurdistan. Badlisy Center for Kurdish Studies.
• Gotlieb, Yosef (1995). Development, Environment, and Global Dysfunction: Toward Sustainable Recovery. Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. ISBN 978-1-57444-012-6. The situation in Turkish Kurdistan is consistent with that of Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Kurdistan.
• Meho, Lokman I., ed. (1997). The Kurds and Kurdistan: A Selective and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CN and London: Greewood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30397-5. The information the author gets concerning Syrian Kurdistan is abased on results from field research carried out in 1988 and 1990.
• Berberoglu, Berch (1999). Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-4412-2. Then, in the 1920s, the Bedirkhan brothers introduced the Latin alphabet, which became standard in Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan.

GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We are debating a specific term. Can you provide the quotes showing that, instead of showing "Kurdistan" or Kurds in Syria, etc.? One more thing, we are about to reach consensus on the Syrian Kurdistan page. This shows that your claim of me refusing to compromise is false. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this discussion out of many going on on that Talk page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, look at the sources yourself. Yours is the only voice on your side of this "debate". GPinkerton (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Actually me and other users also participated in the debate taking the same position as Amr. No on need to look at the sources themselves as the one who claims need to prove, so quotes and pages numbers should be presented. Finally, you can have tens of sources to support you but there are tens of them that support the other side and NPOV requires you not to ignore that. This complain is uncalled for and an attempt to force a measure from above to give one side of a long debate what they want! The users who are against Amr acts exactly like him, so if he is wrong, so are they. I am calling for an rfc to solve this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: All of what you're saying is not at all relevant. This is only about Amr's repeated attempt to prove the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist or is a recent coinage, whereas in the real world it is a coinage many, many decades old. This is tendentiousness. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Im telling you Im an active part of the debate and you are deciding for me that I am not? Seriously? You are now part of this content dispute, so go to the article's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CommentThis has nothing to do with Amr. This is all Konli17's fault. That page has been quiet for months and then all of a sudden he comes back after a long break from editing and starts his POV pushing again. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Konli17 is the user that should be blocked because he’s not WP:HTBAE and is just here to push his agenda. You should really see his other edits before jumping to conclusions that it’s Amr's fault. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17: if you want to make a report about an unrelated matter you need to do it elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, per your request GPinkerton, I'll call on other people to weigh in on this. @Supreme Deliciousness:@HistoryofIran:@Al Ameer son:. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thepharoah17, The page was stable until Konli17 returned and pushed his pov points. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See an example here (out of tens or hundreds) for yourselves how user konli17 changes the meanings by simple tweaking and removal of sensitive words to fake/change content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. Look at the long list of reverts and edit-warring in their edit history. Actually, they were blocked back in June for edit-warring. That is the user who needs to be disciplined here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This argumentation is obfuscation and unconvincing whataboutery. GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you have obviously decided to take sides in the dispute at hand, bring on your evidence in the form of quotes from the links above you copied from user paradise chronicle! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It's more than obvious you are unwilling to read. None of these sources were copy pasted from anywhere. I just did the most basic Goggle Books search, and provided you with hyperlinks so you can easily verify that each one discusses "Syrian Kurdistan". How many times? The quote is the same in every book listed: "Syrian Kurdistan"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you are the one making claims here. Bring me your evidence (e.g. quotes). It's not my role to prove your point, it's yours. Syrian + Kurdistan does not equal "Syrian Kurdistan". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, it seems you are the one refusing to read since you failed to see in the Talk page in question how many editors were on each side. Regardless of the opinions presented here, you claimed that I am the ONLY one representing this side of the story. Now you are attacking the other editor sharing my opinion here. You are trying hard to push your POV, same as you did as the NPOV noticeboard, ironic. Obviously, you are not qualified to judge or point at others. And let's keep this professional without personal attacks like you did above accusing me of supporting Assad regime (with no evidence whatsoever)! And by the way, on this note the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (who declared Syrian Kurdistan) are allies of the Assad regime and there is plenty of evidence that I will keep for another time. So, better do your homework before throwing accusation around. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. GPinkerton (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing wrong with Amr ibn Kulthoums edits. "Syrian Kurdistan" is a lie and a fraud, there are editor at that page that are pushing kurdish nationalist propaganda lies and attempting to rewrite history. We should thank Amr ibn Kulthoum for standing up to the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More denialism. Just look at the sources! "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", "Syrian Kurdistan", all the way down! Your claim it is a lie and fruad is absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is in denial here despite all the evidence. For the third time, I am asking you to provide actual quotes (SENTENCES) saying "Syrian Kurdistan" from before 2011. Good luck with that! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with user Giolocam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Giolocam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user makes disruptive edits only on 2 different pages, I have warned him in his talk page as well as in the page of a Wikipedia librarian but he's now even trolling and mocking at my actions and warnings. 3 revert rule broken as well. Here is the librarian's page where I have warned him today trying to solve the issue. Instead of doing anything, he reverted and his replies have been accusations against me and reverting my changes, not even a tryout to prove his changes. Another user has warned him earlier as well but he kept making these changes instead of trying to solve anything, here is where I issued the warning, but he's now trolling about this issue and 988096613 he copied the warning I gave him in my own talk page. After I explained everything in Materialscientist's talk page with all of the sources, instead of proving his points, he reverted me again and he wrote: "The rest is his creativity derivided may be from Spanish complexes towards Italy. Sorry to write, but time to BAN HIM!" I tried to make an ANI against vandalism but an administrator saw this as a content dispute. Maybe it was a simple content dispute but instead to try to solve anything, he has started to troll and to make accusations against me in the talk page of Materialscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just check Giolocam's edits.

I have also found that the page List of European countries by average wage had issues over the past months before it got protected, someone was boosting up Italian data writing in the same way and using the same invented numbers. 2A02:2F0E:117:F400:2007:2401:6477:844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , 2A02:2F0E:419:2100:A89B:2504:BBE:E6F4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , 2A02:2F0E:419:2100:E1CA:149F:250D:272A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I warned him and I tried to reach a sollution but as you can see, this user's replies are far from that but just adjust to 1. revert 2. accusations 3. copy & paste. This is much more than a simple content dispute about a page. Instead of trying to solve or to talk anything, he copied and pasted my warnings in my profile (he didn't even reply in his talk page) and in the ANI just changing his username to mine's. Isn't this vandalism? --Pfarla (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And what about your worse behaviour Pfarla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? Help needs to ban you. Please, check timing of all story. You posted several times not official sources and you vandalized List of countries by average wages. You reverted several times in few hours edits. Administrator already warned you to collaborate but it seems you are looking for war. You neither started to look for a solution seriously. Valid sources and numbers are on my side.Giolocam (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• All contributions have a date and an hour, right? I have tried to solve this in the talk page of Materialscientist (as he's a librarian) yet just check this user's replies and edits. He keeps reverting and then going to that talk page saying "I have the data" "You are vandalizing" "Ban him, it's complex against Italy" and such stuff that can be proven on the talk page of Materialscientist. This is what happened, you can check it:

1. I tried to solve the issue but this user keeps putting data that doesn't match anything he writes. He even deleted the official ISTAT Italian statistics source. 3 revert rule broken too, broken after I tried to solve this issue and after another user warned himself in his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&diff=988093758&oldid=988092615

2. His replies have been direct revert, accusing me instead of even trying to solve anything, Just as I clearly explained in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=988095067&oldid=988093949 but the reply I got was this one, saying again to ban me and accusing me instead of proving his changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=988095867&oldid=988095838

3. Not a single tryout to solve anything, just reverting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&action=history just as he has removed the proper order in a similar page, just look at the numbers, he reverted it because of "vandalism" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_average_wage&action=history he now claims he wants to solve something after he done all of this, even if he got warned before.

4. Then he came to troll my talk page and the ANI directly making a copy paste about what I wrote, just switching usernames. I warned him in his talk page but instead of defending his position, he just made a copypaste with the same content in my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pfarla&diff=prev&oldid=988096613 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=988099403

5. Not even mentioning false accusations and attacks against myself in the talk page I have mentioned before. Proofs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=988035154 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=988095838

--Pfarla (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Try to collaborate as administrator wrote you twice instead of trollying. I already started explaining.Giolocam (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Another explanation with proofs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=988107855&oldid=988106848 it seems now reverting, accusating, asking for bans and doing copypastes is trying to "collaborate" --Pfarla (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm building in your friend talk while here you are trying to ban me. You are ignoring two times warning by administrator.Giolocam (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

What? This is ludicrous. All your edits/contribs are registered and just checking the talk page of Materialscientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Materialscientist#Vandalism_in_the_page_List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage shows everything you've done. You are now more calmed after seeing the reply of an administrator, yet you still copypasted my warnings for no reason, without even trying to defend yourself. You have said before I have "a complex" or that "I don't like real data" just as you have asked twice for my ban in that talk page instead of even trying to show any source, just as what I did before. I don't even know why I write more if it's a complete waste of time, everything you have done is registered.

Instead of trying to prove your data or to expose your arguments, you've switched just to revert, accusate and then troll/vandalize my talk page as well as the ANI just doing copypastes of what I wrote. I have made this because of your behavior, not only because you broke the 3 revert rule and your disruptive edits. --Pfarla (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Materialscientist, it seems to me that the path of least resistance is to block them both. For the life of me I can't figure out what these two want. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Can you please explain what did I do wrong exactly? I have exposed my arguments trying to solve a dispute even if that data didn't show anything this user was claiming. This user started to accusate me and started to make ludicrous claims. He vandalized my talk page. He reverted everything I have edited today (I didn't revert more than 2 edits, to prevent breaking the 3RR) I have warned himself in his talk page, it didn't work, I got more accusations, now I made this regarding his behavior, not only because of his disruptive edits. Instead of doing the same stuff, I came here trying to solve it in the most legal way Wikipedia has. --Pfarla (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Your complaint is incredibly verbose and unclear, and in general your English is sub-par. Goes for your opponent too. There's not a sentence in here that's unproblematic, and there are so many problems with diction that I can't figure out who was supposed to have done what in the wrong way. They didn't "vandalize" your talk page; they repeated the warning, possibly mocking you, but in the end they mock themselves because it's in even worse English. And I don't see them repeating/trolling you here. But all that is just the thing: what is this about? Are they reverting you without cause? Then give them warnings or report them at WP:ANEW. Are they insulting your sensitivities? Warn them for personal attacks, and/or report them to AIV. But fighting it out on Materialscientist's talk page serves no purpose: in case you haven't noticed, MS ("the librarian"--is that his gangster name?) hasn't responded, it's just the two of you fighting. This report isn't helping anything either. Stop fighting and stop spreading all of this all over the place. Who the hell knows what y'all are fighting over--this? And neither of you have discovered the article talk page? Drmies (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I reverted to just before Giolocam made an unexplained, disruptive edit, which was followed by a slew of unexplained disruptive edits by our two prize fighters, neither of which sought fit to discuss the matter on the talk page. Maybe a partial block of that article and whatever else they're fighting over is a solution. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: his edits are still there, as he made them in 14th October: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&diff=prev&oldid=986972140 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&diff=983460002&oldid=983459891

Check this page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_average_wage and check Italy's position, also the chart from below which is a mess up, he also edited that page putting a wrong order to boost up Italian data. I didn't know how to act exactly, yes indeed my main issue was this user's behavior against me, more than his edits. --Pfarla (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• For goodness sake. I have partial blocked both form editing User talk:Materialscientist ‎, 'cause, damn. Any other admin may undo or modify at their discretion. I'm with Drmies here-- totally puzzled at all this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have partial blocked both x 1 week from editing List of European countries by average wage. Any admin may modify or unblock at their discretion. all we are saying-- is give peace a chance --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Pfarla and Giolocam: Now then. Do please discuss this content dispute on the relevant talk page. If at an impasse, please seek WP:dispute resolution, a WP:third opinion or open an RfC to help settle your dispute. Cheers, and thank you for helping build the world's largest free content encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: But why did I get too a week ban from that page if I didn't make any edit war? I have stopped before breaking the 3 revert rule. It was the other user that broke it, I just inserted the consensual data on the page that was there before 14th October 2020, when this user changed them, you can check it. Why did I get a 1 week ban on that page if I didn't break any rule? I came here to solve the issue rather than just sticking to a non-ending reversion or edit war. --Pfarla (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To give you the opportunity to discuss on the article talk page. If you are not going to continue to revert, then you do not need to edit the page till then. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: But look, that user changed the consensuated aspect of the page in 14th October 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&diff=983459891&oldid=983412883

Yesterday I've only inserted the real data that was there from a long time ago, also explaining carefully everything I wrote there and in the talk page of Materialscientist, where I have proven the data and the sources (which were there before 14th October 2020) even if I did get reverted for inserting the real data, I have also only reverted twice his changes, to prevent myself from breaking any rule. He needs to discuss to show his data is factual, as I just restored the page.

That user made as well exactly the same edits as other IPs before the page got semi-protected, and the only edits he made on the Wiki have been editing that page to insert the same numbers. This indicates he's only here to edit that page to boost up Italian data. Look at this: 2A02:2F0E:117:F400:2007:2401:6477:844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , 2A02:2F0E:419:2100:A89B:2504:BBE:E6F4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2A02:2F0E:419:2100:E1CA:149F:250D:272A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Pfarla (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pfarla, you're linking userlinks. Example WP:DIFFs would make evaluation easier. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)