Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wugapodes (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 14 August 2020 (→E-960: politics -> secular politics for clairty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    Socionics

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

    There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources [1], [2], [3]. There is a long-running conflict over socionics in the Russian Wikipedia. Almost all supporters of socionics were permanently blocked. --Q Valda (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting that Gennadiy Frolov has the exact same userpage formatting as ThesariusQ with the weird sub-heading with the username, I think it's clear that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QuantumBorg [9] edits [10] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in ru-wiki [11],[12],[13],[14]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [15]. Тhey seem like sock- or meatpuppetry.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QuantumBorg edited exactly once on the 14th. Q Valda has previously edited the article in 2018, and resumed recently on the 29th. I don't see the problem there - as opposed to the pro-fringe editors who all rotated in and out in the course of a day to game the WP:3RR rule. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie has it right. I address this here: [16] And ThesariusQ is themselves the subject of an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits — wrong. There is consensus in ru-wiki about pseudoscientific nature of socionics. Here are diffs on some edits from different people (including admin) — [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] --Q Valda (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points.
    1) Consensus on ru.wiki has no bearing on en.wiki
    2) non-consensual
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: Don't mock users who clearly don't speak English as their first language about their word choices, it's obvious what they are trying to say and you have contributed nothing to the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 of my comment explicitly added to the discussion. And I added point 2 to lighten the tone of my comment, so it wasn't just "you're wrong." I apologize if it came across as mean-spirited, as that was not my intent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What goes on at ru-wiki is of interest here in an advisory capacity, however, especially since socionics is mainly a thing only in post-Soviet nations, and Q Valda is talking about ru-wiki to rebut ThesariusQ's claims that ru-wiki found it is not pseudoscience. I understood "non-consensual" to mean "against consensus". Crossroads -talk- 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed block

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

    • 1. At this SPI, Sounderk and ThesariusQ were "possilikely" to each other. Igor RD was "possible". Igor RD and Echidna1000's behavior makes them obvious meatpuppets at best. There's also an IP. The SPI is presently awaiting administration and close after CheckUser.
    • 2. Above, unusual userpage formatting was pointed to by Hemiauchenia to show that ThesariusQ is almost certainly Gennadiy Frolov, one user of many who is indeffed on ru-wiki. [35]
    • 3. Here, ThesariusQ pointed to a comment by a "neutral participant" on ru-wiki, but Q Valda showed this is by another of ThesariusQ's socks. [36] (As Q Valda well put it, they are "part of [the] pro-socionics puppet-show".)
    • 4. MrOllie noted above that the sock/meatpuppets were used to violate 3RR prior to Socionics' extended confirmed protection. This is easily visible in the page history [37] on 30 and 31 July 2020.

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

    Aspersions at ARS

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

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

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

    Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.
    If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or it could be argued it is a good thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make WP:POINTy comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with these edits, alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what happened. The article Yoast was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to Moz (marketing software). Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- GreenC 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @GreenC: Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have WP:DRV for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a big nothingburger, in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at WP:RSL for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. Your fifth edit was a refactor of your fourth refactor of the comment, after you were warned for edit warring. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. I don't see much different from something like I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant, or No thanks to you and this wasted exercise, Keep your mask on and your head down (while at the same time reprimanding another editor for an ad hominem). All in a days work. ——Serial 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I talked about process only.
    There was no WP:PA.
    Unlike User:Deacon Vorbis who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.
    He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Statements like He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Levivich That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:
    1. "Stealth deletion is for real. "
    2. "The usual suspects voted delete."
    3. "An agenda fulfilled."
    4. Restoring the above, twice (with an assist)
    5. Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella." - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
    6. "There are those who want this series of transactions kept secret. The Star Chamber will brook no contempt."
    7. "He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress."
    8. "That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you." - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the McWhorter article. I WP:HEYd that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... Cecil G. Foster, Clayton Kelly Gross, Dean S. Laird, Distinguished Flying Cross Society, American Fighter Aces Association, and an article about an acrobat Andrii Bondarenko. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had this to say about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ANI about you...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. Considering how frequently I see Levivich's edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on wikipedia solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes in the hatted section. Dream Focus 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:
    12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination)
    • LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
    • 7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
    • 7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. Dream Focus 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:
      14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta - Stuff 7&6 said:
      • "WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
      • This exchange is great:
        • Cavalryman (the nom): "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
        • 7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
        • Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
        • 7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
      • To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
      • To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
      • "That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
      • "As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
      • "Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
      • To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
      • "CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"
      That's all from just one AFD in July. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's bad and wrong. If they didn't, that's also bad and wrong. Reyk YO! 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". Dream Focus 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the NYT in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU General Data Protection Regulation - link. Searching is not as easy as you might think. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush and Narky Blert: I have just written Wikipedia:How to access US news websites for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut WP:EVADEGDPR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Alexis Jazz, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Wikipedia. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was declined. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.
    I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban

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

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

    Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary privilege against use of such arguments.
    If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a WP:Boomerang. WP:SAUCE.
    The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.
    No reason for a Prior restraint. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OPPOSE Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. Dream Focus 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Darkknight2149 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ——Serial 13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See WP:Thicker skin sanction. Atsme Talk 📧 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    • Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? Spartaz Humbug! 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to game discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. (For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism). Darkknight2149 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing nefarious here. Nothing, other than the standard bloc voting that has always been ARS's stock in trade since it has existed.
    • Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Coming from you and the other ARS tribalists, that's pretty hilarious. Thanks for helping me make up my mind here on how to vote. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. Dream Focus 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. WP: TOPIC BAN states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Wikipedia users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I stand by what I said. WP:Before is something that can and should be implemented before making an AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.
    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep."
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Per the closer: " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
    3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
    4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory Per the closer: " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
    5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
    6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources."
    7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot) Per the closer: "The result was keep."
    8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III Per the closer: "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
    9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room Per the closer: " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
    10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was keep."
    11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey Per the closer: " The result was delete."
    12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building Per the closer: " The result was keep."

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

    Thanks. It is bed time for me. Zzzzz. Apologies I find it difficult to have so much animosity directed at the ARS, and 7&6 does as well. Constant accusations, and even an admin calling us ARSHOLES... it is not your fault and you have never been WP:UNCIVIL so apologies to you if I offended. Have a good night, I am going to unfollow this sh&t show and edit articles. Makes me happier than this thread. lol. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Constant accusations? This thread has dozen of quotes of accusations by 7&6 and their response -- just above -- was that because the articles were a keep, "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers ... They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." And you're saying it's ARS that is the target of the accusations? Where in those 14 AFDs in which 7&6 makes accusations against the various noms does anyone make any accusation against ARS? Nowhere. Lev!vich 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I am sure 7&6 is defensive just like I am tonight. Remember when you thought I gave you a PA and I struck it? But you will not...says a lot about you Lev. You rub your hands with glee when drama starts. Maybe 7&6 is spoiling from a bunch of "jerks" or "a&sholes" not doing their due diligence before AfDing. 7&6 is a net positive to the project. I have been a part of many saves and dyks with him. He may be a acerbic but he makes policy and guideline arguments and he is an expert at improving the articles. If you want an article whipped into shape, ask him to help. check out Bertha Boronda I did this a while ago and asked him t help. It is a winner now from his editing. Anyway...you guys talk amongst yourselves....I am out. I will go write some more articles. The project needs 7&6 - not sure it needs...? Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to bed Lightburst, you're not helping anyone or anything, even with your coy .... ——Serial 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias (Personal attack removed) Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You mean this one from January? I'd forgotten all about it. Must've been distracted by the recent ones: ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ Lev!vich 03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst, I am finding your claims that your being here is distracting you from building the encyclopedia hard to swallow. You and Thirteen teamed up in the above mentioned AfD to fill the article with completely unreliable sources, as well as utterly irrelevant information and equivocation intertwined with a little original research to blatantly WP:REFBOMB. And you did it together, working as a team. Most charitably it could be described as attempted WP:GAMING, I would argue it was WP:NOTHERE. Neither of you did a single thing to establish the subject’s notability, when called out both of you refused to discuss the issues, instead you chose to cast aspersions.
    You wonder why there is so much animosity directed at the ARS? It’s because some of you deliberately disrupt legitimate attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and you do so as a team. As Thirteen’s comments in this thread attest, you see some AfDs as contests to win. Such an approach detracts time from those that ARE HERE to build an encyclopedia. Cavalryman (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Very strange claim @Cavalryman:. You are a difficult person. I see you turned the article in question Ratonero Murciano back into a stub when your AfD failed. Nice. You generated no consensus do so...and thanks to you unilateral move, the article sucks again, just like when we found it. A clearly notable subject that you nominated without a before... and after the article was referenced, and built, up you withdrew. Next you waited a short, while and stripped out everything - going against talk page discussion. You removed: origin of the breed, appearance section, health, the See also section, the further reading, and 12 of the 14 references. Such a shame... and again, it does not serve the readers. So is there animosity directed at ARS? yes - and quite a bit comes from you. The article was a keep in that form - the talk page generated consensus not to make those changes, and you destroyed the article anyway. Congrats. Oh, and I see you changed the name of the page - also unilaterally. We saved the article because it was notable, you made a mistake..yet now you are still grinding over it, even after you have ruined it. congrats. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the Ratanero article, it was "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412" and the nominator was User:Cavalryman. And after he does that he maligns the sources, and removed them. Doing that by indirection he could not do by direction. And y'all thinks this is fine behavior? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this comment when Cavalryman was deleting things during the AfD: Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst. And it looks like I was being prophetic... the evisceration happened after the AfD concluded and the article was name changed. I am sure none of this makes those who refer to me as some sort of problem and or (Arshole) will think better of me, however it should raise your eyebrows. I mean, what are we doing here? Are we building an encyclopedia-or diminishing it. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can either of you point to a single thing you added to the article that does not fit the above description? I note Thirteen is continuing their belligerent attempts to introduce clearly unreliable or irrelevant "sources" [38] whilst they still have not responded to any of my very clear attempts to discuss their & Lightburst's unreliable and irrelevant contributions, both during the AfD [39][40] and afterwards [41].
    Further, as I clearly stated multiple times during the AfD, if reliable sources could be presented I would gladly withdraw the nomination, Neodop did so [42] and I immediatly withdrew the nomination [43]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour [44] after again being called out above, I await the arrival of Thirteen's !vote. Neither have given any response in the preceding TP section about their "sources". Cavalryman (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Getting consensus is the opposite of battleground, - here is an idea, which I do not think is my own. Lets not display WP:OWN behavior. We do things by consensus, like we do during AfD. You are acting alone in opposition to consensus. Consensus is a policy. It may be messy and not as quick as doing as you please, but it is policy. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, with a caveat If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost)" If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't). Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation, and any admin who treats it as one should not be closing them. Black Kite (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The examples provided by Levivich and Reyk illustrate a pattern of assume-bad-faith accusations that are not positive contributions to the consensus-building process. There are occasionally AFDs that should not have been nominated in the first place, but "SNOW KEEP" and "should not have been nominated" !votes should not be showing up in discussions that have already received a range of responses. Likewise, "No WP:BEFORE Compliance" is thrown around way too much; perhaps the nom didn't have access to all sources, wasn't impressed by the sources they found or maybe they just overlooked something. It's also concerning that 7&6 uses "Keep" outcomes to justify this behavior "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective" (they're not) as if that makes it all OK. Regardless of the good work done by ARS, we need to address the battleground-style personal attacks, conspiracy theorizing and refbombing. Articles that have been improved should speak for themselves with no need for these aggressive tactics at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These were keep votes because the articles should be kept. And the unwillingness of editors to do their homework before trotting out an AFD is problematical. Additionally, most if not all of those articles I helped build and source; and if the sources were available to me, and resulted in keep, the ends and means are coextensive. We were building a better encyclopedia. And as debates go on, it becomes apparent that they are a WP:Snow candidate, which I might note. Indeed, the AFD nominators withdrew several of the articles complained about above.
    As to the perception that this is a battleground mentality, I only used the word "losers" to make plain the conflict of those who appear here, and acted in an outwardly hostile and unbending manner at the AFDs. Indeed, there are those editors who boast on their talk page about the number of article the helped delete.
    The primary goal at WP:ARS for me was and is always article improvement. If I didn't think that the article should be a keep: I would have said so, or I would not have participated in the discussion.
    That you can blink away an Admin telling an editor that he is an "ARShole", with the support of others, says a lot. We are all volunteers here.
    The confluence between my votes and the outcomes is because the articles deserved to be kept, and should not have been nominated in the first instance. I choose my articles to improve carefully. I have been told that I had an 87% rate where I was with the majority and the outcome. I do not personally know if that was (or is) true, as I do not scoreboard.
    Finally, I have managed to take many articles from AFD to DYK and appearances on the main page.
    Thank you for you consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I recommend all parties involved get away from the keyboard for a while & clear their heads. Wikipedia will still be here while you're gone. It's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, a good time to do something else for a while. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the beginning of this brouhaha.
    Yoast

    It may be kept; it may be deleted later.

    Kept. Per the closer, "the outcome was is now inevitable."
    Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take my words out of context to justify your battlefield approach and to purport a view to myself that I do not ascribe to. Dial it down. It's rude and childish and should really stop right now. Spartaz Humbug! 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I accurately quoted you and put in the context. Spartaz I was not trying to make you take sides here. You ought to consider carefully the use of your attack adjectives, as I don't think I gave you cause for that reaction; but I have broad enough shoulders that I can bear the weight. Sorry for any offense given; it was not intended as such. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I accurately quoted you. Except you didn't. Spartaz said "the outcome is now inevitable". You transformed that update into something that was always the case, "the outcome was inevitable". BTW, though I'm sure this will just be filed under "sour grapes from losers", perhaps a promotional article about a search engine optimization product kept on the basis of a download count and coverage in how-to books is not a stellar example of ARS's benefit to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the quote. Sorry for my error, as you are right about the timing. It should have read the Keep "outcome is now inevitable" File this under good faith errors and apology tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, there’s a lot of blame to be shared and little to gain by blocking everyone who’s stepped over the personally abusive line. ARS would be wise to caution its members about staying cool and not focusing on other editors, BUT the deck does seem stacked against them for dealing with tendentious editors and accusers who constantly poke at their efforts to identify and “rescue” articles on notable subjects. If anything ARS seems to hone in on problematic patterns of deletion that do need further attention. And BTW, it’s all largely thankless work done with a deadline. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. You hit the nail on the head, there is a lot of muddy water stirred up in this discussion but this is clarity. -- GreenC 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Watching this circus play out, I am strongly considering changing my vote to support sanctions on both sides of the fence. There is plenty of WP:BATTLEGROUND to go around here (some of which is bleeding into other sections), and the deletion/re-creation topic area in general seems to breed a lot of toxicity. Here we have the works - battleground/tag-teamy bickering, uncivil back-and-forths, personal attacks, WP:LAME edit warring over someone quoting a personal attack in a civil context, people using alleged tribalism to try and get certain votes dismissed, etc etc. There are a few individuals here that have replied persistently (and forcefully) enough that they would be better off leaving the conflict and doing something more constructive. Darkknight2149 00:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban and sanctions. While I think that the "inclusionists" or ARS people sometimes save articles that probably shouldn't have been nominated, most if not all of the time they (including 7&6=thirteen) treat AfDs as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and unfairly attack nominators. Whatever their percentages are, it doesn't justify the constant personal attacks. Which they have been repeatedly asked to desist in. I don't see any of them, including 7&6=thirteen, taking responsibility for their bad behavior or doing anything to curb it. Maybe 7&6=thirteen apologized in this ANI, but I don't think it means the behavior will stop. Especially since he has mainly blown the whole thing off at the same time. Although I think we could look through anyone's AfDs edits and find instances of them attacking someone, the problem with 7&6=thirteen and other "inclusionist"/ARS people is that it's a specific, targeted, and tactical way of doing things, like Darkknight2149 points out in the comment above this one, and needs to be dealt with as such. So, I think a topic ban/sanctions is appropriate. Since I don't really see it changing otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my "tag-team" comment was referring to people on both sides of the aisle. I have seen a lot of deletionists that are equally guilty of this sort of thing and there is even an entire essay on it. I have seen radical deletionist use tag-teamy tactics, intimidation, dishonesty, and accuse anyone who opposes them of being on the "other side," just to delete as much stuff as possible for deletion's sake (telltale signs - these users will have a history and are generally aggressive, one-note, always assume bad faith, and never oppose a deletion for anything). And yes, there are also people who are vehemently against anything being deleted for any reason, and I think we're seeing some of that here. I wish there was an easy way to weed out people with battleground tendencies, because the deletion/article creation area in general attracts a lot of this. Darkknight2149 05:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- The sanction is actually quite mild and is tailored to specifically address the problem (and not be punitive), so I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. This has gone on far too long. While I'm of the position that the ARS needs to be disbanded since it is nothing more than a canvassing club, I find at least some of its members to be civil. This not the case with 7&6=thirteen, who is clearly the worst offender. I have been subject to his personal attacks in the past (see Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen). One of my first interactions with the user is when he staunchly defended keeping an article that everyone else agreed was pure plagiarism (see William Foster Nye). When you are start an ANI discussion over a plagiarized article being speedy deleted, that shows a pure lack of judgement. Its this keep at all costs, no matter how bad an article is attitude that is harmful.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an extremely mild sanction that is well-tailored to address genuinely problematic behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose These don't really rise to the level of direct personal attacks requiring sanctions per Black Kite. Most of his comments do cite policy and even if some of the insinuations were wrong, they don't really interfere with editing and can just be ignored. Patiodweller (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal: Maybe 7&6 and Deacon need to step away from ARS for a little while (say, a couple of months?). They both seem to have gotten over-invested it and overheated. A little rest and editing elsewhere could restore perspective. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Boomerang

    Not happening and an unhelpful distraction.Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Some suggestions

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

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

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

    AFD is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about WP:ARS is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.
    You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. WP:AGF is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.
    Serial AFDs are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, Joost de Valk. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. Lev!vich 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, A subject with which I am familiar - and I agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    7&6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.
    I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. Darkknight2149 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an undelete and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as WP:BURDEN but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's been my finding over the years: that ARS is far less about bringing articles to a viable standard than to Thwart The Nasty Deletionists By Any Means Possible. Quite aside from those who obviously don't believe that notability standards should exist, it's too often a matter of throwing up obstacles, or complaining about more prods/XfDs than their numbers can oppose. What I see far less often is the surest way to shut the deletionists up: source the damn articles. Ravenswing 00:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled by your aspersions. Collaborating to improve the encyclopedia is the mission of the project. And your efforts are decidedly in the other direction. Your statement is an aspersion ...apparently aspersions only matter if they are not leveled against the ARS. This whole wall of unrelated text should be hatted. The ARS have saved a few articles that you have wrongly tagged, and you should thank us. Here is another notable subject that you failed to investigate before tagging. Getting mad that ARS improves the encyclopedia and saves content with RS is outrageous, indefensible and ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You accuse Raven of casting aspersions and {{rpa}}'d Iri's "ARSholes" comment below, but you have yet to say anything about 7&6's aspersions and personal attacks, which are the subject of this thread. Lev!vich 01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled by your aspersions You misspelled "accurate and concise history". --Calton | Talk 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very simple rule. Criticism of inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism by inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. Reyk YO! 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no love at all for the ARS—I believe I was the first person to use the term "ARSholes" to describe their tag-team—but I'd strongly oppose any attempt to deem particular classes of articles more worthy of saving than others. (The most important article is the article on whatever topic you happen to be looking up; it's not for us to condemn readers for not reading more or writers for not writing more about topics we happen to consider under-represented.) FWIW I think their impact is minimal and at most a slight nuisance; every admin who works the deletion backlogs knows to disregard all comments from the ARS regulars unless they're making an actual valid point rather than the more typical variations on "keep, it exists", in the same way we all know to disregard the usual "delete, I haven't heard of it" regulars like TPH. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, I think the problem is that it's open to gaming. Any spammer can list their article for ARS to "rescue" and have a squad of obsessive inclusionists mob an AfD to protect what is in the end often advertorial. I am also extremely disappointed in the quality of sources that are sometimes being added: the result of ARS efforts are often to provide superficial referenciness that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you're familiar with WP:RSN.
    As currently constituted, ARS gives an extremely strong impression of believing that nomination for deletion is prima facie evidence that the article should be kept. And that contributes to the drama. If they want the drama to stop, they could show signs of being less inclined to go to bat for obvious spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day by multiple processes including speedy deletion, prods and AfD. The ARS gets involved in very few of these -- only about 1 article per day, I reckon. It would be good if the articles nominated for rescue were those with the most promise but there's a chicken-and-egg problem with this – you often can't tell how promising a topic is until you've done a fair bit of work on it. Consider a topic like Burry's, for example – my most recent nomination. I had a quick browse for sources and my intuition was that the topic had promise. But it's an American topic, while I'm British, so I listed it for rescue in the hope that American editors would pick it up. This seems to be working out reasonably well. In other cases, a comparatively no-hope topic will be listed in desperation, hoping that the ARS can perform some magic to save it. I usually ignore these myself as I have better things to do. But you really can't tell till you try and I am often surprised what a thorough search for sources will turn up.
    Anyway, if Guy or others think they can do better then they are welcome to try. The ARS has hundreds of nominal members but few of them show up up to do anything at all. The real problem with AfD and related activity such as AfC is that they are dying for lack of attention and effort. The bickering doesn't help. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, I am happy for AfD to run its course, I don't see a need for a flying squad of militant inclusionists to rescue articles based on zero selectivity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I spend a lot of time in AfDs and in article rescue, Here is my record. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's been my observation as well, Guy. What I would love to do is be able to trust the work of ARS regulars, but I can't: just in the last week, I've seen a myriad of "Hah! You lazy bastard, you didn't follow BEFORE, here are several sources!" that turn out to all be namedrops and casual mentions ... when they reference the subject at all. See enough of them, and you just can't help but feel that the editors who resort to that are acting in deliberate bad faith, hoping that no one actually examines the evidence. Beyond that, a couple have made clear their belief that the entire deletion process is illegitimate and that notability guidelines are optional at best. As may be, but sorry, this is the encyclopedia you've got. Ravenswing 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (scratches his head) That's not working out well for me? Since when was this a competition? I did my research, I found no sigcov (using Burry's as a search term instead of "Burry," which other editors seem to have done), and other editors made the save. This is a win all around. But if you insist on keeping score, according to AfDstats, a full forty percent of your votes at AfD go against the consensus result. (I've got a 93% match rate, by contrast.) Sounds like you could stand to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards, and not view AfD/prod as a war zone. Ravenswing 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User: Ravenswing Apparently you do not accept that whether (or not) there was sigcov is a judgment call. Indeed, going back into the history of 137 year company (well before the internet) has its own unique set of problems. The subject matter an intrinsic relationship with the ability to find WP:RS. To be sure, these can lead to WP:AGF disputes on that issue. And Your mileage may vary. That you think that a statement that you got it wrong WP:Before is a "personal attack" — and not a defense to an AFD — suggests you need to reevaluate your perspective. To be sure, this is about improving the encyclopedia, and we ought to recognize that goal in everything we do. But silencing those who have a different analysis and conclusion is, IMO, bad policy. See you next time, I am sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That "I think a statement that I got it wrong is a personal attack" is entirely in your own head, not in mine: obviously I did, in that AfD. That I'm somehow "silencing" those who disagree with me is also entirely in your own head: if I somehow have supernatural control over what you and your cronies type, I'm sure mucking that up. I've nominated several hundred articles for deletion at AfD, and even with a match rate around 94% on that, 6% failure means I've gotten some of those wrong, or that I'm simply outvoted. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you're not. (Sorry that the argument you were wanting me to make wasn't the actual one I was making, but eh.) Ravenswing 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A suggestion that would forestall any claims of not following instructions to perform searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion would be to link to such searches and comment on the results in deletion nominations. I don't see what would be so difficult about that, as it only involves copying and pasting a few URLs that the nominator would have to hand anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would become ridiculous and time prohibitive with anything that has more then a few search results. AfDs aren't about Google hits anyway. It's also worth mentioning that doing a search for a term in the Google search bar will sometimes give complete different results then if you search for something by clicking on the search links in AfDs. I've had it happen a few times myself with Google Scholar. I think search results can be different depending on the users location and their prior search history also. It's not the job of the nominator to provide sources showing why the article should be kept anyway. That's on the "voters." It's not like the same personal attacks wouldn't occur if nominators did what your suggesting anyway though, because it's just a tactic that isn't based on anything already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless to say, asking people to prove a negative is unreasonable. Reyk YO! 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't propose that anyone should prove anything, just that they should say what they have done so the discussion can be a consensus-seeking exercise rather than a battleground. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it time prohibitive when it just needs the nominator to say what they have done, which we are asked to believe is to follow the instructions for nominating an article for deletion? The time-consuming bit is following the instructions, which I am sure every deletion nominator already does, not saying how they have been followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s AfD that is the fertile battlefield not just ARS, and this idea is worth implementing in some way. It would help confirm that the Nom did indeed follow Before, then if a pattern of bad noms surfaced maybe they would get coached in more successfully adhering to Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying what was done in general terms might not be too time-consuming, but logging every step can be tedious. I've searched archives via my local library web site and while of course I can write all of the details down regarding archive names and search criteria, it is definitely additional overhead. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Whoa, there, cowboy. You lost me with “fertile battleground”. We have policies for that. Kleuske (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This section’s first sentence tries to lay the battlefield mentality at ARS’ door when AfD itself is a contentious area filled with strong opinions. Anything that might make the process more smooth is likely worth consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Isaacl said it would be time consuming because saying what steps the nominator took is tedious and nothing is good enough for the ARS people anyway. Even if you say you did a before they attack you for not doing a before. You say you did a before that involved a Google search and a Google scholar search, and you point out specific sources that you found and they still attack you. That's what they do. The nominators shouldn't have to bend over backwards by saying what they did just to be treated with a little decency. There should always be a presumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence. If someone isn't willing to grant them it, then that's on them. Just like it's on the people who call nominators sexist for doing an AfD about a women or a racist for doing about a person of color, etc etc. We shouldn't do anything to bend over backwards to accommodate the ARS people's cynicism anymore then we should do it for those people. It wouldn't matter if we did anyway though. We'll still be accused of things. So screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You ask for their good faith while simultaneously accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith.

    I think a simple step somewhere in the process confirming Before was done is needed, especially with some editors who seem to struggle with identifying sources that others point out. Then the issue becomes helping serial misusers of the process in finding sourcing rather than being frustrated by process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith. I'm accusing the ones that have acted in bad faith of doing so. Which is who this discussion is about. This discussion is not and never has been about every person that has ever had anything to do with the group, no matter how minor their role in it is. Everyone here knows who the bad actors are. I'm not going to list all of them every time I want to say "ARS." so some random member, who isn't a part of this discussion or at fault, won't feel like I'm talking about them. Thanks though.
    Anyway, more importantly there's zero way to "confirm" a nominator has done a BEFORE. Except for the nominator to say they did one. Which, as I've said before, they are already doing and no one from ARS is ever satisfied with. So, making it obligatory for us to say we did a BEFORE isn't going to deal with this. having consequences for badgering users like Andrew will resolve it though. Things have calmed down quit a lot already since this incident report was opened. Whereas, there's tons of AfDs where Andrew and his cohorts (obviously I'm not talking about every damn member of ARS)have accused nominators of not doing a BEFORE when they explicitly said that they did one. BTW, their the only ones that ever bring up a BEFORE or accuse nominators of not doing one. It's a non-starter IMO to make a policy about something just because three users have a chronic personal problem with it. Instead we should deal with the three users who have the personal problem. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. It's not about AFD and it's not about ARS, it's just about a few editors. Lev!vich 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Yeah, there's a bad actor or two whose accusations of bad faith are chronic, who are plainly operating off from an agenda that the whole deletion process is illegitimate, and for whom it seems that any tactic, stunt or reversal of tack in its service is justified. (Except, of course, gaining general consensus for their extremist philosophy.) Ravenswing 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, particularly per Levivich. This is not a systemic issue with either AfD or ARS, in my view. It's a specific issue with a few AfD regulars. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update As an update, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burry's, which was highlighted as an example above, has now been closed as Keep. The subject is a maker of biscuits, especially Girl Scout Cookies. The topic was listed for rescue and got good attention. For an independent view of the topic, I suggest consulting Eddie891 who contributed good comments and article updates during the AfD. As it happens, this is the same Eddie891 that is currently to be found at RfA.
    My own view is that this example demonstrates the value of prod patrol and article rescue. If I had not intervened, this topic would probably have been deleted without discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse any of the problems raised in this thread. That you think the AFD's outcome is relevant is the problem itself. Lev!vich 03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Burry's was cited as an example because it was my most recent nomination and, at the time, unsettled. It was relevant then and it is relevant now that the AfD has now been closed and we can see the outcome. It is also topical in that one of the main participants is now at RfA. The claim that Burry's is "completely irrelevant" seems to be completely false.
    My most recent nomination for rescue is now Hasdeo Arand. This topic is the second in an attempt to innovate. It occurred to me that topics in the news often need timely improvement because they are getting lots of attention by our readers but often need citations to help them through the formalities at WP:ITN/C. This hasn't achieved much because the real problem with the ARS is that few members do anything. While Eating Out to Help Out recently I saw a sign. It's an old chestnut but seems relevant still:

    That's Not My Job!
    This is story about four people named: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.
    There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
    Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did.
    Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
    Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.
    It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

    Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s fair that the issue is the longstanding tension between deletionists and inclusionists, and that AfD is a relatively easy system to game.
    ARS looks to be the only real watchdog that looks for systematic corruption of the process. And it’s truly thankless work.
    Unfortunately the burden is to prove someone is abusing the deletion process which seems at best to be an uphill battle. Maybe someone can think of a way to help ensure that AfD isn’t abused, I’m not so sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There are no deletionist. There are no inclusionists. Nobody needs a watchdog. We need people to work on articles and we need people to evaluate notability at AFD, but that is not "work" (thankless, necessary, or otherwise), it is a hobby, and no articles require "saving" because nobody is attacking articles. This whole viewpoint is just in the heads of a few ARS members who perceive themselves as fighting a war. Well, WP:Don't be a hero. Lev!vich 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sharply disagree with that assertion. An easy look at the list of AfDs at ARS suggest there are articles on notable subjects that editors have been attempting to delete, for whatever reasons. If there are serial deletions I have no idea. But it’s hard to argue that no watchdog is needed when it’s obvious ARS is doing at least some good work on article building. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, that is patently untrue. There are clear deletionists on Wikipedia. It is also a fact (particularly in recent years with AfDs being automated via Twinkle) that most articles get AfDed without the nominator having done any WP:BEFORE; they generally have only glanced at the existing citations in the article's current iteration. It is also a fact that cogent and thoughtful participation (checking carefully and thoroughly and at length for coverage) at AfD has lagged way behind the speed and ease with which the glut of articles are AfDed. Articles are not rescued from "attack" (your word); they are rescued from deletion. Cullen328 for instance, is a world-class article rescuer. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that I am a "world-class article rescuer", Softlavender, although I take some pride in improving and thereby saving articles listed at AfD. If I had more time and stronger motivation, I am sure I could have saved many more. Thanks anyway for mentioning my work in that area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue at China–United States trade war

    I'd appreciate help or advice on an issue at China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The main problem is that a few times now, Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disappeared from the article and the talk page discussion for 1–4 weeks, and then has come back and reverted most or all of the updates and corrections that have been made in the meantime [45][46][47]. I've asked the user to discuss these reverts on the talk page, but they refuse. On the talk page you'll find discussion of several other disputes, but when I asked the user to discuss these reverts, they said "I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits"[48], "You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why"[49], and "You'll have to wait for my explanation"[50]. I first asked for an explanation for the reverts on 18 June, and Flaughtin still hasn't provided one. This seems to be a case of WP:Status quo stonewalling.

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

    The admins should shut this request down with prejudice. I can't be refusing to provide explanation for my edits when I have already said I would provide an explanation for them - it's just they will have to wait given the preceeding and proceeding mass purges/battleground edits the other user has made. It really isn't my problem that he/she wants to (or feels entitled to) jump the line and it really isn't my problem either that he/she doesn't read either carefully or at all - that isn't meant to be an insult, it is just meant to be a statement of fact as the debates on the talk page demonstrates. The rounds of debates has to be resolved sequentially, partly because of, again, the problematic edits the other user has made (the mass purges as I have already pointed out), partly for reasons of clarity (there are too many points of contentions to be resolved), and partly for reasons of fairness (this is self explanatory); to do it any other way would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. The issue of my editing pattern is something that I have already addressed; that said, I will going forward do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.
    For the record admins should note the irony of this request and how it's (or seems to be anyway) a classic example of an aggressor playing the victim card - this whole debate all started with this mass purge of my edits by the opposing editor here. I could have disregarded his/her edit summary (just like how he/she has disregarded my explanations for the reversion of his/her edits) and taken the issue straight to this noticeboard but I didn't given the confidence I had in my edits and suppporting arguments. The debates on the talk page were and still are moving in the right direction, most of the points of contention have been or are being resolved and majority of them are being resolved on my terms - i suspect that that is real reason why this ANI was brought up in the first place. At this point, the best solution would be if an admin could directly intervene in the debates on the talk page (mainly to prevent a request like this from happening again by expediting the dispute resolution process) or barring that, then do nothing and just let the debate run its natural course. Flaughtin (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do make an effort to read carefully, and that's why, for example, I object to claims like these ones about GDP that don't match the sources they cite. But back to the issue at hand—I note that Flaughtin still has not offered any justification or explanation for the reverts linked above. Flaughtin's insistence on discussing disputes "sequentially" with weeks of delays (and periodically reverting any new changes to the article) has the effect of making it impossible to make progress on the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without having looked at the actual material - if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. No one can hold another editor hostage to their whims because explaining their actions doesn't fit their schedule right now. If that's what is going on here, it should stop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Elmidae, that's a good summary of what's going on. The editor is discussing other disputes on the talk page, but refuses to discuss the reverts linked above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae: As I have made clear in my comments above and many times to the other editor elsewhere I am prepared to explain my reverts - the real problem is that editor's sense of entitlement; specifically, the arrogance on his/her part to not just demand that I respond on his/her terms while he/she mass reverts my edits, but to be completely ignorant of the hypocrisy of the demand. He/she demands my immediate and unceasing attention to my reversion of his/her edits; meanwhile I'm supposed to just pretend that his/her mass reversions of my edits never happened. I can understand if an animal accepted those kind of demands, but what kind of self-respecting person would do that? As I've said, going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.
    Granger: Well no no you don't read the things I write carefully (or at all) and your arguments on the talk page demonstrates this. For every example that you can find where I haven't carefully read your edits, I can find ten examples where you haven't carefully read my edits. If you want to talk about problematic conduct, then of course it's best if we began with your mass purge of my edits which is what started this whole debate. I've been more than patient with you and assuming of good faith given your initial mass reverts of my contributions to that article and for you to try to play the victim-card here on this noticeboard and rehash your demand that I respond on your terms when you took the initiative to mass revert my edits rests on a kind of arrogance (i.e. arrogance of ignorance) that really, really just scrapes the bottom of the gutter. If you did that with any other editor, your (multiple) mass reverts would have been reverted mercilessly already and you would have ended up at WP:3RR ages ago. I have already said that I will do my best to respond in a more punctual manner and if you are not going/refuse to take my word for it, then that is your problem, not mine. Flaughtin (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your life may not revolve around Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia doesn't wait on you. As Elmidae said, if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. Your edit doesn't need to stay up; you can take the time to discuss this on the talk page. — Czello 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin is acting as though I wronged them somehow by reverting some of their edits in June. But I followed WP:BRD, and when Flaughtin raised 26 separate points on the talk page, I took the time to respond to each and every one. In contrast, Flaughtin still has not explained the reverts linked above, even though it has been a month and a half since I first asked for an explanation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Czello Taking the disputes to the talk page is what I have been doing all along. As for the time issue, as I've said (4 times now), going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia. This is the most reasonable response that I can give and I really don't know how many more times I need to say this.
    Granger You didn't just make "some reverts", you made a mass revert. Please don't act like there isn't a difference between the two. Flaughtin (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin is discussing some other disputes on the talk page, which is good. It would be better if they could be more civil and stop accusing me of not reading their comments. Now they're also trying to derail a 3O request that I opened at their suggestion about these earlier disputes.
    Regardless, they still haven't explained the reverts linked above. Given that, I think I would be justified in undoing the reverts, but given that the user hasn't acknowledged or resolved this conduct issue, I worry they might just revert again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the user has responded regarding other disputes, but still refuses to discuss these reverts, so I've restored the updates and corrections. If Flaughtin objects, I hope they will discuss the issue on the talk page the way they have with earlier disputes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the above user's revert and explained my action on the talk page accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin still refuses to discuss these reverts, saying I will address my revert of your edits until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of my edits that you did here. We are going to (as a matter of chronological fact) do this sequentially and I will not let you jump the line just because you feel you are entitled to do so. As I am the author of the second round of edits which you purged, the responsibility per BRD falls on me to initiate the second round of debate, which I will start at the conclusion of this first round of debate (this includes the resolution of the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate).[51] They are insisting we resolve all the other disputes about this article before they will discuss their reverts of most of the updates made during their weeks of absence. Also, after I pointed out their goalpost-shifting regarding one of the other disputes, they said this really is a total waste of fucking time.[52] Could someone please help deal with this stonewalling and incivility? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is a new one. Usually you get people refusing to enter a debate because it is clearly always the other person's responsibility to start discussing on the talkpage, never them. Here we have someone refusing to talk because they feel it is their prerogative to start discussion on their terms, and they feel justified in reverting without explanation until it pleases them to do so. Flaughtin, in my estimation you are getting onto very thin ice here. Stop reverting unless you are willing to fully explain why you do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear you haven't been reading what I have been saying; if you have then you haven't been reading it carefully. Why do you keep saying that I am refusing to answer what the other user is saying? I have already told you I am going to reply to him/her. It's not about starting a debate on my terms, it's about starting it on the ideal terms. Notwithstanding other reasons, the debate as I have already told you has to proceed sequentially for logistical reasons: there are too many points of contentions to be resolved and many points of contentions to be resolved between the second and third mass reverts overlap. The upshot of this means that resolving the issues in the second mass revert (the other user's revert of my edits) is going to resolve a lot of the issues in the third mass revert (my revert of the other user's edits) anyway. To do it non-sequentially would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. At massive disruption to my real life situation, I am doing my best to expedite the debate as fast as I can - as we speak, I am in the process of writing up the list of contentions for the second round of debate (which corresponds to the other user's second mass revert of my edits) so that we can move on to the third round of debate as quickly as possible (my revert of the other user's edit which started this ANI request). I said I would respond in a more punctual manner and this is proof that I am following through with it. If this still isn't good enough, then that just isn't my problem because I am already doing everything that I can. If my revert of the other user's edits has to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page, then that user's prior revert of my edits (for which no full explanation was given by the other user) will also have to be reverted without prior debate on the talk page. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried again to make sense of the sequence of events in that article's history. You two have been re-re-re-reverting each other for so long that it's become quite opaque to anyone uninvolved. If I were to take a stab at a clean start position, I would say it is whatever Mx. Granger reverted to in this this edit. That appears to be a revert of a substantial change to a previous stable state, and thus the status quo that a discussion should be based on before any further changes are made. It's a long way back, but after that you two start bitchslapping each other and it becomes very muddled. Can't suggest more than that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: We can revert to that version if you think it would help. Unfortunately, it also contains serious errors introduced by Flaughtin (the incorrect statements about GDP) which I didn't notice at the time, but I'm okay with reverting to that version and then using the talk page to move forward from there. The stable version from before the original dispute started is this one. Maybe the best option would be to revert to that version and then use the talk page to discuss the updates and changes that Flaughtin, other users, and I want to make. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the reason the history is so muddled is that three times, Flaughtin disappeared for an extended period and then reverted all or most of the edits made by multiple users in the meantime. Another reason is that on the talk page, all of the points of disagreement have been put together in one huge discussion. In the future it might help to use a separate section for each point of disagreement (on the other hand, with so many points of disagreement that might lead to a large number of sections). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option: I am also okay with using the current version, as edited by Flaughtin, as the basis on which to discuss changes. I'm not that concerned about which of these versions is in place while we discuss. My main concern is that discussion actually needs to happen, about all of the issues under dispute. Right now Flaughtin is still refusing to discuss one of the areas of dispute. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger and Flaughtin: I was going to say, if you want to try a structured do-over, then you're probably right that the 3 June version [53] is best - before either of you started on the current sequence. It's a lot of work to throw out, but I'm getting the impression that the situation right now is too tangled to resolve gracefully, and a Gordian Knot solution may be cleanest. - But if you are happy with the current version as a basis, then I'd say it comes down to "reasonable time frames". On the one hand, WP:NODEADLINE - it's not an issue if a discussion doens't happen immediately; the article will keep, and the only problem would be if the current version is so misleading that it can't stand for some days. Apparently not the case. On the other hand, no editor can unilaterally freeze an article for an unreasonable time while they play by their preferred schedule. How about you two try to agree on a timeframe within which Flaughtin should make his comments, and if this blows by, the excuse of "I will justify myself in due time" is officially void? That kind of agreement could also get admin enforcement, I would think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a workable idea. I'm not exactly happy with the current version, but I think the major problems with it are limited enough that they can be resolved through discussion fairly efficiently.
    I would suggest that in general Flaughtin should respond within 24 hours. (This is the standard I usually hold myself to, in discussions where someone is waiting for my response.) And now and then, if Flaughtin is unusually busy once in a while, I don't mind for them to say so on the talk page and then take an extra day or two. What I find difficult to deal with is getting no response for days and days and then seeing all the edits made in the meantime get reverted. [stricken as I misunderstood the suggestion]
    Importantly, it's not enough to respond regarding some issues but not others. One of the main problems here is that Flaughtin has been responding regarding earlier disputes but isn't discussing the more recent dispute. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: Rereading your comment, I realize I may have misunderstood. Did you mean to agree on a timeframe to respond to new comments on the talk page going forward, or a timeframe for when Flaughtin will start discussing the recent dispute? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thanks, that's fair enough. I suppose if there's another long absence with unresolved discussions I'll seek input on what to do.
    As for a timeline—it's now been seven weeks since I first asked Flaughtin to explain their revert, and they have edited many times in the meantime, so I think a response is long overdue. I would suggest that they respond by the end of 8 August UTC (i.e., a little over two days from now). Is that feasible? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to suggest that we start a new section on the talk page to discuss the reverts. I've been trying to discuss them in the same section as the other disputes, but I now think that's likely to make the discussion more confusing, as the reverts don't seem to involve any of the same text as the other remaining disputes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a lot of delay - more than one could reasonably expect others to put up with. If you want to be part of the development of an article, there's a certain expectation that you cooperate within time limits that do not leave everyone else hanging for months; it's not codified but I don't believe anyone can be expected to put up with recurrent multi-week gaps in an ongoing issue. If you don't have the time to work with others at a reasonable pace, you shouldn't stick your oar in to such an extent. Let's see what they say when they next tune in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: User:Flaughtin has responded regarding other disputes but still refuses to discuss the reverts or to give their opinion on the way forward suggested above. See their most recent comment (third paragraph). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And again. Meanwhile, the lead still has two incorrect statements about manufacturing, the timeline has no updates from this May or June, and Flaughtin has given no explanation of why they keep reverting the fixes and updates. Are these unexplained reverts and stonewalling enough merit a block? If not, what can be done about this pattern of repeatedly reverting and refusing to explain or discuss the issue? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested a third opinion as a way to wrap up the (outstanding issues from the) first round of debate so that the second (and by extension third) round of debate can proceed. I had initially said that I would initiate the second round of debate until after the corresponding 3O request for the first round of debate was resolved; I am now modifying my position so that I will initiate the second round of debate by the end of tomorrow regardless of whether that 3O request has been resolved. As I have said I am expediting the debate to the best of my ability and this is proof of it. As for the recycled complaints about my problematic conduct, editors should note the deliberate provocation by the opposing editor as well as my befitting response. Flaughtin (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not having read anything about this displute beyond the two last diffs posted by Flaughtin: that is not a provocation. It was inappropriate of you to strike comments that were not yours without permission, and Mx. Granger's response was totally appropriate. Your response in edit summary, on the other hand, strikes me as inappropriate and provocative. I suggest that you apologize for tampering with other people's comments (something Mx. Granger carefully avoided, leaving your comments in exactly the same state before and after their edit). --JBL (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, this is really not getting any easier. If this third opinion request doesn't lead to a breakthrough, I would really suggest setting the article back to a point prior to the disputed edits altogether (as discussed above) - that appears to be something that both editors could agree on, although not happily. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some very serious behavioral issues at work here. I recently began editing this article, and had never interacted with Flaughtin before. I asked on the talk page if there was a source for a particular claim made in the article. Flaughtin resonded that it was being addressed in one of their "rounds of debate" above, which are massive walls of text with dozens of itemized arguments (take a look here). I responded that these "rounds of debate" are completely opaque to me, and that absent a source, I was removing the unsourced claim. Flaughtin then reverted me and accused me of refusing to read. Instead of just citing a source, Flaughtin is demanding that I wade through massive walls of text, the "rounds of debate." The whole thread is here.

    The problem here is that Flaughtin is holding the article hostage. Anyone who wants to edit it has to engage with Flaughtin in their "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to know what the source for a particular claim is is directed to these massive "rounds of debate." Anyone who wants to restructure a subsection is informed that they must first take part in the "rounds of debate." I've never seen anything like this on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've responded to the editor here. For the record that editor is welcomed to participate in the above debates and if it is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of WP:BRDD) then corrective input would also be welcomed. Barring any clear up of my procedural misunderstanding, then I stand by my assertion that that editor should not be allowed to jump the line after the hours of input that I have put into the article/talk page debates. Flaughtin (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin's demand that I not be "allowed to jump the line" is precisely the ownership issue I'm talking about. Flaughtin is engaged in wide-ranging "rounds of debate," each round covering dozens of different issues, and believes that anyone who wants to edit the article must first participate in these "rounds of debate." Anyone who doesn't first come to Flaughtin for permission to edit is "jump[ing] the line". Even if I just want a simple answer to a simple question ("What's the source for X?"), I'm directed by Flaughtin to the "rounds of debate." I don't think this user understands how talk pages are normally used, or that they don't have the right to demand that every edit be submitted for their prior approval. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no no that is a total misrepresentation of what's going on, aided in no small part by your I don't like it attitude here. I'm saying you can't jump the line on things which are already being debated and an important reason is logistical: it's going to be impossible to keep track of the developments, particularly in a situation like this where there is a sheer number of other and in many cases overlapping points of contention which have to be resolved. I don't care about the other things which are outside of that - those can be adjudicated on its own merits. Now as I said, if this is a procedural misunderstanding on my part that reversions can't be made by uninvolved third parties when the debate is taking place between the original interlocutors (this is my reading of WP:BRDD) then corrective input would also be welcomed. But of course, that is not a job for you as you aren't an administrator. Flaughtin (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should note that I have provided the sources per that user's unreasonable demands. (unreasonable because I had told that user where to look twice. But as above, if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then then corrective input would be welcomed.) Flaughtin (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators should note per this edit that User:Thucydides411 is now edit warring over the material even though we are engaged in a concurrent debate over that exact section on the talk page. I recommend that sanctions be imposed against the opposing user in question. Flaughtin (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted once, after discussing my position on the talk page. You've carried out numerous reverts in the same time period (just a small sample of your recent reverts: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]). Pot, meet kettle. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. What a mess. I'm happy to try User:Elmidae's suggestion of going back to the pre-dispute stable version[60], though I'm not sure that will resolve User:Flaughtin's behavioral issues. To borrow User:Thucydides411's description, "holding the article hostage" is a fairly apt description of what Flaughtin has been doing with unexplained reverts for the past several weeks.
    Either way, I suggest that we abandon the great big section covering dozens of topics that Flaughtin divided into "rounds of debate". Let's have a separate section for each unresolved issue. Hopefully that will keep discussion organized enough for other editors to follow what's going on and weigh in. (I think most of the issues in the huge section have already been resolved, though I haven't yet had time to read Flaughtin's latest post in that section—I'll do that in a few minutes.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of administrative action, I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert in question so that material is back to its original version. (this is the opposing user's version of the material while this is my version of the material) To recapitulate: the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent debate over that same section on the talk page. This is in total violation of all sorts of editing policies and guidelines (e.g. BRD and AGF) I have informed that user on the talk page of my revert and also warned him or her that I will be filing an request for administrative action if the user does something like that again. If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed, but I am confident given the circumstances that my revert and warning is the right thing to do. Flaughtin (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reinstated some of the content in my version of the material per my explanation on the talk page [61]. If there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. Flaughtin (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No part of BRD endorses reverting a revert. It is not possible for "you were edit-warring so I reverted you" to be true without "I was edit-warring" being true. You should change your approach. --JBL (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis Well I have a different view with regards to your characterization of what I did - I didn't see it as a revert as I was per the corresponding explanation on the talk page reinstating material which wasn't explicitly in dispute there; my edit would only have been a revert if it had included the disputed material. And to be clear I don't see a contradiction between those two statements as they are undrstood in the objective. Reverting disruptive edits don't count as edit-warring so I wouldn't agree, by way of example, that a reversion of the unilateral revert by the opposing user so that the material went back to its original version would be considered edit warring as I did here (The key here being that the material is reverted back to the original - and not my - version. Of course you can say thgat the original version is itself disputed but that technicality is practically meaningless - at the end of the day you need a version of the material to actually be in the article while the disputes are being resolved on the talk). But having said, I will going forward refrain from adding anything from my version of material without prior consensus on the talk page. Flaughtin (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what you wrote: I have in line with BRD reverted the edit warring revert. So maybe you want to rethink this response? Then you can give apologies all around for edit-warring, for asking for corrective input and then Wikilawyering in response, etc. --JBL (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No really I don't know what there is to rethink because I am genuinely confused. This isn't me trying to get cute and be a wiseass. As I understand it, reverts of disruptive edits don't count as edit warring - and what I reverted was clearly a case of disruptive editing (the opposing user unilaterally decided to reinstate his/her disputed version of the material while we were in the middle of a concurrent debate over that same section on the talk page.) I made the mistake of reintroducing material from my version of material which the opposing editor disputed - this is a kind of mistake that that won't happen again. If there is something wrong in the way I'm thinking about this, then I am open to the comments. As I said I've been saying all along if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. I'm not out here to prove a point and it's not like I have one to prove anyway. Flaughtin (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin, please read WP:3RRNO. That section lists the only exempted reverts. "Disruptive editing" is not one of those exemptions. Schazjmd (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that piece of information as I didn't know about it. That said, there's still something I need clarification on. Was the unilateral revert by that editor vandalism? To me that's what it definitely looked like. But whichever the way the response goes, I will make a note of this exchange for future reference.Flaughtin (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I think it's safe to say it was not vandalism. It's a content dispute. A unilateral revert during discussion is poor form and uncollegial and not recommended, but it is not vandalism. Schazjmd (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Schazjmd So...what am I supposed to do if something like that (the unilateral revert) happens again? Am I supposed to bring the complaint here, the edit warring noticeboard or how is the response supposed to work? Because it doesn't make much sense to me if the solution is going to be just sit back, pretend like the revert never happeened and do nothing - that would just disruptive editors a free hand to do whatever the hell they want to do. Flaughtin (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin, the steps you can take are at explained at Dispute resolution. Also, take a look at WP:BRD. I was only pointing out your misunderstanding of the types of reverts that are exempt from edit warring. Schazjmd (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are supposed to act like a grown-up and continue appropriate discussions on the talk-page, or appropriate DR. If you are correct about what the eventual outcome should be, that will be borne out by discussion. Acting disruptively yourself is not part of that process. —JBL (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Flaughtin is to be partially-blocked from the article (Talk page access retained), until they can demonstrate a better understanding of when to use (and not use) reversions. The above WP:WIKILAWYERing either indicates a lack of understanding, or a desire to game the rules. Whichever it is, this needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have said I will going forward refrain from adding anything from my version of material without prior consensus on the talk page and as I have also already been saying (many times already), if there is a procedural misunderstanding or any misconduct on my part, then corrective input would be welcomed. I have no interest in gaming the system and have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Flaughtin (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding

    -Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In late July, I had a content dispute with Grufo at Islam and blasphemy. During that dispute the user repeatedly edit-warred, employed a negative tone, accused those disgreeing of vandalizing the article and also accusing me of sockpuppetry ("@IP address (possibly a.k.a. Vice regent)"). Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert "The Quran prescribes either prison or mutilation or death for those guilty of blasphemy". Grufo defended this by insisting things like "a primary source in a philological context is way more valuable than secondary sources". Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including Eperoton) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was WP:OR and the dispute mainly ended, or so I thought.

    Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles (Grufo's contribs), articles that Grufo seems to have never edited before. This includes restoring unreliable sources[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68]. It also includes making reverts from past content disputes at Rape in Islamic law without engaging in the discussion about that content (Grufo's only comment on the talk page doesn't come close to discussing the magnitude of content reverted). Grufo's revert on History of Slavery duplicated some content in the lead.

    Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone. The user insists on using Raymond Ibrahim,[69] Nonie Darwish,[70] and The Legacy of Jihad[71] as reliable sources. Others agree with me that Raymond Ibrahim is not a reliable source. Grufo admitted that Darwish was "anti-Islamic" but insisted such sources were reliable and restored "Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration". Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "hide" and "silence" content.VR talk 14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vice regent:
    “During that dispute the user repeatedly edit-warred”
    As it has been explained to you, despite you keep projecting after a first private message, I am not the one who started an edit war, nor I consider myself at war with anyone.
    “Grufo insisted on interpreting the Qur'an for their self to insert”
    On the contrary, among other things I have tried to avoid that a subjective minority interpretation of the Quran be used as representative of the article, and I have tried to rely as much as possible only on the secondary sources that are supported by tertiary sources.
    “Ultimately, the user was convinced by three others (including Eperoton) that interpreting the Qur'an themselves was WP:OR”
    I think you lived in a parallel discussion. I did not interpret the Quran (nor I intend to). I did the exact opposite.
    “Since then Grufo has gone around undoing my edits at 11 different articles”
    As it has been explained to you, your edits tend to be destructive (in the literal sense of the adjective, meaning that they tend to consist in the removal of sources or entire paragraphs, or in their replacement with apologetic content) and counterproductive, reaching the point of replacing influential interpretations with your personal opinion. For example you have removed the Hanafi school of jurisprudence's position from the page Rape in Islamic law, despite it is a largely influential school, maybe the largest.
    “Grufo's editing is very tenditious, taking a sharply anti-Muslim tone”
    How can that be? Either I reverted your edits or I added anti-Muslim content. Please do explain it or give an example.
    “Grufo admitted that Darwish was "anti-Islamic" but insisted such sources were reliable”
    I insisted (and I still do) that being critical of Islam or religion in general has nothing to do with being reliable or not as a source as you seem to imply – no more and no less than being Islamic or not caring at all about Islam does. On the other hand, since the only sources you have removed are the openly anti-Islamic ones, I must deduce that you consider being anti-Islamic as a valid motivation for being labeled as unreliable source.
    “The user insists on using Raymond Ibrahim, Nonie Darwish, and The Legacy of Jihad as reliable sources”
    I only restored the sources that have been removed without a valid motivation by you.
    “Grufo repeatedly accuses me and others of trying to "hide" and "silence" content”
    It is literally what you have been trying to do so far, or at least as far as I could check. It looks like you feel invested of some sort of mission on Wikipedia. But whatever mission you feel you have, it does not matter as long as your edits are acceptable and not destructive.
    --Grufo (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the IP who first confronted Grufo. Don't have much to add about the hounding accusation but, as can be seen above this user is rather quick to attack other users' motivations and rather slow in presenting reliable secondary sources that support his stance. In my initial interactions with him on Islam and Blasphemy, he refused to forward any source at all and relied on unsourced interpretations of the Quran (a primary source) ([72] and onwards) while removing secondary sources (in previous edits [[73]]) and continues to do so with some of his recent edits regarding the Quran. 39.37.163.88 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with this assessment, Grufo is a civil pov pusher who seems to have issues finding concensus with other users and OR, see Talk:Planck_units#Named_Planck_units. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hemiauchenia: I am among the ones who contributed substantially to the current version of the Planck units article, and the discussion you mentioned (where I made an argument against the removal of the Planck charge from the units) ended in my favor – this does not say anything about the other editors who participated keeping a different position, who are also good Wikipedia editors. Thanks to that discussion the Planck charge is now the unit with the highest number of references in the article. But how has that discussion anything to do with what we are talking here about? It's curious that a discussion about me “hounding” other users consists mostly of me being hounded. --Grufo (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accusing Grufo of being a "civil pov pusher" seems hypocritical since there appears to be a number of those going around some of these articles. Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions, but VR has been quick to report him here and at 3RR. This seems a case of reporting someone for having a different POV. Barca (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What else do you do when someone makes more than 3 reverts in 24 hours? Note that Grufo was warned by an admin for that episode of edit-warring.
    Grufo has tried solving disagreements with discussions Grufo has followed me around on more than 10 articles, and every instance of following around starts with a revert. In almost all cases, it is me who starts the discussion. Once the discussion has started, Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see Talk:History_of_slavery#Recent_edit.) During discussions Grufo makes WP:PERSONALATTACKS and casts WP:ASPERSIONS. Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me.VR talk 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    “Note that Grufo was warned for that episode of edit-warring.”
    Sure. I have been warned by you (#1, #2) and by another user only after a misleading attempt of yours to present him your own warning as “this article has attracted edit warring before”
    “Grufo sometimes doesn't even both responding in the discussion (see Talk:History_of_slavery#Recent_edit.)”
    If you don't ping me I won't even know that you want to discuss with me (I did not even know that talk paragraph existed). But to be fairly honest I have been quite involved in discussing with you recently.
    “Grufo repeatedly makes it clear that they have a problem with me”
    I have absolutely no problems with you. Although, as I already stated above, I do think that – as far as I can see – your edits tend to be destructive, biased, and full of POV-pushing.
    --Grufo (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Hemiauchenia's earlier comment, @Quondum: warned Grufo against "disruptive editing" and that Grufo "refuse to acknowledge" others' points. Also @XOR'easter: was part of that conversation. I'll let them comment on Talk:Planck_units#Named_Planck_units.VR talk 17:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to remind that we have a rule against WP:CANVASS. --Grufo (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for pinging me. The discussion at Talk:Planck_units#Named_Planck_units never reached a consensus; I got tired of trying to make the same points repeatedly while dealing with dismissive remarks, like being told Search better ;) in response to a request for references. I continue to believe that the table of "Base Planck units" is pretty much WP:OR, and since I was the only other active participant in the discussion, the disagreement is technically stuck in the same place it was all along. References show that a quantity called the "Planck charge" can and has been calculated, but not that it should be listed among the "Base Planck units", or even really that a uniquely defined set of such units has been established. Regarding the statement above that Thanks to that discussion the Planck charge is now the unit with the highest number of references in the article: The citation coatrack for "Planck charge" is much less impressive than it appears at first glance. For example, the three sources in the table of "Base Planck units" don't actually mention it [74][75][76]. One of the footnotes used in the text is to a website that says, basically, "Yes you can calculate this, but it's not clear what good that will do for you" [77]. Another is to Progress in Physics, an unreliable journal run by and for the fringe science community. Yet another is a brief mention in a 2016 "encyclopedia of distances" that is a compilation of miscellany made by non-physicists. For all we know, they got their list of "base Planck units" from the Wikipedia article, which introduced the distinction between "base" and "derived" in 2004. Yet another merely includes the "Planck charge" in a table with a page of other quantities without saying anything about it being the capstone in an established, coherent set of units, which is the whole point in contention. Still another is to a non-peer-reviewed manuscript that claims to present a novel unified theory of physics. I regard these "references" as degrading the quality of the article, but prior experience suggests that trying to have a discussion on the matter would be an exercise in protracted futility. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • XOR'easter, I hope you are well. I do not have the energy to start that discussion again. I know that for some reason you oppose the presence of the Planck charge among Planck units, but that discussion has led to me adding many words under History to explain the situation of the Planck charge to meet your point (a little help would have been useful). As for Progress in Physics, you never raised a point, as far as I recall. You complain about my Search better ;), but what should I say about the tone of both your and Quondum's comments (including the one cited by Vice regent, where after presenting several sources in favor of the Planck charge to meet Quondum's request I have been accused by him of “arguing around the point without addressing it”)? I never filled a complaint or answered with the same tone, but it does not mean I was OK with them. By the way, have you understood what we are talking about here and why Vice regent has decided to ping exactly you and Quondum? --Grufo (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know that for some reason you oppose the presence of the Planck charge among Planck units — I explained my reason repeatedly, and did so again in my comment just above. (For example, my reply to your reply to Quondum's comment explained why those sources did not address the key point in contention.) As to why Vice regent notified Quondum and me, I presume it was because they believed that comments from the others involved in a pertinent past discussion would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @XOR'easter: “I explained my reason repeatedly, and did so again in my comment just above”: If I had the energy to go back to that discussion I would say that your arguments had rather shifted while discussing (which is not necessarily a bad sign), but one thing had never changed: your opposition against the Planck charge. But I do not have the energy, so I will just say that I believe I had done my best to thoroughly show the opposite perspective, and at the end of the day I tried to include your point of view in the article – important note of civility: all that long discussion happened before any of us even started to intervene on the page, let alone reverting each other's edits. “I presume it was because they believed that comments from the others involved in a pertinent past discussion would be helpful”: There is no pertinent discussion here. A user (Vice regent) has opened a case of WP:HOUNDING against me, but this has nothing to do with physics. Vice regent's activity deals mostly with Islam. We have different points of view, and while he thinks I am “hounding” him (unfortunately there is not a WP:PROJECTIONISM rule on Wikipedia, because this might be a good candidate for it), I simply think that his edits tend to be apologetic for some interpretation of Islam and suppress other points of view, sometimes even majority positions. As atheist, I wish instead that no particular interpretation obtains more space than WP:DUE would suggest, and I am definitely against suppressing majority views. But as why he has decided to ping exactly you and Quondum, it sounds like a mistery to me. You might try to get a better answer directly from him. --Grufo (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's an awful lot of vague pondering about the motivations of others. It's a good thing we have the policy WP:AGF, so that going forward you can stop such comments entirely and focus on the substance of what people say, instead. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • This thread is about your behavior and that of users you've interacted with. Hemiauchenia pointed to the physics discussion as relevant, because in their view, you were exhibiting the same type of behavior in both cases. Vice regent then asked for input from the others involved in the physics discussion. I see no mystery here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @XOR'easter: “you were exhibiting the same type of behavior in both cases”: I did have a strange feeling while discussing with you and Quondum, like a sort of hostility from both of you (or your last comment seems to suggest that at least you found my behavior criticizable). That discussion is publicly visible. Admins are more than welcome to dig deep into it. --Grufo (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since I have been pinged, I'll respond to a point above. Grufo claims "... and the discussion you mentioned (where I made an argument against the removal of the Planck charge from the units) ended in my favor ...". I don't see any agreement or concession to that effect, and this was probably typical of our differences of interpretation, whereas I concur with XOR'easter's perception expressed above. I understand that Grufo has been acting in good faith, but in our past interactions it felt as though the rules of discourse that we function by are completely different. —Quondum 21:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Quondum: I like to think that we both conceded something to each other after that discussion, and both our edits of the article afterwards converged towards an inclusive point of view – although I cannot say the same about the discussion, which has been quite polarized indeed, and where I think there have also been some wrongs from your side (not much from XOR'easter's side, except a general antipathy and stubbornness, all of which are not crimes – and probably I am not much better at those). That dispute though, which was completely focused on the content and where no incidents happened, has hardly anything to do with what we are talking about here, or with your ping in this discussion, which looks still mysterious to me – unless Vice regent explains at last why he felt the need of pinging you both. --Grufo (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another used already explained above.VR talk 03:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is unfortunately unclearly framed from the start, including its heading. If behavioural issues of an editor and their impacts are the focus (and this thread suggests that they may be), I would suggest that if any admin is to make sense of it, this thread should be closed and restarted, with care to the heading and to list exactly what is seen to be the problem, with direct behaviours pointed out with diffs. Making insinuations without being clear, for example the link "some wrongs" above, is unhelpful to an admin. This is ANI: make specific statements backed clearly by diffs, and keep it brief. —Quondum 10:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quondum: All I want is not “not being clear”. This comment of yours has been cited by Vice regent as one of the reasons why you have been pinged (or at least so it seems – Vice regent, please do correct me if I am wrong). And exactly that comment in my opinion is rather an argument in my favor than the other way around, since there you were answering to this comment of mine, where I dealt with all the points raised exhaustively and with great patience, and yet your answer was Grufo, if you persist in arguing around the point without addressing it, I may formally warn you on your talk page against Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (with specific reference to the section Wikipedia:Disruptive editing § Failure or refusal to "get the point"). Further, please read Wikipedia:Competence is required. – which left me stunned (and, by the way, you even cite Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, but I never edited the page concerning the Planck charge while we were still discussing about it, and my point was exactly about leaving the page as it was – while the Planck charge has been in the page since 2004). I am sorry you have been involved in this discussion, Quondum, but if a wrong is used against me, without the author acknowledging it and taking distance from it, as I believe it is here the case, I will have to show it on my own. --Grufo (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quondum: I started this thread when Grufo started following me around on different articles, reverting my work and responded to attempts to discuss with personal attacks. I mentioned the first two in the first post and the personal attacks in the second post I made here. A couple of other users later said they observed problematic behavior from Grufo at other articles.VR talk 12:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    “other users later said they observed problematic behavior from Grufo at other articles”: Don't lie, Vice regent. The only other person who mentioned a previous discussion of mine (i.e., the discussion about the Planck charge) has been Hemiauchenia, who after happily naming me “a civil pov pusher” argued that “[Grufo] seems to have issues finding concensus with other users” – which, even if it was true, would hardly be a sin of any kind. Rather, the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been you and an anonymous IP address so far – for as crazy as you accusing me of behavioral problems can sound. Quondum did that too in the past in a comment in another discussion, and I believe that comment was barely OK for him to make, or it was not OK at all. --Grufo (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have missed the very first comment from an IP; that makes "people", plural. My comment and that of XOR'easter are also critical of your behavior. So I assume you will strike the first sentence of your comment and apologize. --JBL (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joel B. Lewis: “So I assume you will strike the first sentence of your comment and apologize”: Sure, if that's the case. I might have missed it, but where exactly have you made an “explicit argument about my behavior” concerning my activity on Wikipedia? And if you intend to do it now, please do come forward. As for XOR'easter, although it is you who mentions him, if he feels he is making an “explicit argument about my behavior” as well (and not just making a point about why he thinks that the Planck charge is not a Planck unit), if he agrees I can change the sentence “the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been you and an anonymous IP address so far” to “the only persons who are making an explicit argument about my behavior have been XOR'easter, you and an anonymous IP address so far”. --Grufo (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG. Yes, you may have missed it. Also the comment from the IP. The statement you have called a lie (!!!) is in fact plainly true. Your entire approach to discussion is seriously problematic, and you should spend more time reflecting on the criticisms in order to change your behavior going forward. --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, I must be lacking research skills, but all I found from you is this comment, where you seem very happy to be able to “focus on the substance of what people say”, but you do not express judgements about it. But please do integrate my research with what you consider your “explicit argument about my behavior” (I would like to know it also to be able to defend myself in case you have raised concerns about my past behavior anywhere and I have missed it). As for the IP address, since you are insisting I changed “editor” to “persons” in the sentence to include the IP address as well. As for the lie, please, do show me how it is a truth. --Grufo (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and not just making a point about why he thinks that the Planck charge is not a Planck unit — a base Planck unit. Please, I made my position clear. I want to be charitable, but this is either a careless error, a failure to understand the point I made repeatedly, or an inability/unwillingness on your part to summarize another editor's opinion accurately. (And in the direction of making that opinion sound absurd.) The latter two out of those three possibilities would mean that, even in a discussion about your behavior, you're exhibiting problematic editing habits. I didn't want to weigh in on anything other than the physics discussion because I hadn't yet had time to read it all. (I have limited time for Wikipedia stuff this week, and ANI drama is low on the list of things I'd like to spend it on.) I will concur that claiming another editor is making a desperate search of approval from others [78] is not OK. As for the supposed "lie", Civil POV pushing is problematic behavior. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @XOR'easter::

    “a base Planck unit. Please, I made my position clear”

    I wanted to remain out of that discussion for a reason, but since you insist (but please, let's make this short)… As we have widely discussed, there are two possibilities: either 1. we remove completely all electromagnetic units from the Planck units or 2. we replace the Planck charge with another electromagnetic unit in the base units (I remember you made the example of the Planck current). You said you would like to have the Planck charge among the derived units, but still keep it in the system, am I right? In this scenario we have to exclude case 1. Case 2. would require instead that you find references in support of another electromagnetic unit among the base units (let's say the Planck current). Last time I checked you didn't have any references, have you found any in the meanwhile?

    “I want to be charitable, but this is either a careless error, a failure to understand the point I made repeatedly”

    There is no careless error, I wanted to save you from the burden of facing the fact the your position shifted between several positions and ended with the most indefensible position: keeping the Planck charge in the system and inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units (Quondum's position of removing the Planck charge completely was way more defensible) – to cite part of the vagueness of your initial position: #1: (no mention of base vs. derived yet) “It shows up in this formula or that, but without solid references spelling out its importance, we shouldn't be hyping it. In decades of being a physics person talking with other physics people, I haven't had one conversation that referred to it.” (the latter would also classify as POV to be strict); #2 the fact that according to you the Planck charge shouldn't be taken as a base unit because the sources simply “calculate it, but that's it” – to which I answered that all units are calculated, but whether you need a fundamental constant or not in the calculation is what make the unit base or derived.
    Without doing this for all your comments, I think the comment of mine I cited before shows quite clearly that I have always answered to your actual position, and not to a personal interpretation of mine about it.

    “or an inability/unwillingness on your part to summarize another editor's opinion accurately”

    For as few as it matters, I was thinking something similar about you in that discussion, since I needed several comments to explain to you that with the Coulomb constant in the system the base units cannot be less than five. But I believe anyone can read that discussion and see with their own eyes who failed to miss the most about the opponent's point of view – if they believe this is something really important to do.

    “Civil POV pushing is problematic behavior”

    Civil POV pushing (Hemiauchenia's accusation towards me) would require a careful analysis of my edits. When I tell a user they are POV-pushing something I usually explain exactly what POV they have inserted into an article and how. So far, besides this dispute with some editors that defend certain interpretations of Islam where we both accused each other of POV, I never had any particular problems with POV as far as I recall. I have been accused by you and Quondum of being OR in my defense of the Planck charge, sure, and I believe I have reacted to that by giving references.
    I believe POV-pushing would be required to be definable in the first place. If I see a user adding a particular interpretation of Islam, or watering down the former article “Sexual slavery in Islam” as “Concubinage in Islam”, I am perfectly able to define what POV is being pushed in that particular moment.

    --Grufo (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My position was consistent from the start of that discussion until it faded into silence without consensus. I never advocated inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units; as an incidental point, I raised the possibility that a different electromagnetic unit could be defined, as part of an attempt on my part to explain why you were making an unwarranted leap of logic. I explained this back in May. Now you are accusing me of "POV" problems because I brought literal decades of experience studying and working in physics to the Talk page of a physics article. To be clear, I did not advance my experience as definitive proof of anything, and the quote of mine that you terminated with a full stop actually continued, ending with, "and hunting through the literature strongly suggests that my sample is not too biased."
    I was thinking something similar about you in that discussion, since I needed several comments to explain to you that with the Coulomb constant in the system the base units cannot be less than five. I understood your point, and it is as irrelevant now as it was months ago. The question is not and was never "how many base units must there be", but rather, "Has the physics community actually bothered to make a formalized system of 'Planck units' with a solid distinction between which ones are 'base' and which are 'derived'?"
    I have been accused by you and Quondum of being OR in my defense of the Planck charge, sure, and I believe I have reacted to that by giving references. You provided references without regard to whether they were reliable or whether they actually supported your point. Some weren't, and none did. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @XOR'easter:
    “My position was consistent from the start of that discussion until it faded into silence without consensus. I never advocated inserting another electromagnetic unit among the base units; as an incidental point, I raised the possibility that a different electromagnetic unit could be defined, as part of an attempt on my part to explain why you were making an unwarranted leap of logic”
    To avoid any possibility of interpretations, I would like to ask you two simple questions (forgive me if you feel you have already answered): 1. How many Planck base units do you think the Wikipedia article should have? 2. Where should the Planck charge be placed?
    “Now you are accusing me of "POV" problems because I brought literal decades of experience studying and working in physics to the Talk page of a physics article”
    I am usually way to gentle and never strict enough, but since here we are in a context where strictness seems to be enforced, I need to remind you that your personal experience is not verifiable (or paradigmatic), and therefore is not suitable for Wikipedia. This is not a trial against you, XOR'easter, this is a trial against me allegedly WP:HOUNDING Vice regent.
    “Some weren't, and none did”
    I believe some among the current references in the article about the Planck charge have definitely more authority than others, but to state that any of them is unreliable requires a precise mention of which one (if you want to check they should be all under § History). And since my points simply were that 1. the Planck charge is surely used “as such” in literature (Quondum's initial point about “Named Planck units”) and (secondarily) 2. when it is listed (not just mentioned) it tends to be listed exactly like Wikipedia does (together with length, mass, time and temperature), I believe the sources did support both my points enough.
    --Grufo (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your questions appear to be content issues not suitable for ANI, which is a forum for conduct-related disputes, and I have already dissected the reliability of your sources above. (If anyone else thinks it would actually help for me to go down that path, I will, but I'd rather not try the community's patience. I suspect that my attempts to explain why the physics discussion is relevant have already brought more content into the conduct dispute than is preferred, but I saw no other way.) There's no rule against mentioning one's background on Talk pages, and you seem to be ignoring that in the comment where I did so, I also described the results of a literature search. I did not advance my own experience as definitive or say that I should be cited in the article text (that would be weird); I was just being honest about where I was coming from, which is generally a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces

    Blanking: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

    The article Differential geometry of surfaces (DGS) is one that I helped prepares twelve years ago in February 2008. For some time I have known that DGS has not been in am imperfect state. While writing the article, I added further content which became a separate article Riemannian connection on a surface (geared to graduate students). The original paper has many imperfections largely because, like other parts of wikipedia, it still remains unwritten. There were many gaps in the article, particular at the beginning and the lede, because it had broken off as a fork. However I decided recently to make the long overdue improvements to the article, knowing bits that were glaringly missing: first to symmetry of second derivatives and then to inverse function theorem. I just summarised very briefly a page or two out of Lars Hörmander and Henri Cartan (world experts).

    Then User:D.Lazard decided he did not like some of the new introductory material which he blanked five times. I believe that this kind of blanking is extremely uncommon on wikipedia. D.Lazard did not seem to have give any coherent explanation of his blanking. He wikilwawyered and criticized the title "Differential geometry of surface."

    D.Lazard has been told that the brief preparatory section is needed for the new section "Regular surfaces in Euclidean space". At the moment the paragraph of requisites is just a brief summary without proofs. The new content on "regular surface" is in the course of being written. The sources are the lecture noteds of Nigel Hitchin and Eugenio Calabi, as well as text boos by Pelham Wilson, Andrew Pressley, Manfredo do Carmo, Barrett O'Neill and Dirk Struik. D.Lazard's repeated blanking is unhelpful. In addition he has not made any attempt to discuss the proposed new material, which seems to me straightorward. He has accused me of WP:OWN, but he knows that there are certain prerequistes are needed for telling the story of Gauss and his remarkable discoveries. Most of contributions in mathematics have been to harmonic analysis, symmetric spaces, representation theory, etc. Differential geometry of surfaces is an undergraduate article: in the UK that is the case (e.g. in Oxford and Cambridge) and also for honors undergraduates in the US. D..Lazard's blanking is incredible. He has no authority to prevent standard content being created. As far as I am aware, he does not produce any such content himself. Other blanking by Russ Woodruffe has also happened (using WP:BRD as a pretext).

    I have created an even shorter summary, now placed only in the "Regular surface" section. D.Lazard's blanking has been disruptive. It seems to be a combination of WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Very little to do with content creation, which requires calm and careful thought. Mathsci (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang This is a content issue and it seems that only Mathsci refuses to cooperate with the consensus of other editors on that talk page. The so-called blanking is explained by edit summaries and talk page comments, so I'm not sure why Matshci thinks this drama board will support their ownership claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I have removed the section Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables that mathsci added recently, because it was out of the scope of this article. When I saw that mathsci started edit warring, I stopped reverting after my second revert, opened a discussion on this section on the talk page, and asked WT:WPM for help. Three established mathematical editors posted to Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables with comments agreeing that this section should be removed. Mathsci participation to this discussion did not addressed the question of the relevance of this section for this article. I have considered that four against one (mathsci) is a clear WP:CONSENSUS. So, I reverted again this section (three times), and each time I was reverted, with personal attacks in the edit summary ("rvv - WP:BATTLEGROUND by edit-warrior - WP:NOTHERE - there has no been attempt to discuss the relevant mathematics and certainly no attempts to find "consensus" - OP seems not to actually seem ti have write very much content editing on wiipedidia recently" [85]). Finally (for the moment?) Russ Woodroofe reverted this section again. The fact that Russ Woodroofe was not among the editors that have commented on the talk page enforces the consensus.
    About the accusation of WP:OWN, it suffices to read above mathsci's post to be convinced that it is a problem for mathsci.
    IMO, WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In principle this involved updating and improving the article, I looked at it in 2008. During that updating period, I noticed that the article was incoherent, because of missing sections. The first task was then to add a few preliminary sentences, needed for surfaces: content on diffeomorphisms; and content on Taylor series expansion, needed for the first fundamental form and second fundamental form of a surface. A few minutes ago I added content related to the "first fundamental form". I wrote about the matrices . It was blanked.[86] At the moment material that should have been in the article along while back is being added. That was my initiative. The material is standard, but requires care. I think in my experience editing, I have never before seen blanking like this. At the moment this anodyne neutral topic is hardly race and intelligence when legendary folks like Mikemikev were trying to remove all references to Jensenism. This is just undergraduate mathematics. I have some vague memories of D.Lazard being difficult about Euclidean Jordan algebras in the past, when I was editing material on hermitian symmetric spaces. I cannot see where WP:OWN comes into here. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathsci: You need to respect editorial consensus. At the moment, the consensus of editorial opinion seems against you. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: I have noticed that you have been one of the very few editors to actively edit this particular article: many thanks for that! Originally this week I added a proof of the the inverse function theorem in this article; it only gradually became clear that it could be transplanted to another wikipedia article, where it belonged. Then step by step, I have tried to reduce the sentences about derivatives and diffeomorphisms to the very minimum, both to clarify what's going on with regular surfaces, while making it accessible to a general readership. From my own edits, I hope you can see that is what has been happening. In the article, there are still problems in defining principal curvature, Monge patches, etc. I am trying my best. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you are trying your best. But this is not the place to discuss article content. This board is for discussing editorial conduct. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted Mathsci because I saw them (following a post on the Math wikiproject) ignoring talk page consensus about the article -- WP:BRD seems relevant, but the pattern appeared to be more BRRRR. I also tend to agree that their additions are of WP:UNDUE length, although I don't believe that they are intending to be disruptive, and I actually do think there is room for including some small connection with lower-level material. I am concerned that they are continuing to edit the article in a way that is out-of-line with talk page consensus, while other involved editors are waiting for this ANI situation to play itself out. I agree that there may be cause for concern regarding WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of ANI's more esoteric reports to date, to be sure. EEng 10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here are the main points for which, in my opinion, WP:BOOMERANG must apply.
      • Edit warring after a consensus was reach on the talk page: the three first edits that are linked above are reversions of the same Mathsci's contribution from August 3. The last three are reversion from August 5 of the same contribution, after that a consensus was reach on the talk page.
      • Tentative to escape from WP:3RR by adding the same material in another section [87]
      • Personal attacks in edit summaries, for example [88]
      • Removal of a heading in the talk page, which makes nonsensical other's post [89]
      • Systematic and still continuing use of article's page as a sandbox for preparing their contributions; see [90] as a typical example. This is disruptive by making very difficult to others to review these fast changes, and fixing/improving/reverting them.
      • Contributions on the talk page that consist mainly in attacks on user conduct and summaries of sources that they think the most relevant ones; see Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Recent edits by mathsci, and more recently Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Theorema Egregium
    Although, IMO, none of these items is sufficient by itself for opening a thread here, all together, they form a highly disruptive behavior that must be stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I hadn’t realized that this content dispute had escalated so far. The consensus at Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Recent edits by mathsci was very clearly against the inclusion of the disputed section. Mathsci has good intentions here, but should recognize that they have been edit warring against multiple editors and that they have made inappropriate and often tangential accusations against D.Lazard. — MarkH21talk 09:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I stopped following the page because it was stressful, but I came back today and was shocked further. Every editor outside of MathSci has been unanimous that his edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia, reading more like a textbook and using a level detail not appropriate for a high level article. There have been 300 edits since he started editing the page in late July, with 250 edits since Aug 3, and as far as I can tell there have been reverts back and forth every day for the past week. I don't know if its a thing you guys do, but I suggest the page be reverted back to the state it was in July 9 before any of the edits and locked for a time.Brirush (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postscript to the above comment: I think MathSci is intelligent and eloquent, and I think the material has use somewhere, but not in this article in this fashion. Others have suggested moving the new material to a new page and summarizing it on the main page, and I think that's a great solution. I post here not to condemn MathSci, but to admit that I'm not sure how to proceed; outside observers could see clearer, IMO.Brirush (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am biased as an editor who has made some major changes in the last week, but I believe there have been vast improvements to the article since July 9, and I think it'd be a very bad idea to revert it. I know there is at least one other editor (D.Lazard) who thinks my edits have made a positive impact. In my opinion, mathsci's edits to the page have been highly confusing and in need of clarification, which in part explains the number of edits - in my own opinion, he's also made it rather difficult for me to improve the page. In essence, I think the article needed an almost complete rewrite for it to be clear. The (current) end result of the major edits, in section 3, is in its majority written by me and not by mathsci. It may look long and over-detailed, but it is very much not written as a textbook, it is just a summary of the main points. (There is one section on isometries, written by mathsci, which I think is unclear, as well as two paragraphs, also written by him, which are in discussion on the talk page.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a good idea to restore an old version such as the one of mid July. At this time, the first technical section of the article was not as usual the definition of th object of study or the needed background. It started directly by the sentence "Informally Gauss defined the curvature of a surface in terms of the curvatures of certain plane curves connected with the surface." In other words the article could be understood only by people who already know its content. After Gumshoe2's major edits, the article is much better and useful for a much wider audience. It would be a pity to destroy this good job. My contribution to this improvement is minor, because, while I know enough of the subject for understand and reviewing edits, I do not know enough for writing sections and chosing the material that deserve to be added (or kept). D.Lazard (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In summary, the problem here is that although Mathsci edits of the article and his contributions to the talk page are clearly done in good faith, they are very disruptive, and this would help to improve the article if they are stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really like to have some extra observers. What is an RfC? Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gumshoe2:, See WP:RfC, they need to be written neutrally. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the wikipedia bureaucracy... it says there "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued," are you sure it's the appropriate way? It is also a little unfortunate that an observer might have to be somewhat knowledgeable in math to understand the situation Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gumshoe2:, don’t focus on user(s), make it on how best to treat the contested content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Gleeanon409: This page is not about article content, it is about user conduct. It is also clear in WP:BOOMERANG, that the behavior of the opener of the thread has also to be considered. D.Lazard (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree. Mathsci makes it extremely difficult to improve the page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the section has been repeatedly removed by blanking against consensus then simply take the issue to WP:3rr for edit warring. If they are doing this across content on the article then make the case for a topic ban on the article itself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Remark. I have no idea what D.Lazard means by "rather surrealistic"? Here I had to check WP:V and WP:RS in a specific source, a book of Eisenhart written in 1909. There were two formulas that needed to be checked. I also performed WP:V using a second source (a book of Dirk Struik written in 1961). So this was the standard process of WP:V and WP:RS that happens in all wikipedia articles (or should do). The verification is here in the diff and it is rather tedious.[91] I am stil editing articles on Bach organ music, where the same rules apply. Similarly articles on France where the same rules apply. Even very infrequently updating the early history parts of History of the race and intelligence controversy where the same rules apply. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Remark. I would like to be very clear. I think Mathsci is trying to be helpful and understands part of the material, but does not understand all of it, and is not himself able to draw the line between what he understands and what he doesn't understand. He is highly combative about presenting the material as he sees fit, mostly by drawing directly upon textbooks and authors he respects. This would of course be ok (and even in many cases very good) if he understood the material well enough. The discussion on the talk page about the Theorema Egregium, and newly, about a "derivative formula" of Gauss, shows that he does not. He is not able to respond to technical questions about what he is claiming, always just deferring to "standard sources" which he often misinterprets. Surely there is a wiki procedure that could directly deal with this, without locking the whole page? Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300

    IP rangeblocked for one month. Please contact Oshwah or open another thread if problems continue after that. Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Vandalism resumed immediately upon expiration of block. Examples:

    The vandalism is nonstop, the editors are spending a lot of time trying to clean up the damage.

    Would appreciate any assistance with this.—JlACEer (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarchived this thread which was moved due to inactivity. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of pure disruption based on completely false information: Edits at Titan (Six Flags Over Texas), August 10, 2020 --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I've blocked the 2605:A601:AD87:300:0:0:0:0/64 IPv6 range for one month. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Slow motion edit war

    User:Helper201 has been repeatedly reverting edits by a number of editors to their preferred version over a period of time. A slow motion edit war?

    Bacondrum (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not only edit warring, it's edit-warring against a standing consensus. Helper201 obviously doesn't agree with that consensus (which is supported by multiple reliable sources), and is attempting to overturn it via edit-warring instead of allowing a new consensus (if any) to develop on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not attempting to edit war. I was restoring back to the long-standing agreed upon version as these changes that were being made were frequently edit warred over and had not been discussed prior on the relevant talk page. They were often not discussed and seemingly changed on a whim without citations provided. I am seeking compromise and discussing the matter on this article's talk page. Please see the edits and discussion on the talk page in full context. Helper201 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And another reversion:

    • Yes, there seems to be a content dispute. The sourcing only improved on June 30, whereas the first revert is from March 19. Meanwhile, Bacondrum started two biasedly worded RfCs and this AN/I thread. Seems overzealous. --Pudeo (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the underlying content dispute has given rise to behavioral issues: slow motion edit warring on the part of Helper201 as well as an unwillingness on their hpart for the attendant talk page discussion to agree on a new consensus (it if does) to support their PoV. This is in ANI's wheelhouse, and cannot be batted off as solely a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others. I love it when the rules only apply to some. Bacondrum (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the arguments presented on the article's talk page, the edit warring needs to come to a full stop until the discussion has concluded. I'm not to the level of giving out any warnings or proceeding towards administrative action at this time, so I'm hoping to give both Bacondrum and Helper201 an informal warning here: Please do not make any more reverts or edits to the article until the discussion has come to a close. You both have a discussion ongoing and you're both trying to work things out; don't take it out on the article itself. Step back from the article, and discuss this. Proper dispute resolution does not mean that you can discuss the issue and revert one another at the same time. ;-) I don't want to see any more reverts on the article from either one of you until the discussion has concluded. If it does, I will have to start with "strike one" and issue a warning for edit warring. Then, from there, if it happens again, I will proceed with administrative action. I believe that you're both perfectly capable of handling this dispute civilly and properly, and I also believe that you both have a good sense of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies. If it needs to come to an RFC, so be it. Just keep civil, and keep things on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve not touched the article since filing this report. However Helper201 has continued to revert. Like I said, apparently some editors are more equal than others. Let him keep edit warring, why not. Bacondrum (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum: I'm not sure what you mean; Helper201 hasn't edited since August 7. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayjg: That was the third revert to their preferred version between the 2nd and 8th - made nearly eight hours after this discussion was started and they were definitely aware of this discussion. Despite a number of editors disagreeing with them over the course of a couple of months they have reverted to their preferred position seven times. If no further action is deemed necessary I'll leave it as they appear to have stopped. There appears to be a double standard in how rules are applied to different editors though. Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum:, Helper201 has made dozens of edits since August 10, and has not reverted the National Rally article. Is there anything else you think needs to be done? Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at this stage, they've stopped. Bacondrum (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    John Hawkins (naval commander)

    For some reason Ehplimsoll has been changing English words to American spelling even know it's a bio on a British commander, adding capitalisation when you don't need too. Changing some of the English around which doesn't seem correct. Can someone else deal with this, I don't think he wants to listen to me. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very happy to listen to any of Govvy's suggestions. He is right to insist that a page drafted in English, on the subject of an Englishman, is written in English. Spelling is in accordance with the Oxford English Dictionary (en-GB-oxendict); grammar is corrected or amended where necessary. I would be worried if Administrators might seriously consider taking linguistic advice from a user that is apparently ignorant of the difference between a preposition and an adverb (for his benefit, to/too, respectively). Ehplimsoll (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehplimsoll Whilst a lot of your changes are OK, although the -ize suffix is given as a valid OED spelling, -ise is used far more often in the UK, so for articles that are written in British English where this is the longstanding spelling, I wouldn't change those. Also, changing "footballer" to the Americanism "soccer player" is something I wouldn't have done especially in this case when there's no possibility of confusion. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit with the footballer bugged me out when he changed footballer to soccer for a British player, words like apologised which is correct English to apologized. The possessive of ('S) on the end of Hawkins in a sentence mentioning his son seems wrong. Over use of the lower comma in places. I simply loose trust.. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite The -ize suffix is the valid O.E.D. spelling; the usage is estimated to be 3:2, and I only made the single amendment for the sake of consistency. The latter amendment was necessary, as there is possibility of confusion. In England, there are two popular forms of football: Rugby football, and Association football. They are commonly abbreviated to "Rugby" and "Soccer" - though occasionally and erroneously to "Rugby" and "football" respectively. I am not here to judge adherents of the latter, I simply aim to ensure articles are clear. Ehplimsoll (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement (that Association football is "erroneously" abbreviated to football), I'm afraid, shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about here. Football in the UK (and in most of Europe and many other places outside North America) is simply called "football". You will find UK references to "soccer", but that's an Americanism - used to differentiate from American football, of course - that has crept into use here and is certainly in a minority. If you check reliable UK news sources, you will find that their football section is always called just that. (BBC Football, SkySports Football, Guardian Football etc. etc.) Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There he goes again [92] and I really don't think En-5 is warrented on User:Ehplimsoll now. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite According to the O.E.D., football is the more usual term in Britain and Ireland, except in cases where it is necessary to distinguish soccer from other forms of football. I have cured the uncertainty, and deferred to your opinion, by retaining the word and referencing Plymouth Argyle Football Club, which plays association football. Govvy I am struggling to see the value of criticism from someone that doesn't know the difference between "loose" and "lose". You profess to be a native English speaker, but you are far from proficient in writing. I don't mean to criticize, but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding. Ehplimsoll (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In England, there are three popular forms of football: association football (commonly called football), rugby league and rugby union. (I am safe in specifying England rather than UK; league is hardly played in the other three countries.) Rugby football is a class of games, not a single game. League and union are more different from each other than are American and Canadian football. "Soccer" used to be used, but has largely fallen out of use because it's perceived as an Americanism. It was always more of an upper-class word anyway, probably Oxford University slang from late C19 (like e.g. brekker, champers and rugger).
    Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED records usage worldwide; it does not specify it anywhere.
    It is for reasons like this that my User Page says en-gb and en-us-4. I imitate US customs where appropriate, but my US grammar and punctuation will never be perfect. Narky Blert (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Loose and Lose? Really... loads of people can make that mistake, we hardly ever refer to Rugby Football in this country anymore. Ehplimsoll you wrote "but you really ought not endeavour to make corrections in areas beyond your understanding." Ouch, now who is being rude! I didn't make corrections need I remind you, I only reverted you! But you still seem to be changing British English to Americanisms. I strongly feel you should consider your actions, you seem to be digging a hole here. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: Oh, and "-ise" is completely standard in British English. The OED records usage worldwide; it does not specify it anywhere. My copy of the Oxford Style Manual, which *does* specify use, says "recognize not -ise". --Calton | Talk 14:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calton: Perhaps they should tell the editors of the style guides of The Guardian ("-ise not -ize at end of word, eg maximise, synthesise (exception: capsize)"), The Telegraph ("-ise, -isation not -ize, -ization") and The Times ("-ise, -isation: avoid the z construction in almost all cases"). Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ehplimsoll: Thanks for telling someone who has lived in the UK for 46 years exactly how British people talk. And you're still wrong. It isn't necessary to distinguish football from other sports in the UK, because Rugby football is always called "Rugby" (or "Rugby Union" and "Rugby League"), and American football (unsurprisingly) is always called "American football". But thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and by the way, you've already reverted (or partially reverted) four times on that article today, so I'd advise against doing it again. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Narky Blert There are indeed three, if you wish to include Rugby League: seems to further validate the clarification which raised this issue. We can debate the use of the term soccer if you wish, but given it is no longer included in the article, I cannot see the relevance. I would quickly point out, by your own explanation (as it being a term reserved originally to the élite), that the fact it is perceived as an Americanism is not necessarily the cause of its waning popular use.
    I did not suggest that the -ise suffix was non-standard. You are right to point out that the O.E.D. is a dictionary of record, however the only variants Murray was prepared to recognize, or recommend, if you prefer, were those with -ize suffixes. The changes I made were for the purposes of consistency - I am far too aware of the futility of imposing a given orthodoxy on a wiki.
    Given your knowledge of these various proclivities, and attention to detail, I would suggest that you may be being too modest about your writing and editing capabilities. However, it is right that you have carefully considered your capacity in this regard, and represented accordingly.
    Govvy I didn't wish to be rude. I did, perhaps unnecessarily, point out the irony of a classification being challenged by one who is, if anything, below his professed capabilities. I would suggest that you are considerably less likely to be criticized in this regard if you refrain from unnecessarily instigating criticism. Please learn the difference between variations in standard British English and Americanisms before casting sweeping declarations.
    Black Kite You have already recognized that there is variety in use, and there is, therefore, no inherently correct form. Given that I originally used a form you accept to be standard, albeit waning in popularity as Narky Blert helpfully clarified, how can I be wrong? Referring to what I presume is your age is a rather desperate justification of wisdom. As I have said above, we can continue to debate this (hopefully constructively, if you can manage it), but I don't see how doing so will be of any benefit: the page has been updated according to your preference. Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame. I would suggest that there would be fewer had my changes not been undone without due consideration. Ehplimsoll (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please refer me to any guidelines which preclude multiple edits in a given time frame" — this suggests to me that the user needs a formal 3RR warning. I have supplied one. Bishonen | tålk 14:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Yeah, I did actually link 3RR in my last edit summary, but you're right that it should be made clear. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that "not talking the right language" is actionable, and would have said "no action" but for what I read on their talk page. Clear not listening,and (possibly) edit warring over something so trivial tells me they are going to be a net drain. I think the warning is enough for now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven I cannot to see where I have failed to listen, please enlighten me. I would also request detail about what exactly was so offensive on my talk page. I would point out that I have not been edit warring over this admittedly trivial matter - I accepted the edit, and subsequently enhanced/clarified the subject matter. I have simply debated the initial reversion here, whilst accepting the consensus - indeed, my subsequent change was according to the preferences put forward in the course of this conversation. I challenge you to point out what exactly, if anything, I have done wrong. Ehplimsoll (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look I have struck that part.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always suspicious of editors who scrub their talk pages of warnings without archiving them. Ehplimsoll's conduct has left a funny taste in my mouth, and their use of flowery language and wikilawyering smacks of an editor using an alternate account to avoid a block. Does the John Hawkins (naval commander) page have a history of these sort of changes? – PeeJay 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I am aware of no, and serious allegations (such as Socking) need a bit more then "well its all a bit odd".Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not alleging that it is the case, I'm just saying I'm suspicious. – PeeJay 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always striven to eschew elaborate and arcane language, finely-nuanced legalistic argumentation and ad hominem points, lest some reader erroneously induce that I was taking the piss. Narky Blert (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What's with the BST timestamps? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    109.197.152.21

    Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well.

    Been warned multiple times. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing correct information.

    Why is nothing being done? This is the 3rd time I'm reporting this... -- Guherto (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite: Checking their contributions, pauses like this are not common before they return and continue (please mention me so I can see your message quicker). -- Guherto (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no action that we can take at this time. The user's last edits are from July 17; we can only do something if their disruptive editing is recent or currently in progress. Next time this user edits disruptively, make sure to warn the user appropriately, and if the user continues after enough warnings have been given to them, report them to AIV or do so here. Then, we'll be able to take action at that time and when they're actively causing disruption. As of right now, blocking the user would be inappropriate and against the blocking policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviving an archived thread re: User:Pillow4

    In Archive 1043, I started a thread about Pillow4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his problematic edits in the area of biological taxonomy. Elmidae posted that the user's edits "appear kinda competent", but then Pillow4 created a sock account (Pillow6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and now a new account (Quilt1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pillow4) has popped up with the same pattern of edits. I suggest that the use of multiple socks for this purpose invalidates any claims of good faith and that all edits of Pillow4 and all discovered socks should be mass-reverted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't understand this guy... if they had discussed what they were doing and hadn't started sock-jumping on slight provocation, that could have been quite productive. In view of recent behaviour (including totally losing it on Chiswick Chap's TP), I'd support mass-reverting - some of this stuff is pretty arcane and would be hard to check by your average editor, and good faith clearly can't be assumed here anymore. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: User:WikiDan61 did not notify Pillow4 of this thread; I have done so now. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiDan61 - Have you created a case at SPI? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: They did, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pillow4/Archive (1 Technically indistinguishable, 1 Likely). The master is still unblocked, though (I asked why, but it was archived before a response). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you for the link. You could ask the reviewing checkuser for additional information. It's likely that they found connections between the socks, but not the master... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: As noted on the SPI archive page, Pillow4 and Pillow6 were rated "technically indistinguishable". Pillow6 was blocked, but not Pillow4. I have asked Vanjagenije (the blocking admin) why. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanjagenije - Thanks for letting me know. I got distracted with other matters, and I didn't have a chance to go through the SPI case. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vanjagenije: Thanks for taking care of that. With all parties now blocked, should we consider a mass revert of all offending parties' edits, or should we inquire of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life whether the edits are productive? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reached out to the WikiProject for their assessment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's now "Pillowquilt": created today, who has asked, nay, commanded, at the Teahouse that four drafts created by Pillow6 be "change[d] ... to Normal ones". --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrisse Cullors again, same user editing through RfC

    An RfC is running on Patrisse Cullors regarding adding Marx/Marxist/Marxism content.

    The same user, as soon as the article’s full protection expired, is at it again despite being told to wait for the RfC to end, and consensus.

    I’d appreciate more eyes on the situation and for the contentious content to be re-removed until consensus forms. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The article needs to be fully protected until a consensus is determined. The edit-warring is out of control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'll be doing that now. I've also warned Fa suisse for edit warring. If it continues after the full protection has expired, this user will be fair game for being blocked without further warnings. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. The current revision had the "Marxist" content added back to the article. Per the guidelines on full protection, I am not allowed to change the revision of the article prior to applying full protection, unless the current revision violates a serious Wikipedia policy (BLP violation, copyright violation, libel, etc). It assures that I am not seen as "taking a side" and using the admin tools in order to push a certain opinion or point of view. But, of course, despite this explanation, I have absolutely without-a-doubt protected the wrong version. And for that, I am sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The first message (from Gleeanon409) is a lie. The protection expired almost a week ago. The situation has changed with the publication yesterday of a new reliable source on the topic (the Politico article), which ends the debate. My edit was balanced to the point where it mentioned a point you, Gleeanon409, made on the talk page, the "dog-whistle" argument. I will engage again on the talk page, where Gleeanon409's avowed political agenda for blocking this content is on full display, and which has unfortunately become a tool for the prevention of advancement on this article. This behavior, which has been going for more than a month and led to many complaints, is also against policy. Fa suisse (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Gleeanon409 has removed additions I made to a list of sources on the RFC section of the talk page, acting like the owner of the page and trying to set the terms of the discussion. Diffs : 1, 2. Fa suisse (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fa suisse - This is a content dispute, and it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Please review this policy page on how to properly handle and escalate disputes. If you two can't decide on a consensus together, then take the next step. Get neutral input by other editors, file a request for comment, do what it takes to resolve this civilly. This is not the place to do that. You two have been given the actions that I determined were fair and necessary, which was to warn you both informally that further edits and reverts made to the article by either one of you would be actionable. It's now up to the two of you to resolve this in the correct way. Just don't touch the article itself - that's all I ask. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After the last visit to ANI, I started a RfC as suggested. With one, maybe two exceptions, editors have been civil. Fa suisse proceeded to assume bad faith with most everyone who disagreed with them as can be seen above, and throughout the talk page. It took two editors to explain how reading a book about Marx does not make a person a Marxist.
    What they fail to realize is that just wedging in every instance where Cullors and Marx intersect does not improve the article, NPOV writing reflecting the best reliable sources does. They seem to be waging a battle against no one else. If we need to do a series of RfC’s then sobeit.
    Fa suisse was asked to gain consensus several times and they continued to edit war. What they are missing is that some form of the content is quite likely to be used despite their poor conduct because of the Politico source identified. They need to wait until the RfC ends *and* consensus on how to include the information is formed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gleeanon409 - I understand. This is why I've fully protected the article until this RFC comes to a close, informally asked you two to stop reverting one another, and stated that imposing a block would be a logical next step if Fa suisse continues to edit war. In the end, this dispute is content-related and we need for the disruption toward the article to stop - I'm sure you understand that. :-) I don't want to see anybody blocked; I'm trying to push everyone toward properly resolving this dispute and reach a consensus. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have they been warned already?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we need to go to the next step.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine seeing a community sanction or administrative block here unless the previous warning was given by an admin, rather than a party that was involved in the dispute--and I take it from the wording above that this is a case of the latter, rather than the former. Besides, I don't think it would serve the interests of arriving at a longterm stable solution to the dispute. Additionally, blocks are only given for preventative reasons, not punitive ones: with the article protected for a week (or at least as long as it takes to form a consensus), further disruption to the article itself is impossible (at least for the short term) and it can be hoped that under the new circumstances a middle ground solution can be reached which all parties can be satisfied with (or which at least can gain the support of consensus). In short, Oshwah has already pointed the way forward here, both expressly above and in the conditions set in the edit summary for the protection action: continue to attempt to forge a consensus.
    On that last topic, I note that discussion has not yet begun again in earnest on the talk page; that is perhaps for the best, as a brief breather from engagement by both "sides" and a little bit of time to digest the new sourcing could be helpful both in lowering the heat and letting everyone consider where we go from here rather than digging further into entrenched, dogmatic positions that they might not otherwise have if not for the tension of the dispute. When discussion does resume (within hours, I would presume), the focus needs to fall on untying this gordian knot that has resulted from a hotly disputed RfC (with presently about equal !votes going either way) combined with the fact that we now have a new source, half-way through the process, which may shift many opinions. That's an incredibly complex situation that is going to present difficulties for further discussion and consensus building and for anyone who has to make a formal close of the discussion. However, it also presents an opportunity: if Fa suisse and Gleeanon, as the two original parties of the dispute (as best I can tell?) were to come to an agreement about how to proceed from here in light of the new developments, many other editors might follow suite and we could have a (relatively) civil resolution to the whole matter.
    Gleeanon, a comment you made above suggests to me that you now favour including brief reference to the topic (or at least that you recognize this is likely to be the consensus given the new sourcing). Like me, I suspect you find the weight that Fa suisse gave to the topic in the currently live edit to be excessive, and would favour something that simply discusses the original 'Marxist' quote and makes quick reference to the fact that Cullors feels the comment was leveraged by right-leaning pundits to mischaracterize herself and the movement (in short, an attributed partial quote to the original interview and an attributed quote to the Politico interview where she clarifies herself, ideally all in a single sentence and not in the lead). I suspect that this is an approach which a significant majority of editors could get behind, given the present sourcing: a number of the !votes supporting inclusion originally only wanted the topic included so that the article would address these alleged media manipulations, after-all. I think Fa suisse could also be convinced to support such a version, with the right wording. Obviously the full matter of the content cannot be decided here, but if the above solution is something you can see yourself supporting, can I suggest you start there when discussion resumes, with a clearly marked subsection that pings the previous RfC respondents so that perhaps consensus will be fairly swiftly forthcoming and the page protection can be removed as per Oshwah's conditions? Snow let's rap 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not on any side here, nor am I edit-warring in any way. I’m again suggesting the contentious content under dispute be removed and the RfC to continue.
    This is a current news story so I fully expect more and better sources to appear. With the Politico one we now have two(!), so a reasonable sentence with some context seems possible.
    Fa suisse has been warned by many users and at least a few admins so I hope they’ll refrain from more poor editing choices. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an edition a week after protection expired, following developments (new reliable source). Gleeanon409 proceded to remove the whole of my addition, instead of the part they disagree with. I reverted that, and clearly explained that if they want to do so, they should remove the part they consider contentious. I have consistently used civil language on the talk page and in edits, which isn't the case of Gleeanon409. My allegations of political agenda are based on explicit claims of such by Gleeanon409 on the talk page. I don't have a problem with a continued discusssion on the talk page, nor a removal of my latest addition. I just wish for a constructive engagement of all parts, without baseless allegations, snark, acting-as-page-owner(s), and systematically using procedure as a tool to prevent encyclopedia-writing. The repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing by Gleeanon409 against myself are incidental and not central to the topic. I don't feel like asking for dispute resolution at the time due to my loss of faith in the possibility of said user to engage calmly with the matter. I do however have faith in the process and will calmly make my point(s) on the talk page, where hopefully Gleeanon409 will stop removing my additions to the debate in what do look like acts of spite. I don't have hope that Gleeanon409 will stop trying to fix the terms of the debate, but that's okay, others users are now involved, and hopefully we can collectively work towards writing content instead of bickering. Cordially, Fa suisse (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks you mention? That will help us understand your viewpoint. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    E-960

    There is consensus for a community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed. Participants weren't clear on what that means but my understanding from the discussion is that it includes: (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. Since that's an interpretation of the discussion, I want to explain specifically how I came to that conclusion. The original proposal was a topic ban from all religious topics, not simply European religious topics, and some editors explicitly stated they wanted "Christianity and European politics" as more tailored to the area of disruption. In discussing what that area of disruption was, narrowing "religion" to "Christianity" was pretty strightforward, but participants tended to focus on European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large. Some people did suggest they intended the broader "all European politics" interpretation, but there's not a clear consensus for the broad interpretation. Either way, editors suggest E-960 take some time to cool off, and their willingness to enter into a voluntary TBAN shows they understand that necessity. Some suggested a cban, but there was no consensus at this time. Some suggested a block, but per the discussion and WP:COOLDOWN there is no consensus to impose a block at this time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Was discussed in two threads he started above. After the discussion, E-960 accused other editors of "utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks". I warned E-960, and afterwards E-960 did it again on Drmies page, and then blanked their talk page While the personal attacks require action, there is an underlying issue of E-960 being unable to deal the topic neutrally. Evident in the extreme arguments employed by E-960, and by:

    • [93]: Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended
    • [94]: I'm actually personally offended
    • [95]: JimRenge, I'm incensed by what happened on the Religion in the European Union page

    If E-960 is personally offended (as a Christian), accuses other editors of employing "Bolshevik" methods, and is incensed (1. Enraged; infuriated; spitefully or furiously angry), then E-960 is unable to edit neutrally. I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict.--Hippeus (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, this is blatant bias, so other editors can freely throw the follow not too subtle accusations that I'm advocating "conspiracy theories" or "canards", but I make the comparison to this type of accusations as "bolshevik" (who called themselves the "majority" and labeled everyone else who was against them as the "minority") and I'm the one that's out of line, and needs to be censured:

    • User Cabayi said:"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy"
    • User Drmies said: ""And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"

    I can see that those editors REALLY articulated their positions in an objective and meritorious manner. Just like I was told yesterday by another editor: "I do see someone being overly sensitive", so to those that are offended by the bolshevik comparison you are just being "overly sensitive". --E-960 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They expressed their opinions which were firmly based on facts and reality, while you have expressed your opinions which are based on your emotions and imagined "facts". We base our articles on verifiable facts, and not on the personal distress of an editor. That you cannot edit on this basis is the reason a topic ban is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing Editor does not seem to understand what constitutes a reliable source and seems to be over engaged in the suject and not open to discussion. Needs time to reflect -----Snowded TALK 07:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppliment: the compatitve nature of the response here and on this rather odd RfC not to mention this complaint and the attack on the closing admin's talk page, all confirm my view that this editor badly needs a break from the subject -----Snowded TALK 08:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu with your comment on the talk page "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy"[96] you just proved my point that there is political/ideological bias in how this issue is being handled on Wikipeida. No wonder, other editors can make disparaging remarks my way, but I make a similar comparison in the opposite direction and I got a sanction heading my way. Btw, the EU has never been criticized for a deficiency in democracy at the institutional level. What you just said is exactly what the bolsheviks accused Christians of in the past, that Christians are against the people's voice! E-960 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me tell you a secret, in Europe the Cold War is over, Communism is over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    hmmm... and how does that excuse your offensive comment about Christians when you said "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy", I'm confused. --E-960 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960 Please calm down; I think you are overreacting. Nobody is intentionally trying to hurt your religious beliefs. Please try to compromise with the point of view of other editors who might not share the same opinion as you are.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not even a secret that Viktor Orbán pushes for "illiberal democracy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • E-960, oppression is what happens when you try to enforce your beliefs on others, not when you're prevented from doing so.
      In the US and increasingly elsewhere (e.g. Australia and the UK), Christians are the ones who want to ban abortion, gay marriage, legalise discrimination against gay and trans people, allow companies to opt out of providing birth control to female employees, mandate state funding of churches and the teaching of creationism alongside (or, ideally, instead of) reality-based biology, allow preachers to endorse political candidates from the pulpit and the rest? Yes, it's the same people who held out against allowing black people marrying whites and using the same facilities as whites.
      The Christian persecution narrative was perfectly summed up by Jon Stewart.
      “Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”
      To be fair, we got there in the end: after 44 consecutive Christian or Deist Presidents, there came Trump, a man who has never been willingly seen inside a church (except perhaps for his string of marriages, each of which he betrayed through infidelity). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't I hear a rumor that Obama was a Muslim? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On what planet is the President of the United States allowed to do anything with his power that would advance the cause of Christianity? Trump can't even walk to his local church without people freaking the hell out. JC himself could be elected President, and it would do nothing to halt the march of secularism in the land of the free. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    his local church – Good one. EEng 01:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Secularism means simply that the Church does not dictate the laws of the country. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly. Secularism in the American political system means that the state is totally separate from all religions, and that no religion has official status - and, yes, there are examples where that is not actually followed, such as the U.S. Senate having an official chaplain, but it's still the case more often than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • GizzyCatBella is to be commended for trying to de-escalate. Unfortunately, @E-960:'s responses here and in the previous two threads are in effect arguing for some sort of sanction. If interacting with other editors causes one to see personal attacks where there are none, and causes one to become enraged and feel offended, they are too close to the issue to edit objectively and neutrally. Support TBAN as proposed for articles dealing with religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. (They seem to be bringng an off-Wiki struggle into their editing. That never ends well.) User will need to interact WP:CIVILly with others and show an understanding of WP:reliable sources to have TBAN reconsidered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't befoul Wikipedia often with foul language, but now I'm incensed'. @E-960:, what the actual fuck makes you think some of the respondents here are not Christians, with deep and abiding faiths? Your slathering-at the-mouth approach and personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are most unbecoming. Your crap about, "has to come for a play book of some kind," is wholly unacceptable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra - Lets tone down the hostility and the language. :-) I agree with your message, just not the words you chose to use. There's no need for that; we need to be setting the example here and leading others by our actions and how we respond to... not so understandable messages. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, to answer your questions, did I not write above all the comment that came my way? Did I not write in examples of what I interpret as bias? I have the feeling you did not even bother to read my comments just follow the narrative other editors made. --E-960 (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960 - Your observation is noted. Regardless, this proposal for a topic ban is going to proceed with input and discussion. Based off of the responses you've given here, as well as elsewhere, I must say that you're not helping your case. I would advise not adding any more fuel to the fire. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, please consider that if the responses to my points were objective and constructive we would not be here. Right now its just blame e-960 for this or that, but no one is saying, this is not an appropriate way to respond on sensitive topics. If an editor reverts a text at least have decency to provide constructive feedback, and if you disagree with my point don't make a snide remarks, and say nothing happened. --E-960 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) E-960 - I'm not sure what comment I made was "snide"? I have made no judgement for or against you. I'm moderating this discussion as a completely neutral party, as I might be the one that will be tasked with closing it. All I am saying is that this discussion is going to receive input, in support or opposition, to the proposal - and it will close with an appropriate ruling based off of the establishment of consensus. I didn't say whether or not the comments you listed above were constructive, and I have not labeled you as "the bad guy". There's obviously some merit to the proposal based off of the input that this discussion has received by other editors; my task at this time is to maintain the peace here and keep the discussion civil. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah clarification, not refering to you specifically, the "you" was just a generic reference to other editors, not to be understood personally. --E-960 (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960 - Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, can you describe the below comments as objectivie, respectful and merit based?
    • User Cabayi said:"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy"
    • User Drmies said: ""And please don't come here with canards about worldwide persecution of this or that group that's somehow being suppressed by "the media" or whatever"
    • User Tgeorgescu said: "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy" E-960 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that if you administer E-960 to calm down and voluntarily stay away from religious topics for a while, it will be enough. E-960 is a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will agree. Would you E-960? Just take a break and rethink everything tomorrow, I'm sure you will come to different conclusions. Right now, emotions are speaking, not E-960.GizzyCatBella🍁 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely can, but I expect the admins to hold other sides responsible for the escalation. The comment by Guy, is a perfect example of bias displayed outright on Wikipedia. That's a personal attack accusing me of holding some privilege, yes in Communist Poland we all had it so good as Christians. --E-960 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think YOU were asked if you would do this, not anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The PRL ceased to exist 30 years ago, and, since then, Catholicism has had a privileged position, especially in recent years. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that I'm not an atheist, but this summarizes how Christians are persecuted by atheists in US and EU: https://www.pinterest.at/pin/116178865364921049/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)#[reply]
    .pinterest?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: It's also available at https://www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/get.jpeg Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have it backwards. The cartoon does not show "how Christians are persecuted by atheists in US and EU", it depicts precisely the opposite, how atheists are persecuted by Christians. Note that the person holding a Bible is telling the other person to "Stay quiet" -- that's the Christian (=Bible) commanding silence from the atheist. The "old" atheist holds his tongue, but the "new" atheist says "No". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I think you are just baiting with that comment and trying to get me to say something over top. What you are saying is right out of some playbook. Yes Guy, under communist oppression Christians were privileged, very much so. Btw, please tell me what happening in this video [98], are those the "privileged" Christians you are talking about? I can find more clips like that for you if you'd like. --E-960 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    trying to get me to say something over top seems very easy to do. So perhaps you could knock off all the ridiculousness and melodrama and stick to basic problems like finding high-quality sources and accurately representing the mainstream view. —-Joel B. Lewis (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960, LifeSite? Srsly? GTFO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If had known there was an ANI thread I would have said here what I said on my talk page: "You just added another canard: "Cultural Marxism". What's funny is that you totally misrepersecutedad what I wrote. The canard is the supposed media suppression. Linking a BBC story about that very issue proves your point was invalid. But, and this is pretty relevant for someone who wants to be writing an encyclopedic, you presented someone's opinion (that of Philip Mounstephen) as if it were a fact. You can't do that." In other words, E-960 has reading issues that, in my opinion, likely prevent them from editing neutrally. Representing opinion as fact, reading selectively, that's not good. So I support a topic ban, sure, though these problems are not just relevant in the proposed area. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – When I first came across one of the related threads yesterday I was tempted to try to intervene along the lines of the position that GizzyCatBella is taking here. At this point we're looking at a clear case of WP:RGW with a side of dead horse beating and a penchant for sucking up way more editor-time than this deserves. signed, Rosguill talk 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - 3 threads in 2 days and a huge degree of I didn't hear that thrown in. They either need some cooling time or just prevented from continued disruption and eating up so much time. Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The main source for their complaints seems to be this "report"[99] from the Gatestone Institute, "a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles". Note how this overview of anti-Christian attacks in Europe has the Notre-Dame de Paris fire, an accident if ever there was one, included in the first paragraph, as the main image, again in the body of the report, and in the appendix, each time claiming that it was a "suspicious fire". The remainder of their sources seem equally dubious. Fram (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I favor a CIR-ban, after reading their latest comment on my talk page, which shows a complete lack of understanding not just of WP:RS, but of...well, how writing works. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, what Gatestone Institute report are you talking about?? The report I used as reference is form a Christian NGO, here [100]. --E-960 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You start an RfC based on two sources, the first of which is "Aid to the Church in Need"[101], and their article "EUROPE: Study Reveals about 3,000 Attacks on Christian Churches and Symbols in 2019". I actually looked at which study they mean, and lo and behold, it is the study from the Gatestone Institute linked above. As was rather clear in the article you linked to, which starts "According to research conducted by the Gatestone Institute". Fram (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an appropriate topic ban on grounds of RGW. (FWIW I think accusing someone of "utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks" is absurd, uncollegial, and unconstructive, but not a personal attack in the sense of NPA.) --JBL (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed/Weak support for heel-cooling general block of at least a few days. The original cited comments regarding offense were problematic, but not enough that I would have endorsed a sanction on that basis alone. However the additional context provided regarding other discussions, combined with the party's own comments here, make the level of innate disruption in their approach to the topics in question immediately obvious. That said, the original proposed topic ban scope is unreasonably (arguably unworkably) large, hence the refinement suggested in my !vote header. Also per the header, I would support a more general sanction given the current full head of steam they seem to have on this topic, and the fact that I can't imagine that they are going to immediately lose the sense they are being persecuted as soon as the topic ban goes into effect: indeed, I think it may be in their own best interests (if they want to remain on the project) that they be temporarily prevented from responding to this sanction and given some time to digest the community's opinion of their conduct here, and consider if they can accept it to the extent that they are willing to move on to other areas, without further recriminations against the great Wikipedia secularist conspiracy. Snow let's rap 15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support for a broad topic ban. My interactions with this user were in the AN/I thread above but then they followed me to my talk page to try to argue even more that Christians are somehow persecuted. They don't understand that youtube videos are not proof of things.--Jorm (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure they are Jorm, just read this page Persecution of Christians. Those type of comments show nothing but contempt and bias, every religious community in history faced oppression at some point and even today, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. face problems based on location, culture, and so on. To say that Christians face no intolerance or persecution today is an outright bias. --E-960 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So when was that article last nominated for AFD? When was the last attempt made to remove all of its content?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed. I think all religion is bad. But I can work with people who disagree with that opinion, and my positions don't lead me to try to right great wrongs, which is where you are right here. You are too close to your passion to see it clearly and I think a time-out is in order. Anyways: Feel free not to reply. I am not interested in arguing with you further. Jorm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed. Based on all of this at ANI, its clear they have an axe to grind, and this is not the place to grind it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This the the type of comments I face, but I'm the bad guy:

    My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Christianity did not and never existed... Jorm (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

    How often do you see editors respond with statements like: My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if Judaism did not and never existed, or My personal belief is that the world would be much better off if gays did not and never existed. But you can tell a Christian that to their face on Wikipedia and it's OK. --E-960 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is definitely not helping Jorm: please keep your comments confined to constructive purposes and away from sarcastic rejoinders. Snow let's rap 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks to be a case of someone who demands respect for his own belief system (fair enough), but who feels entitled to launch intemperate attacks against the belief systems of anyone who disagrees with him ("Bolsheviks", "cultural Marxists", etc). MastCell Talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be right, but On the other hand just look at all the taunting (and Jorm as well as the OP aren’t the only ones) and sniping throughout this thread. And this is by several people who should know better. Volunteer Marek 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not five year olds in a playground. Please stop the sniping.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MastCell, when I objected to the first series of comments which I though were belittling, I was told that I was being "overly sensitive", so when I responded in kind and made the "bolshevik" comments that action drew this complaint. Which proves my point, when talking about Christianity you can make snide or insensitive comments and it's ok, but the other way around and people are offended. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960, there are other possible explanations here, one of which is that the derision is not being directed at Christianity in most of these interactions, but rather at you--or more specifically your incomplete understanding of our policies on issues such as WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality, WP:WEIGHT, and sourcing, combined with a tendency to perceive push-back to your proposals as evidence of a nefarious agenda and deep bias against Christians (despite the fact that this project is rich with adherents of that faith). You claim all of Christianity as your personal constituency and I don't think that's particularly justified. One can both have a deep faith in Christian dogma (or be of a different or no faith and still respect it) without having to agree that your specific assertions about particular social forces in particular contexts are correct. Assuming otherwise is a classic false dilemma. Snow let's rap 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I rarely participate in discussions here, but E-960 is using unreliable sources in support of a POV based on the Christian persecution complex. "In a conversation at the British Humanist Congress in 2014, Stavrakopoulou suggested that some Christian fundamentalists perceive the advancement of secularism as a threat, and that this may support the idea of a persecution complex." Wikipedia should be wary of of religious partisan views. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dimadick, but is not secularism a point of view as well? You automatically label religious views as partisan, and secularism as the undisputed truth. But, I'm the one that's pushing a POV, because I wrote an statement that Christians in EU face issues such as marginalization (so fundamental of me). --E-960 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    E-960, secularism is the view that no religion should be privileged. It applies to the Scientology, Christianity, Islam - all religions. As a POV, that's entirely neutral. Secularism is not atheism. There are Christians who advocate secularism. In fact, the Constitution of the United States was written by some of them. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And, perhaps more to the point here, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Snow let's rap 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you put down the shovel.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To properly understand the root of E-960 emotional arguments, one has to be religious. I'm an older person and practicing Christian, and I know where all these emotions come from. E-960, please recognize diverse views and opinions, it would be unfortunate if sanctions are imposed, but I can't keep opposing them if you continue arguing with your heart instead of the head. Look, I'm a Christian, and I don't feel oppressed here or in real life. I still hope you will be allowed to step away from the religious topics voluntarily. I believe you need to do that and for a long time.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    After re-reading this discussion, and the additional comments which have come in, I now believe that E-960 is totally incapable of editing in a neutral way on a broad variety of subjects, due to his personal beliefs and his extreme excitability, which cannot but influence his edits. I therefore support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed. This !vote should be construed as supporting any proposal which includes its parts, i.e. it is a !vote for a topic ban on religion, a topic ban on politics, and a topic ban on society, if any of those become the consensus. Any and all of those TBans should be broadly construed. The purpose of this is to remove E-960 from any and all areas where his PoV editing will be disruptive to the community.
    I would also suggest that if a TBan is levied on his by this discussion -- which seems fairly likely -- that E-960 understand that the next step would be a site ban, since we cannot keep just piling on subject area. (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed & a short-ish block (1 week). E-960 has progressed from an inability to discern good sources to an extreme battlefield mentality. Badly needs a cool-off period and to keep away from their trigger topics. Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There’s a lot of heat on both sides in these discussions and various editors making unnecessarily provocative statements. E should calm down and tone down the language (as should some of the others throwing out lines about “radical Christians oppose democracy” or “slathering at the mouth” but there’s nothing here topic ban worthy. If E deserves one there’s def some others here who do as well. Volunteer Marek 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You should read my claim in context, he provided the diff for it. About Hungary being led towards illiberal democracy there is little doubt, I guess. The speech of the Hungarian PM pushing for it became famous.

      At first, we were fighting against Sovietization. Bolsheviks let us speak our own language, but not what we want. Everything changed. Today we only hear the slogan Poland for Polish people. We got rid of Bolsheviks, but we kept our mutual despise for each other. Now we have an anti-Bolshevism with a Bolshevik face, that's why I am sad... What is nutured inside Poland is a kind of anti-humanism. Our government is supported by the Polish Catholic Church. What does our government tell us? That now comes the «gay pest», which is more or less the same as the «red pest». It is an idiocy which even Ceaușescu could not utter. In Poland, this Bolshevik mentality, a mentality of despise, of superiority, it remained... There is a great madness all over all post-Communist countries. We all think that our own people is noble, innocent, never did any harm unto others. According to this idea we judge those around us. If somebody says that that's not completely true, he/she is regarded as a traitor to the country

      — Adam Michnik in Stefan Both, Disident polonez legendar, despre România post '89: „Iliescu a salvat țara pentru că n-a ales calea lui Miloșevici“
      So I think I made clear that it is factually true that Hungary and Poland are led by radicals. At least mainstream Western media see it that way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed The user seem incapable of differentiating secularism from Christian persecution. The sources they are pushing have the same issue and then some. They also seem unable to drop the stick.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose E-960 is using the talk page to discuss their changes and this sanction goes way too far. Certainly with statues going down and churches being vandalized, it's no surprised that this issue is coming onto Wikipedia. It's understandable. desmay (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I also think the proposed sanctions go too far. They are a reasonable editor, and I'm sure they will learn from this and step away from the topic area voluntarily. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is some new definition of 'reasonable' I am not familiar with? If I saw a single comment from the editor which indicated a willingness to step away from the topic area then I would be happy to change my vote, but there are none. It is not just here and the talk page of the article; the editor relentlessy persues people onto their talk pages (see the edit history with a good example here) and even on the talk page itself there is zero engagement with the argumetents of other editors just a series of attacks or assertons of being a victim. Your two attempts here to get them to say something conciliatory have both failed. -----Snowded TALK 05:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They actually did here [102] in response to me. I also left them this message on their talk page [103]. Let's see what they say when they come back online.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff illustrates the problem - firstly we get a link to a pretty nasty far right site with offers to send us more such links, then a statement that they might possibly back off if admins start to behave fairly. Happy to see if that changes when they come back on line -----Snowded TALK 08:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm shaking my head here over how this has all escalated so quickly from "Those two sources don't satisfy WP:RS". I think de-escalation from all sides could have helped here, and I can't support a topic ban proposed in the heat of argument. Such a ban might indeed be needed in the coolness of time, but not now, not like this, not in this heat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban on all aspects of religion, politics, and society, broadly construed per Beyond My Ken. Pushing far-right trash as reliable is bad enough, chasing editors to their talk pages, badgering, and attacking is worse. When I read accusations of "Bolshevik" methods, I think of Mass killings under communist regimes, not a light accusation.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the topic ban proposed by the OP. This discussion has become sidetracked but we need to keep our eye on the ball. This is a clear case of WP:RGW and E-960 has shown no understanding of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. They have been unwilling to take advice from administrators and have not responded positively to attempts at mediation. Their trenchant views on the subject of Chistianity have led to them to being unwilling or unable to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in this area.Tammbecktalk 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You were involved in the disagreement with E-960 here [104] that lead to this complaint. I'm just noting this fact for transparency. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I'm not suggesting any response to the user's combative tone and actions, considering the way this thread developed. Let's stick to the core issues. Tammbecktalk 15:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well for that matter one of the few "No" voters here namely desmay is the only editor supporting E-960 on the RfC in the article in question. If you are pointing out one side, then point out the other or none! -----Snowded TALK 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, that should be noted too. Thanks for catching this.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support after waiting to see how this developed. At first, I had some sympathy that this was a simple misunderstanding that had accelerated, but the toxicity of the behavior just in this discussion (anyone who disagrees is anti-Christian and part of systemic bias), and the speed with which aspersions were cast in the RSN discussion have convinced me that an expectation of the ability to edit neutrally in this area is currently not realistic. Grandpallama (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - E-960 hasn't been active for a day now[105] I hope they took this advice thoughtfully [106] and are thinking about what happened here. Please wait with the decision until they come back with the response. I genuinely believe that the sanctions might not be necessary if their answer is satisfactory in view of editors concerned.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. For what is worth, I doubt I share that user's POV, and speaking as someone who has for many years been a strong proponent of enforcing CIV/AGF and such, I don't see anything here worth even a warning. I read the three diffs shown by the OP and... what, really? Many, many others here act much worse and don't even get a warning. Or, at the very least, they get warnings first, then bans. A warning might be reasonable, but jumping straight to a topic ban? Ugh, no. PS. If there is 'worse', please do me a favor and reply to me here with diffs that show more substantive problems than the three cited by the OP. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support wide topic ban. Pushing extreme right videos and sources, attacking users, just reading this thread I'm holding my head.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary topic ban

    As recommended by GizzyCatBella, I can agree to voluntarily stay away from editing topics related to Religion for a prolonged period of time, as a way to avoid further unnecessary escalations. Also, I can admit that the discussion took an unnecessarily intense tone, which in turn brought a significant level of disruption to the overall discussion process. Having said that, I would also like to add that such bursts of heated exchanges are not a one way street, and are a result of dismissive or demeaning comments from the other side as well, as in this situation, where instead of proving constructive commentary and input, some editors voiced their personal opinions on the matter of Christianity. With that, I will not make any further comments. --E-960 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how you folks feel about it, but I'm happy with E-960 announcement. It's unfortunate that they didn't deliver this statement earlier, but please keep in mind that many comments of other users only poured gasoline to a fire. Comments such as this one[107] (You poor, poor, put-upon thing) certainly didn't help... I hope we can close this with a specific note that E-960 promised to stay away from Religion-related topics. I'm sure they will keep the promise, and I will be happy to steer E-960 in another direction if they ever come too close to the above topic in the future. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am okay with this; their editing and talk-page behavior w.r.t. other topics did not strike me as problematic when I looked at their edit history. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't voted above, but I am of the opinion that 'voluntary' tbans are useless because they are effectively unenforceable without mountains of more conversation and debates to whether or not it's enforceable. If the user truly agrees to step away from the content, then they should have no problem just accepting the enforced TBAN instead. Valeince (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-affirming support for imposed TBAN - I don't want to be the curmudgeon in the room, but this strikes me as not at all sufficient. That GCB is happy with it is meaningless, since she's been trying to get E-960 off the hook this entire time. That E-960 says they'll stay away from articles about religion is simply not enough - their PoV is extremely strong and their excessive responses are easily triggered. This is obviously going to effect their editing of politics articles (especially European politics), and other articles about societal issues.
      There is already sufficient consensus above to impose a topic ban of some sort, and I would suggest that those who !voted for such a ban should be allowed to either re-affirm their support for it in this new circumstance, or say that they're OK with E-960's voluntary TB. Me, I don't think it's nearly enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Beyond My Ken and Valeince I'm just trying to help, and I voluntarily offered to guide E-960, so frictions like this don't emerge anymore. I have personal experience as far as Topic Bans; they sometimes hardly serve good and are being weaponized. This creates only more disturbances and consumes valuable administrative time. Administrators have so much on their plates going through all the cases; I can only praise them for all these challenging tasks they have to perform. I would oppose a Topic Ban imposed on anyone who has prospects of adjusting their behaviour voluntarily. I believe that E-960 is one of those editors who will follow our recommendations, and I don't think we will have any problems in this area with them anymore.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your help has come primarily in advice to E-960 on how to avoid having a topic ban placed on them in the current circumstances, in this discussion, rather than advice on how to edit in the future in such a way that other editors don't feel the need to place a topic ban on them. The former is useful to the editor, the latter is useful to the project.
    I'm glad that you have such confidence in E-960, I'm afraid that I see no reason to share in that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with BMK here. I see a user now saying whatever he can to get out of a sanction, at the behest of you, GCB. That doesn't instill confidence that they're not just going back to behaving like above with a new perceived slight. What does is if the user agrees their behavior was problematic and accept the tban. Valeince (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't fully receive my advice right away, as you guys can probably notice reading through the conversation, but after I advised them to sleep it over, rethink everything, they seem to understand now what really happened, and seem to follow my guidance. That's why I also believe they can be granted this leniency one time. I recognize your concerns, but I think that E-960 is one of those editors who might be given this one-time kindness from the community. I don't think they will comment here anymore (will you E-960? Is there anything you want to add to assure Ken and Valeince that you understood your mistakes and you will not repeat them?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely no way. Re-affirm support for imposed topic ban. Some folk have commented on snark above, and those people obviously have not been subject to E-960's attentions individually. My expression of my opinion about religion was mild and his reaction was to shout aggrieved. My talk page is a good example of how this user behaves and how they will continue to behave in this topic area.--Jorm (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jorm I didn't see this earlier [108] ...yea...not impressed. I understand more the concerns fellow editors have. I still believe that E-960 has learned from this experience, but if I'm mistaken and the community decides to impose a formal topic ban, I would like to urge the closing administrator to word this topic ban very clearly, so it is not open for interpretations. This will prevent possible weaponization of the ban, and it will guide the recipient precisely what direction to follow.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack by Supolsanko

    This is pretty blatant and uncalled for personal attack. Supolsanko has claimed another editor is a paid editor, but they have not provided any evidence thus far. They also seem to be operating multiple accounts based on their first post.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @RickinBaltimore Brilliant! Celestina007 00:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Александр Мотин reported by Zefr

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: user has a long history of disruptive editing and is continuing to edit-war on the Russian vaccine article, Gam-COVID-Vac, spreading Russian government propaganda on a vaccine unassessed by the world scientific community. Recommend indefinite block. Zefr (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang: [109] Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please explain this to the reporter. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a personal attack and your were edit warring. I have partial blocked on this article as well as the last one. Please review and undue if I got it wrong. Having a minor health challenge. Signing off. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ymblanter: protected the other disputed article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Un partial blocked on Gam-COVID-Vac. ALready stopped. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deepfriedokra: [110][111] WP:FORUMSHOPPING.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deepfriedokra: Also he calls me a "Russian propagandist" [112]. He should be blocked for a personal attack. But instead you blocked me? Interesting... --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Александр Мотин: Apologies. {can't catch my breath.) @Zefr: They have a point. I;m afraid you will need to back that up or withdraw it and apologize. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, y'all. I can't participate. Again aplogies. Not enugh oxygen to brain. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deepfriedokra: No problem since you unblocked me right away.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, you are most gracious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page of the user shows that since the previous (partial) block for persistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (they were persistently added Russian propaganda into the article) they have leaned virtually nothing and continue disruptive editing. They were edit-warring reverting the addition of a photo by another user (discussion in Russian) and concluded the discussion saying that this other user "has too short hands" to get them blocked. They spent the whole day today trying to add info into Wikipedia about the Russian vaccine and edit-warred against Zefr, ignored their warnings, but were not using sources of acceptable standards and never added info that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested (thus again adding pure propaganda). They have been indefinitely blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. When other users come to them with the warning they pretend they do not understand what is wrong with their edits. They do have some positive contribution, which typically looks like this (note that the article contained some, probably good-faith, mistakes which I had to correct). On my opinion, the sooner this user get a site ban, the less time it will cost the community. This is becoming an incredible time sink.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not at all surprised by this one-sided and biased attitude of this Russian administrator (Ymblanter), since he has already expressed biased opinions about Wikimedia RU Chapter as I am one of the founders [113] → Question 10: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ymblanter. There is a rather ambiguous assessment of his activities in the Russian Wikipedia. In such a situation it is impossible to consider his statements objective.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking about "too short hands", this administrator again continues to express his bias against me because the user whom I replied to, wrote me a message with a sneer in the context of my request to the Russian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee [114] which has not yet been resolved for almost a year.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a bit bizarre. The information was sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health's official website, saying that a Russian COVID vaccine had been issued a "registration certification" by the Ministry, which is exactly what the text said. If that's a bit unclear, Reuters simply says the vaccine was "approved". Certainly seems like reliably-sourced, uncontentious, pertinent information that said vaccine exists and was "registered". The text made no additional claims that weren't verified. Zefr is reverting because we "can't trust Russian information" (a sweeping claim he's not authorized to enforce), falsely demanding the user "discuss on talk page first to gain consensus", which is not a valid reason to revert, says "sources are unreliable" without articulating specific objections, and claims "there are no peer-reviewed scientific reports to affirm safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy", when no such content is being added to the article, and calling the user a Russian propagandist, simply for including an extremely basic claim which is sourced to the Russian Ministry of Health. That's clear disruptive editing, as is intentionally reporting them as a vandal. They also have 2 blocks for edit warring since 2019, one being earlier this year. The sources in the actual article confirm that the vaccine exists and was approved, with scientists skeptical as to its safety and efficacy. So, it's a potentially-dubious vaccine, though a real, approved vaccine nonetheless that's covered in reliable sources, including English sources. The simple claim that it exists is verifiable. The dubiousness is verifiable, so include it. But if the Russian government's claims about the vaccine cannot be trusted or are "propaganda", the user did not insert any information about those claims. Even if you suspect that the user is a pro-Russia POV-pusher, they objectively didn't do anything wrong here, other than edit war against a user who's disruptively stonewalling their edits. Far more inclined to block the filer for wanton disruption, personal attacks and edit warring based on the reported incident. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. We need to look at the WP:ASPERSIONS cast by Zefr]. That needs to be substantiated or withdrawn. With an apology. Look. higher up-- It's easy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zefr is a valued editor who does a lot of good work in keeping "woo" out of our articles. Александр Мотин is keenly interested in Russia-related topics, but is not experienced in medical topics. I think that both have been zealous in their approach to Gam-COVID-Vac, from different perspectives. I trust Zefr to tone down their comments when asked, and I've invested some time in explaining to Александр Мотин the standards needed for our medical content. I don't believe any action is necessary here, especially as so many eyes are on the articles right now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Meh. The WMF would do well to invest in a clinical psychologist to help coach people in tact and assertiveness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think of more than one editor who were so driven to combat unscientific information that they crossed into disruptive editing territory and are no longer allowed on this site. These editors are indeed valuable, and I'm not keen on aggressively chasing them off. However in this case Zefr achieved nothing "valuable" or even constructive in this incident. Like I said, even if the user was problematic elsewhere, he was doing nothing wrong here, and Zefr let his perception of the editor drive him to wage a disruptive edit war without any sound logical or policy-based reasoning. He was purely disruptive, and then he filed a frivolous report, trying to get the editor blocked even though they had done nothing wrong. It's pretty significantly troubling. So I'm also not keen on simply inventing a resolution for him because of the good work he's otherwise done. I'm more than happy to accept a voluntary resolution if Zefr is willing to provide one. I understand people can get frustrated. Not asking a lot here, not asking Zefr to grovel, however it needs to go a bit beyond a euphemized "tone it down". Zefr is in blockable territory right now and if we're going to let him off scot-free he does need to offer a voluntary resolution coming from himself, acknowledging that he understands where he went wrong and that he will not repeat these issues going forward. He has already been asked to reply here. I hope we can resolve this amicably, otherwise a formal warning will need to go on the record at the utmost minimum. Unfortunately, based on the below content, Zefr seems unconcerned about these serious issues and hellbent on waging a crusade. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, he didn't insert anything unscientific into the article. He merely inserted the uncontentious claim that a Russian vaccine had been registered. There was no propaganda involved, no claim that the vaccine was supported by world vaccine experts, none of the Russian government's claims that the vaccine was safe or effective, no dubious info, no unsourced info, no unverifiable info, no "propaganda". Your personal view that any mention of the vaccine should be eliminated with extreme prejudice is, while good intentioned, irrelevant. You have no consensus, no policy to support you. This is IDONTLIKEIT POV-pushing. Get a consensus to validate your view, but until then, bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and, at face value, there's nothing wrong with the content you're disputing. There may be a lot wrong with the vaccine, but that doesn't translate into the automatic censorship of any mention of it, and it certainly doesn't justify your out-of-control disruptive editing. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mistaken in the big picture, but to prove or disprove this I will need to carefully check the diffs and the referenced sources. It will take some time, but I will be back soon in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I am afraid I have confirmed my picture. I am now talking only about Александр Мотин, not about Zefr. What reliable sources essentially reported yesterday was that (i) the Russian government announced the creation of the vaccine (specifically, "registered the vaccine" whatever it means) and (ii) that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, the trials are at this point not up to standards, and there have been no confirmation that the vaccine actually works. Now, this is the version Александр Мотин left the newly created article in, the next significant edit came only 100 minutes later, when another user added criticism about the trials. (i) is obviously there, (ii) is essentially not. This version has one sentence which says that the clinical reports have not yet been published, apart from this, sold as a minor technical detail, the version makes a full impression that the vaccine is there up and working. This is despite the fact that sources 3, 4, 9, and 10 go into some details about the shortcomings of the trials, and sources 1, 2, and 6 which do not mention these shortcomings would never stand WP:RSN: 2 is a press release, 6 is a news agency run by the Russian government, and 1 is a propaganda source which may publish reliable stuff but certainly is not supposed to be critical against the government. This means that Александр Мотин, being aware from the cited sources that the vaccine has not been tested up to standards, deliberately decided not to add this info into the article. This is significant violation of WP:DUE aka propaganda. (And I do not quite understand their motivation either, it is clear that this is a high-profile topic, and other users, who are way more critical towards the Russian government, would check the sources anyway). In parallel, they were edit-warring with Zefr at COVID-19 vaccine trying to add (i) but not (ii) to the lede. So whatever blockable or not but I would certainly not call the actions of Александр Мотин perfect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is "an incredible time sink" to read your biased view of the situation since I added criticism upon starting the article [115].--Александр Мотин (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute about Pashtun tribes involving User:Kkhan0818

    PashtunTribal548, Kkhan0818 and various IPs (Seem to be one person) are claiming that Rahimuddin Khan belong to Afridi and Kheshgi tribe using unverifiable sources (Please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes) as well as claiming to be Rahimuddin Khan's "associate".

    Previously, the very same strategy was used at Zakir Husain (politician) (There it was claimed that the editor is a "relative" or descendant of Zakir Husain (politician)) and now it is being used at Rahimuddin Khan. The same tactic is also being used at Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot with another twist.

    The sole purpose of the editor(s) seems to "prove" and push the POV that they are all Pashtuns: Rahimuddin Khan (using unverifiable sources) and Zakir Husain (politician) (There are some verifiable sources) belonged to Afridi and Kheshgi tribes while Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot is also a Pashtun (using unverifiable sources again: first using a slideshare document which was prepared by a "big shot" and now using another unverifiable source).

    Please see here, here, here, here and big shot here for diffs. Please look into that. Thank you.  McKhan  (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kkhan0818 is canvassing for support. Please see here and here. Thank you. McKhan  (talk)

    You are tagging/mentioning me in various pages accusing me of sock-puppetry and are threatening to block my account and then some.

    Firstly, I have no relations with this user PashtunTribal548.

    Secondly, I can see you have vandalized more articles related to Pashtuns by constantly pushing your POV and claiming that they are not sourced or verifiable, which is entirely the contrary as your assertions are subsequently disproved.

    The user PashtunTribal548 is not the first. You have always come to this predicament to threaten to block users (some examples are Störm and Azmarai76) in order to pursue your own agenda, before you even want to reach a consensus with them on talk pages. This is against Wikipedia's Guidelines. I can vouch for this based on my own experience with you and of many others as well. But you insist.

    I will talk to a couple senior representatives on Wikipedia and will apprise them of the situation regarding your vandalism and disruptive editing. I will file a full report on you soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhan0818 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • "I'm a fellow Pashtun and Wikipedia user and just want to ask you for assistance in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in vandalising Pashtun articles." and
    • "As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find "Open Sources" to fullfill our ancestral history but we still manage to get sources and have the hard copies with ourselves."
    on the trail of canvassing for support.
    • Following is a detailed response about the sources used by from the pertinent team:
    "@McKhan: As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.' Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on. As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),''' I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)"
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes.
     McKhan  (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Administrator,

    Before anything else, I would like to start off by pointing out that what this User McKhan has told you is absolutely flawed. The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance. The main issue is about how this User keeps Pushing his POV and agenda across by deleting sourced material and mainly having a biased opinion of subjects that are Pashtun related. I don't understand how Wikipedia allows this User to stay active as what he is doing is completely against Wikipedia's Guidelines.

    I want to start off by addressing McKhan's accusation of an issue regarding my use of sock-puppetry. 

    PashtunTribal548, Kkhan0818 and various IPs (Seem to be one person) are claiming that Rahimuddin Khan belong to Afridi and Kheshgi tribe using unverifiable sources (Please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes) as well as claiming to be Rahimuddin Khan's "associate".

    I want to attest that the IPv6 Address that was used in editing [120] was definitely me. I didn't log in to my account during the edit. However, from that one edit, the User accuses me of sock-puppetry in relation to this User Kkhan0818 by basing it on an allegation you can see below: 

     The connection between Kkhan0818 and PashtunTribal548 is based upon this (i.e. "As I have stated before I am an associate of Mr. Khan...."), this and this. As per this and the edit history, I don't recall PashtunTribal548 ever stated before that PashtunTribal548 is an associate of Mr. Khan but Kkhan0818 definitely stated being an associate and relative or descendant. Finally, it is quite obvious that both ids, Kkhan0818 and PashtunTribal548, along with IPv6 addresses, are pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of Zakir Husain (politician) (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and Rahimuddin Khan being Afridi and Kheshgi. A CU request can reveal more

    In response to this claim where the User says he doesn't recall me stating I'm an associate is utterly false. If you see in the talk page I had clearly stated Not sure who you're referring to. Maybe he was someone in our cabinet because I myself was an advisor to Rahimuddin Khan during his political career. I assume he took the onus to add material but with no sources whatsoever. PashtunTribal548 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    McKhan himself had deleted the statement which evidently contradicts his claim "I don't recall PashtunTribal548 ever stated before that PashtunTribal548 is an associate of Mr. Khan." He has used that tactic as a basis to declare me a sock-puppet of a fellow user Kkhan0818 and by filing requests concerning subjects of no consequence.

    As you can see here, one of his requests were disregarded: 

     ::"@McKhan: As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.' Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on. As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),''' I would respectfully submit that there is no need for any volunteer to waste their time trying to get ahold of this resource. Besides, no library knowingly acquires such books, and to the extent that a national library holds a deposit copy, these are generally more difficult to obtain than "ordinary" books. Again, I see no point in pursuing this request. Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)" :: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#It_has_been_claimed_by_an_editor_that_the_following_sources_mention_that_Rahimuddin_Khan_belonged_to_an_ethnic_Pathan_family_whose_lineage_traces_them_to_the_Afridi_and_Kheshgi_tribes.

    If you go to the Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot article, you can clearly see the User uses the exact same reason for reversion like he did in the Rahimuddin Khan article by saying "That source is NOT an open source. Nobody knows what is inside or what page number is that. Feel welcome to add back in once you have got a verifiable source. Reverted." The edit cites the correct sources that support the previous assertions and once again the User has been disproved as he previously was in the Zakir Husain (politician) article.

    If you check this User's history of contributions, you can see he's always entering an article to start an edit war, trying to put his point across by vandalizing the article with disruptive editing, making it some kind of a game.


    Furthermore, the points I've specified clearly deduces that the user has a personal agenda here, evidently either he's biased against Pashtuns or is doing it for the fun of it by continuously trying to push his POV via disruptive editing. I still can't fathom how Wikipedia can allow such behavior to carry on without being unnoticed. When even disproved on such minor issues, the User is so desperate to push his POV across by going so far as to request blocks inimical to fellow users. I strongly urge the Administrators of Wikipedia to take serious action against this user, in order to refrain him from vandalizing any additional articles. Thank you.

    • Under the light of edit histories of Kkhan0818, PashtunTribal548 and other IPv6 addresses, this statement, "The edits made to the following articles are of very trivial importance", is categorically incorrect as all of them have been pushing a specific POV (i.e. agenda) of Zakir Husain (politician) (two verifiable sources were provided eventually) and Rahimuddin Khan being Afridi and Kheshgi.
    • My request about verifying the unverified sources wasn't "disregarded". To the contrary, Pajz made it clear that As to the first, if someone claims that this work supports a given statement on Wikipedia, they should be able to pinpoint to the relevant entry/page.' Since Rahimuddin Khan does not start with a letter between B and H and since (alphabetically-arranged) encyclopedias typically do not have an index, I don't see how I would ever find what they rely on. As to the second, since you seem to know that it is a collection of Wikipedia articles and since the publisher specifically says so (see here: "composed entirely of articles from Wikipedia that we have edited and redesigned into a book format"),'''. If those unverified sources (Please see here, here, here, here and big shot here for sources and diffs. Please also have a look at the recent "sources" added by PashtunTribal548 on Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot page.) were that verifiable then why did Kkhan0818 use such frivolous justifications:
    • "I'm a fellow Pashtun and Wikipedia user and just want to ask you for assistance in a matter. You are aware that this user McKhan has been involved in vandalising Pashtun articles." and
    • "As you and I know both know it's very difficult to find "Open Sources" to fullfill our ancestral history but we still manage to get sources and have the hard copies with ourselves."
    on the trail of canvassing for support.
    • I have already provided everything from my side in the above comments as well as the diffs. I will let the admins look into it and decide.
     McKhan  (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non admin comment) Kkhan0818, PashtunTribal548, McKhan, I suggest you all make your points more concise. The wall of text that you have created is not going to help any of you. Please put your diffs in the form of [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/link] instead of copy-pasting sections and please also quote things in the form 'First few words... last few words' instead of the whole phrase. This thread is one of the longest on the page currently and there haven't even been any responses. Also, in future, please use the notice listed at the top of the page to notify users of a thread involving them.
    Secondly, stop using the word vandalism against each other and start assuming good faith. Vandalism is used to describe edits that are intentionally meant to harm the encyclopedia, which none of these seem to be. Thirdly, just because two people are pushing the same POV does not imply they are socks, but if you have solid evidence then take it to WP:SPI. Also please don't add level 4 unsourced warnings without warning someone at least once before.
    Finally, PashtunTribal548 and McKhan, stop edit warring immediately on Rahimuddin Khan, Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot and Zakir Husain (politician) or else I will take you to AN3 for violation of WP:3RR. Kkhan0818, stop forum-shopping. Thank you. Giraffer (munch) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: This is a content dispute, not a behavioral one, so I would take this to WP:DRN instead, but my points above still stand. Giraffer (munch) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestions. (y)  McKhan  (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MinhNhat2K3 and lack of competence

    MinhNhat2K3 is an editor that specalises in adding lengthy lists of unreferenced, and quite often completely incorrect, people to articles, for example these edits to 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Due to this edit to the talk page of 113.172.189.190 straight after they were blocked, they are obviously editing as that IP as well, and given the same Vietnam ISP and editing style they are are also the first one.

    Right before they made a complete mess of First World War centenary, it looked like this. No big list of attendees (the France section does contain a small list), but after many edits by both IPs we have this disaster. Clicking on the List of officials and dignitaries at the 2018 First World War centenary event brings up a huge unreferenced list with many, many errors. For example

    • Paolo Artini, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees is incorrect, he's a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The actual "Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees" is Kelly T. Clements.
    • Fatih Birol, Secretary General of the International Energy Agency is incorrect, he's Executive Director of the International Energy Agency.
    • Francisco Ribeiro Telles, Secretary General of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries is incorrect, the person who held the post at the time was Maria do Carmo Silveira.
    • Tigran Sargsyan, President of the Eurasian Economic Union is incorrect, he was Chairman of the Board.
    • Sergei Lebedev, Secretary General of CIS is incorrect, he's Executive Secretary.
    • Stanislav Zas, Secretary General of CSTO is incorrect, according to his article he didn't even become a candidate for the job until after the centenary, and wasn't in the position until 2020.
    • Thorbjorn Jagland, President of Council of Europe is incorrect, he was Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
    • Federica Mogherini, Foreign Affairs Chief of the European Union is incorrect, she was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
    • Klaus Schwab, Executive Secretary of the World Economic Forum is incorrect, he's executive chairman.
    • Yukiya Amano, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency is incorrect, he was Director General.
    • Epeli Nailatikau, President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be correct, the head of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be a "president" and there's nothing in the Epeli Nailatikau article about him holding the post, or any other post at the time of the centenary.
    • Lamberto Zannier, Secretary General of OSCE is incorrect, he's High Commissioner on National Minorities at the OSCE.
    • Coly Seck, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council appears to be incorrect. United Nations Human Rights Council says he was president in 2019, but I can find no evidence he was ever "Vice President" of the same organisation.
    • Guy Ryder, President of ILO is incorrect, he's Director-General.
    • Abed Ali Abed, President of the World Peace Council appears to be someone completely made up (or spelled completely wrong, but I can find nobody with a similar name at the World Peace Council. According to the WPC themselves the president is Socorro Gomes, since at least 2014.
    • Mukhisa Kituyi, President of UNCTAD is incorrect, he's Secretary-General.
    • Jose Graziano da Silva, President of FAO is incorrect, he was Director General.
    • Isle of Man George Mavrikos, Secretary General of WFTU may only have his job title of General Secretary reversed, but you have to wonder why the General Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Athens, Greece has the flag of the Isle of Man, a British Crown dependency. (there may be more incorrect flags, it was the only one I noticed and the other errors are bad enough without having to keep digging)
    • Yuri Fedotov, Chairman of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is incorrect, he was Executive Director.
    • David Beasley, President of World Food Programme is incorrect, he's Executive Director.
    • Lennart Bage, President of IFAD is incorrect, he was president in 2002, but Gilbert Houngbo has been president since 1 April 2017.
    • William Lacy Swing, Secretary General of International Organization for Migration is incorrect, according to William L. Swing his term ended in September 2018.
    • Moussa Faki, President of the African Union Commission is incorrect, he's Chairperson of the African Union Commission.
    • Samir Hosny, President of the Arab League is incorrect. You'd think if he was president Google would have noticed, instead he was some kind of regional official but I can't even show he held a post of that nature in 2018.
    • Mishaal bin Fahm Al-Salami, President of Arab Parliament is incorrect, according to Arab Parliament he's speaker.
    • Mohammad Reza Majidi, President of Asian Parliamentary Assembly is incorrect, he's Secretary General.

    Those are just from the first sub-section of the guest list, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS GUESTS, I couldn't face doing WORLD LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and Other guests since I know they are probably riddled with errors as well. This has been recently remarked on by a helpful IP editor, who said So many things wrong in the 2018 dignitaries list (fixing them based on references found online as well as general corresponding articles, while also fixing entries placed in wrong continent lists. Other things of course too

    You only have to look at the unreferenced, error-riddled monstrosity they are creating at User:MinhNhat2K3/Sandbox (we have an article on the subject at List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Nelson Mandela already) to get an idea of the lack of competence they have. I believe their error-ridden, unreferenced lengthy lists of people are generally unencyclopedic and they are a net negative to the encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a high error rate, and the inclusion of the list itself is questionable.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I regard lengthy lists as unencyclopedic, but that's probably a side-issue to the error rate, but if that's all they are here to contribute it does demonstrate why I believe they are a net negative, there are no positive contributions to mitigate the errors. Looking at the history of 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 123.20.107.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is clearly the current IP being used by MinhNhat2K3, and their response to the ANI notification is to attempt to get MinhNhat2K3's talk page deleted. FDW777 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have an editor who, while logged in and logged out, constantly adds unreferenced content with an unacceptably high error rate, and who apparently has no intention of replying here about this. I'd like to think something needs to be done about this? FDW777 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that these errors are problematic and that the edits by Special:Contribs/123.20.107.34 are probably the same user, has anyone...I dunno...talked to this editor about the issues? There's plenty here for a CIR block, but it's a bit hasty to file an AN/I report or block when there has been no attempt to engage with the editor (who is presumably acting in good, if misguided, faith). GeneralNotability (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued hounding

    Following on from this report, HuntGroup has continued to follow me to AfD discussions in an attempt to annoy, with this (which I later withdrew after examining sources more closely) and now this. The user has only ever contributed to AfD on five occasions, three of which are articles I've nominated; firstly in 2017 (not my nomination), then began participating again on 24 July, conveniently, one day after I edited an article the user created. Regardless whether the user is making correct votes at AfD (the second diff is a straw man argument just for shits and giggles with no substance), when the above diffs are added to the below list, and you take into account that 43 of their last 50 "contributions" are directly related to me, it's a clear cut case of hounding. It's childish retaliation for reverting their edits that were either flat out wrong or did not comply with various MOS'. All instances of hounding so far are as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. – 2.O.Boxing 13:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While there might be some evidence that this editor is following your contributions, I don't see anything actionable at the moment. My advice would be to ignore him and let him do his thing. He'll eventually get bored and move on. Complaining about it here shows him that you're annoyed by it, which gives him more reason to continue. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 03:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The first (ignored) report makes the hounding even clearer. I've seen people warned for less clear cut evidence. As for the repeated PAs, I've seen people blocked for much, much less. I suppose this is a case of, "we're not too keen on this guy. Ignore the report, let it go 'stale', unactionable". We'll see how quick action is taken when I follow the other editor's lead next time they spit their dummy out and have a divy fit over being reverted ;) And just to add, I'm not annoyed or irritated by the weird, stalky behaviour, but my feelings on the matter are completely irrelevant; it's the weird stalky individual's intentions that are relevant. The report is purely to follow procedure...because this is such a serious place and all that *serious face* – 2.O.Boxing 08:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy is getting ridiculous. I have an interest in boxing and I am more of an inclusionist as opposed to an exclusionist. The deletion page for boxing articles is on my watchlist as are 1,000's of other boxing pages. We have differing and mainly opposite views on issues and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing is merely trying to silence me with continuous childish reports to ANI because he doesn't like anyone disagreeing with him. Grow up. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As well as never leaving a comment on my talk page, you are not to ping me again, either. Thanks for all your unwanted attention ;) – 2.O.Boxing 12:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very aggressive as per usual. Calm down and try and be more kind to fellow editors and you wouldn't be constantly in bother. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how feasible it is, given that they both edit boxing articles, but I'm starting to think that a temporary interaction ban between these two users might be in everyone's best interests. This is the second time this dispute has come to AN/I, after all. — Czello 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The first report demonstrates clear hounding; going into my contributions to comment on talk pages, a CfD discussion and revert an edit on an article (none of which they have previously edited). All because I corrected a few of their edits that either went against MOS or were factually incorrect and went against sourcing policy. And, well, there's this peach of a reply, "Absolute nonsense. Squared.Circle.Boxing has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style". If that's not an admission to attempting to bully and harass another editor, then I'm a unicorn called Winston. – 2.O.Boxing 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The first report demonstrated nothing of the sort, if it had then action would have been taken by an admin. All it did demonstrate is that you are a bully (diffs provided in the original ANI) and that you don't like anyone that you perceive that stands up to you.
    To me it just seems like you try to throw enough mud at a wall and hope that eventually some will stick. Grow up and just get on with your editing. It is obvious you act aggressively towards editors that have differing opinions to you so my advice would be to take a deep breath and calm down. --HuntGroup (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another PA with no evidence. My constructive editing hasn't stopped, your (factually incorrect and against MOS) editing has been near non-existent since you decided to focus all your Wikipedia time solely on me. Cute, but worryingly weird. You should maybe take your own advice, kiddo. – 2.O.Boxing 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:104.243.164.36

    104.243.164.36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    This is probably a sock of Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs), 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs), WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs), and Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs). If so, this editor has done much harm in the past. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Magnolia677, have you taken this to WP:SPI? There aren't any immediate or chronic issues as far as I can tell with the user's contributions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenryuu: My experience in the past is they do a lot of damage in a short time. I've always brought it to ANI. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Adrian L.55 removing CSD templates from Globitex World

    Possible conflict of interest, I tried warning him that page creators shouldn't remove these templates, but he has ignored me. FreeMePlease (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, this person just joined today and seems very well experienced, please investigate as it seems like a sockpuppet case. I don't care about the page at all. I requested him to launch XFD but he seems to have COI. His account Should be checked via IP checker. Adrian L.55 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned the user, hopefully it will make them stop. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article however did not meet WP:NCORP and I have deleted it as it was nominated by another uninvolved user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all, you guys are very helpful Adrian L.55 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeMePlease&diff=prev&oldid=972574894 This appears to be a threat. 2001:4898:80E8:9:EEDD:4441:7979:B62E (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a legal threat, but rather foreboding. "What is yours will be yours, you will get what is meant for you. Hope you understand what I mean. Good luck :) Adrian L.55 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)"
    What sort of thing is that, to say to an editor? Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that's block worthy, but I would like Adrian L.55 to come here and discuss what they meant by that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Surjitxingha : WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM

    Indeffed as spam/advertising-only account. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Surjitxingha seems to be WP:SELFCITE-ing and WP:REFSPAM-ing a number of pages. I removed them once but he went ahead and reinserted them. Here are the diffs, exactly the same text, from different articles:

    Chaipau (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The specific user Chaipau had been constantly doing vandalism activity in number of pages. The cited information is relevant from a high impact Journal. The user Chaipau had been on a constant activity of vandalism in wikipedia which can be retrieved from the history. The readers need validated information from a reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surjitxingha (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) The cited information is relevant to the topic from a reliable and high impact sources. Most of the information in those pages were constantly deleted by unknown editors, many a times such editors had been doing a vandalism activity by including unscientific information form an unknown sources. The information cited is from a most reliable sources, to defend my statement, the reference is cited along with the source of the article.[reply]

    Before deleting, you are requested to visit the source so that the argument cited can be validated. The topic needs original information from the native speaker, further information presented is ethical, and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surjitxingha (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • We aren't even talking about the quality of the source: we are judging the fact that you, an editor with an obvious conflict of interest, keep inserting the same poorly written content in a variety of articles, and then you are edit-warring over it. I blocked you for SPAM ONLY, but it could have been NOTHERE as well. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: thank you for looking into and resolving this issue. Chaipau (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pro-Palestinian editors editing in consort to push POV

    Not much more is going to come out of this, except maybe some more mud-slinging, and more sidetracking. Debresser, it is noted, is under an AE sanction. Sandstein, given this, I would like for you to consider, separately, whether this is just a runaround. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On August 6, Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an edit to the Gush Etzion article which changed a long-standing version. She has since tried a few more times to enforce her POV on that article, together with her usual friends Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), against the lack of consensus evident from the discussion, which initially took place at User_talk:11Fox11#Your_reintroduction_of_an_redirection and now also at Talk:Gush_Etzion#Israeli_psyche. I asked these editors be made to stop, and the article restored to its pre-edit warring version from June 24. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gush Etzion had a referece to Israeli War of Independence, which is a redir to 1947–1949 Palestine war. I inserted the direct link, later changed to 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
    Needless to say, the expression "Israeli War of Independence" is a totally Israel-centric name. And Debresser does not have consensus for his view: only two very newbie editors, Aroma Stylish and 11Fox11 supports him. (-Bolter21 is "indifferent", while Selfstudier, Nableezy, Zero0000 and myself oppose him), Huldra (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, I don't think there is much point in fighting over a redirect for what is quite clearly not a neutral name. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, while you're here, can you please comment on this, [126], since this is a common occurrence here and years back you scolded me for calling this a witch-hunt. I still think this is unacceptable to basically accuse every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean with "this"--what's the antecedent. But if someone accuses every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock, that would indeed be a violation of AGF. In this case, Nableezy, lay off it please. If you have evidence you might could ask such a question, but without evidence, please don't. Sir Joseph, you will have to admit that the user is very familiar with intricate formatting and syntax, and who has 5,000 articles on their watchlist after having edited fewer than 700 articles? But Nableezy, if that's all it was, that's not enough. Now, Sir Joseph, one of the things I have always disliked about your MO is the sidetracking--and you're doing it again. If you have something, don't put it in some other report. This isn't like you're a senator and you can stick a pet project in an appropriations bill. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have evidence. That is not all. I think you can check my track record on who I've asked that question to and whether they were proven to be a sock or not. I have not, and never have, basically accuse[d] every new "pro-Israeli" editor of being a sock, that remains a bald-faced lie that has never been demonstrated to be anything but. nableezy - 03:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe you accuse every new etc. editor of that, but if you have evidence, make the proper case, at SPI. You should know how to do this properly. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of generating further evidence is asking the question. I mean I suppose you could give me a discretionary sanction against asking the question, but as it stands I dont think it violates any policy to do so and if I think that asking that question to be a useful thing I probably will continue doing so. nableezy - 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the same edit. The pattern is that when you see a new editor who makes an edit you don't like, you ask if they are a sock. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, not really. nableezy - 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, the editor has been here since January 2020 and it makes perfect sense to know syntax, etc. Keep in mind evidence is editing similar articles and in many cases it's actually editing in the same timezone or geography. CU's aren't always tech-savvy and many "pro-Israel" editors in California for example are caught as socks merely because they edit in the same IP range or time zone. At a prior SPI, it was mentioned that you can do an editor interaction between any of the "other" editors. The evidence presented is often that a pro-Israel editor edits in the IP conflict area and edits with a pro-Israel bias. Not very compelling evidence. And I'm commenting here because I'm not opening a full case for this and just wanted to mention this because I see it often enough. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You really like parroting arguments by socks dont you? Why dont you tell the class what happened at that prior SPI? Oh shocker, the person I said was a sock was in fact a sock. Horrors. nableezy - 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, " Keep in mind evidence is editing similar articles and in many cases it's actually editing in the same timezone or geography. CU's aren't always tech-savvy and many "pro-Israel" editors in California for example are caught as socks merely because they edit in the same IP range or time zone. "
    As I said, they aren't tech savvy and just catch people who edit similar areas and this has happened in the past. Any "pro-Israel" editor in the SoCal area is now automatically labeled a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsupported assertion. Your imagination is not exactly something that I plan on spending much more time on now. When I feel that there is a point to asking that question I will continue to do so. When I feel there is sufficient evidence to request a check, I will continue to do so. Thanks for your cooperation and support in upholding Wikipedia policies. I very much appreciate it. nableezy - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies and Sir Joseph: ahem. nableezy - 12:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, as I said, you'll always get the CU and SPI clerks to mark them related and blocked. So the fact that you caught a new user doesn't mean much to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy:, thank you for filing the SPI. That is the way to do it. I think I've blocked a couple of their socks before. Sir Joseph, I have no idea what you're saying. Are you saying "Nableezy, you are so well at playing a game in a rigged system that whatever you say, the clerks and CUs will do"? Or are you saying "the clerks and CUs are so dumb/corrupt/whatever that they always mark everyone as a sock of that LTA"? Drmies (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I'm saying it has been like that in the past. People have been caught in the SPI net when the only fault was that they were editing in a certain area, and in a certain geography or time zone. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, sometimes you have to accept that the world does not agree with you. While you may believe it was a war of independence, and I may agree with you, in balance, most consider it a war between two opposing parties with legitimate claims. Once a consensus decision has been made, updating articles that mention the conflict should be uniform. Pick you battles better.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, being upset that people disagree with you isnt typically a reason to come to ANI. I reverted an edit that remains a violation of NPOV and which appears to have a majority of editors agreeing with me. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 02:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just a content dispute (and certainly "avoid using a redirect that might violate WP:NPOV" is at least not an unreasonable argument to make.) Your objection seems to be that your politics differs from the editors you're in a dispute with, but they could just as easily represent your side of the dispute as "Pro-Israel editors editing to push POV"; almost everyone editing in that topic area has a discernible opinion on it, after all (people rarely edit topics they have no opinion on.) More generally it is WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct to immediately leap to political disagreements with editors as the locus of a dispute - unless you have a more specific reason to think there are conduct issues, you need to focus on content, not editors; and I'm not understanding what you feel the conduct issue is here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion A 7 day prolonged edit war is not "leaping" to WP:ANI. The issue is 3 editors trying to change a consensus version against 2 editors, not the content issue. You were just as sloppy with your arguments on the talkpage as you are here.
    @Drmies In general, there are case where in the context of a certain article or paragraph a less neutral term is appropriate, as even some of my opponents in this case admit. I hold that this is such a case. Even if you disagree, this thread is about the edit warring, not about the content issue. The content issue can be dealt with after the edit warriors are forced to stop edit warring. After all, if consensus will be as they hold, why do they have to edit war? The fact is that it isn't, and that they are using their numbers to push their POV against consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Logic fail, the numbers are against you but you have consensus. nableezy - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a content dispute. I'm not seeing any indication that your preferred version enjoys consensus at all, but beyond that, you have four reverts on that page in the past four days - more than anyone else in that timeframe. If there's a revert war there then you are the main person at fault, especially since you seem to be conceding that you've been trying to revert back to a version that (at the very least) doesn't have support from a numerical majority of editors. (As I'm sure you're aware as a veteran editor, believing your version enjoys consensus is not an excuse to edit-war.) If you think it has consensus anyway, slow down, stop hammering the revert button and start an WP:RFC to establish it. And you've repeatedly accused other people of POV editing (not to mention insulting me just now) with, as far as I can tell, no evidence - even if you disagree with the edit it is clear that it is not an unreasonable one to make. That being the case, you need to remember WP:NPA and cool it on accusing every single person you're in this dispute with of being POV warriors unless you have, you know, actual evidence. Dragging a content dispute where you have been edit-warring more aggressively than anyone else to WP:ANI and then insulting people isn't the way to resolve this sort of thing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, ok. nableezy - 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason we are here is because Debresser is banned from creating AE reports due to his repeated filing of vexatious and unsupported complaints (here, following the warning here). He was banned because his reports were invariably of the type as seen here. User X made an edit I dont like, please block him. I dont know if merely shifting the venue for these kind of reports is really the best solution here. nableezy - 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this appears to be a straightforward violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:NPA for good measure. nableezy - 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody please just close this? Enough time has been spent on this, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nableezy I won't even reply to that incorrect claim. In any case, the facts here don't lie: the three of you consort to push you POV without obtaining consensus, and it has to stop. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere Thank you for noticing this. He does it everywhere and all the time. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am bewildered: you say we edit against consensus, but still fewer numbers supports your view? "Consensus" doesn't mean the minority, AFAIK. Also, again, to repeat: there is no artickle named "Israeli War of Independence"; there is a redirect named that. According to Debresser it is WP:POV to link to the original WP-name: again, that does not make sense to me, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is everyone so excited over simple wording? These are only Wikipedia articles, not some big deal international treaty. Writing better text or disagreeing over wording isn't something that should cause such excitement. 11Fox11 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True. In any case, I am here about the behavioral issue, not the content issue, which is adequately being discussed on the talkpage. However, since I see this discussion is unfortunately not leading to any action, I don't mind it being closed. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda think you should be sanctioned for repeating the behavior that led to your AE ban and for the CANVAS violation at WT:ISRAEL. nableezy - 13:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get greedy. Lev!vich 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, good point. Still, I pinged the closing admin of that AE matter, Sandstein, to ask for their opinion--but that is a matter that can be discussed separately. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2017 Houston Astros season

    Blocked as username violation and WP:VOA. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please rev/delete recent edit summaries. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) The editor at issue is 2020 Astros World Series Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who IMO is WP:NOTHERE. Narky Blert (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: 2020 Astros World Series Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked by Cryptic for {{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User getting out of control

    This user went out of control and started doing mass changes by citing an irrelevant talk page argument on his talk page, and now he is edit warring to reinstate errors he is introducing through his mass edits instead of engaging on discussion on his talk page.

    A block is clearly needed in order to stop disruption from this loose cannon. Wareon (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @RegentsPark: @Fowler&fowler: @Kmzayeem: As per consensus reached in my talk page and expert guidance from RegentsPark I have edited infobox regarding citizenship and nationality status. Before notifying what issue he has with those edits Wareon has been doing mass reverting. Without even willing to participate in the discussion on my talk page.--Amrita62 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your talk page discussion which only concerned only 1 or 2 articles isn't enough for making mass changes. You will need consensus of community if you want to make mass changes. Use a proper noticeboard for it and not your personal talk page. Wareon (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you are still doing mass reverts for reinstating your problematic edits[127][128] without gaining consensus. Wareon (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down brother admin and other shall intervene what problem you have with citizenship and nationality issue we'll address. Instead doing mass rv you could have told me on my talk page what problem you have with citizenship or nationality issue. Since I just followed what admin and other experience editors advised. Chill brother. All your concerns shall be address. Admin if I have involved in wp:3RR then I'm sorry.--Amrita62 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for 72h for massive edit warring, hopefully the SPI results would be ready before the block has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And now blocked indef as a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phew!--RegentsPark (comment) 11:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please roll back their edits? GiantSnowman 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's already been done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rolled back all edits starting from yesterday evening; older edits do not look so problemati to me, and need to be looked at case by case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

    NO ACTION
    The (likely dynamic) IP the OP is using had reverted edits made by previous holders of the same IP. ClueBot is not broken. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I am not logged in because I don't have an account. I just went to the Wikipedia page about Charles M Goethe, an American eugenicist. There was a message at the top of the page telling me that two edits that I had made to Wikipedia pages had been rescinded by ClueBot. I have never made edits to Wikipedia pages. I poked around to see what this was about and found this page. I don't know anything else about it, but think that something is malfunctioning on your site.

    2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:98 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)David Cook[reply]

    These two messages on your talk page are old (one of them from 2018), and your IP address did indeed make these edits, which means that ClueBot isn't malfunctioning. The likely explanation is that your IP address is dynamically assigned and you likely got one that was previously used by someone who vandalized Wikipedia. If you weren't responsible for the edits in question, then I wouldn't worry about it. —{CrypticCanadian} 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Small clarification to the above: "someone from the IP address you are now using...". Drmies (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:122.109.12.199

    122.109.12.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made several non-constructive edits to the page Tevita Pangai Junior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), altering the rugby league player's last name to instead read an Australian English racial slur (diffs [129], [130] and, most recently, [131]). A previous user warning for vandalism has seemingly gone unnoticed, and none of this user's edits contain any other changes aside from the insertion of said slur. Requesting a block per WP:NORACISTS. Heyitsstevo (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vif12vf's persistent misuse of the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert legitimate edits on Golden Dawn (political party) without adequate justification

    OP blocked for block evasion. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to report a incident concerning a user by the name of Vif12vf. Recently, while attempting to make an edit to Golden Dawn (political party)'s lede, Vif12vf has continually misused the Rollback and Twinkle tools to unilaterally revert any edit I've attempted to make to the page, and Vif12vf has failed to provide an adequate policy-based justification for said reverts in the edit summary, nor did he specifically point out any potential errors to me. In addition, when I've tried to issue several warnings to him on his talk page about his problematic conduct, he erased them from his talkpage (Once again, using the Twinkle tool) without even indicating he has properly read them, nor did he issue a proper response, and the only communication I received from him was a template regarding blanking, even though my edit has not removed any significant portion of content from the article, and were restrained solely to the lede. Relevant diffs can be found here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_%28political_party%29&type=revision&diff=972431200&oldid=972431125

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972431200

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972431382

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972491020

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972497219

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=972508278

    Attempt at user talkpage discussion and 3RR warning for edit-warring:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=prev&oldid=972497930

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972497930

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972505571

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972507037

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vif12vf&diff=next&oldid=972508097

    Sole communication with Vif12vf on my talkpage:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.103.231.0&diff=next&oldid=972491043

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.103.231.0&diff=next&oldid=972498161 95.103.231.0 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason is simple enough, you are removing sourced information without providing a valid reason. If other editors have added information and approprietly sourced it, you cant just simply remove it without discussing the matter on the talk-page first and gaining concensus! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And what information did I remove, Vif? Your utter lack of proper communication with me in your edit summaries and on the talk page is quite outrageous, especially since you have repeatedly used the Rollback tool to revert my edits without adequate justification, despite the fact that Rollback is only to be used in cases of obvious and severe vandalism, which did not happen on Golden Dawn (political party). 95.103.231.0 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed a source without explaining why, and you never had a proper edit-summary to begin with. If you had taken the short time to simply explain why, either through the edit-summary or through the talk-page, there most likelly wouldn't have been a problem to begin with! After all, it is not the other changes that were problematic! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should have properly notified me about any accidental removal of pre-existing sources, ideally right within the edit summary itself, but you didn't even do that. Instead, you unilaterally reverted the entirety of my edit with the Rollback tool, as if it was vandalism, which it is not, and then proceeded to revert every subsequent edit made since without any proper explanation (While also engaging in edit-warring at that), and did not even bother to specifically notify me of the supposed mistake. Once again, lack of proper communication, which is a serious problem on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. 95.103.231.0 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, your "restore" and other edit summaries are wholly insufficient. User:Vif12vf, your use of rollback without any explanation at all is not helpful. All you had to say was "unexplained removal of source": that "without providing a valid reason" works two ways. I agree there was no obvious vandalism here; context (we're talking about a POV source suggests there's something real here. Now both of you need to stop talking and let other editors and admins respond here. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would lastly just like to add that i have already told another editor on my talk-page that i will refrain from editing the article further for now. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New account violating ARBPIA 500/30 Rule

    Supreme Deliciousness, please make an extended-protection request at WP:RFPP next time, thanks. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Violation: [132][133]

    "500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." [134], he has not only violated this but also violated the 1rr per 24 hours. Can some admin please lock the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Next time, WP:RFPP is better for these sort of requests. El_C 14:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Branstarx2 has made legal threats, stating Article should be reported to higher Indian authorities at Talk:Violence against Muslims in India [135]. She doubled down on her talk page, asserting author of article has blindly ignored Official Notice and judgement of Supreme Court of India[136] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be that the user is stating what they think should happen(with the first comment) and their opinion about what the Supreme Court in India has said(the second comment). Are they threatening to perform legal actions themselves? Though perhaps the chilling effect is enough. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not nice, but not a threat per se.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Billhpike 331dot Smiley Sorry! I am reverting my edits to Talk:Violence against Muslims in India which as by u could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that i may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Which is not the fact actually, wrong allegations that i am giving legal-threat has been made upon me. Still, following wiki policy i am reverting my edits on talk page of article mentioned above, i am stepping back from issue Branstarx3 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User editing behaviour

    I appreciate that political beliefs are often a motivator for contributions and that's natural and unavoidable but I recently noticed a new editor exclusively adding POV content in favour of the Chinese government (e.g. [137], [138], [139]), including synth/OR/undue material and citing deprecated state-media outlets such as the Global Times, CGTN (itself recently reorganised by the user), or even the Chinese government directly. I just wanted to see if anyone else thinks it's enough of a cause for concern (i.e. not being here to build an encyclopedia) to be worth trying to address (and possibly if there's any way to check if this is a paid account). Thanks, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • We can't check if something is a paid account. We can check if something is a sock; in this case there is no evidence of it. I do not, however, believe even for a moment this is truly a new editor, and I agree that their edits warrant scrutiny. You could file an SPI, and maybe ask a CU to look at the entire range, but I am not sure it is really warranted without some further suggestion that there is socking. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotta admit - Wikipedia sure has a way of making new editors feel welcome. ;-)

    Do you guys really believe that editing Wikipedia is THAT difficult? That new editors have to spend a few days and days learning the ropes and acclimatizing themselves before they jump in? That if a new editor is more active than you expected, there can be no other explanation other than that he is an old editor editing under a different name? lol...

    Apart from the baseless accusations (I have NEVER edited Wikipedia before creating this account, except a small copy edit I once made as an unregistered user), there are also factual inaccuracies. I dare you to point out a single edit I have made on any page that is uncited and unsourced and NOT backed up by sources. So much for "POV" content. Not to mention that most of my changes wouldn't even be required if existing editors would've done better jobs of creating and editing the pages themselves. So much for "building an encyclopedia" :P

    Moreover, if my edits were POV, wouldn't all of them be reverted by other editors by now?

    And as for being "pro-China", well, when hundreds of editors are prancing about making edits unfavorable to China citing RSes, that's absolutely fine. But how dare someone come along and add PRO-CHINA content citing RSes? Hmmm must be a sockpuppet or a paid account you guys...

    Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Having the initiative to self-revert, as the reported user has done here (1 2) is hardly WP:NOTHERE conduct. And claiming "deprecated state outlets" without a link to WP:RS/P or mentioning the fact both CGTN and Global Times are under discussion at the moment at WP:RS/N is potentially misleading / deceptive. Next thread? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I slipped up, the two sources I mentioned are currently being agreed to be deprecated, pretty much unanimously, but haven't been formally deprecated yet, despite obviously deserving it. It's disingenuous to suggest that heavy reliance on Chinese state propaganda isn't a massive red flag. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you're being disingenuous. My reliance on Chinese media as sources so far is actually very light, and always attributed, and mostly for factual assertions (e.g. how many countries support China at the UN).
    Look, I get it - many people get triggered when they see Chinese state media being cited, but I suggest you stick to the facts before casting aspersions on other editors.
    Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm actually most amused by the linking of my "re-organization" of the CGTN page to some nefarious design. As you can see from the link above, I have not removed a single criticism of CGTN from the page. Here's my edit summary: "Moved criticism in lead section to the (renamed) section 'Criticisms and controversies' (and only included a summary of criticisms in lead section). Added subsection about US foreign agent designation. Added quotes by Xi Jinping and Liu Yunshan in lead section. Didn't remove anything"

    In fact, that applies to all pages I've edited. I never, ever remove sourced criticisms of China, unless there's a good reason for it (e.g. it's repetitive) Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Being wikihounded

    Not actionable, not hounding. But C2A06 partially blocked from WP:ANI and WP:AN for 3 years. Note that a sitewide block remains on the table if further disruption continues. El_C 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I stumbled upon the controversial Adrian Zenz article and from what I've seen there are many different heated viewpoints over there. I made a talk page comment as a neutral user in a section before briefly getting involved and making some copy-edits and adding info on the actual article. Some were reverted, and I decided not to revert back or pursue it even further because I didn't want to get into a dispute of some sort. It seems like Horse Eye Jack is an active user on the article and its talk page. After I've backed out of it though, that same user decided to revert edits and even more which I've been contributing that has zero connections whatsoever to Adrian Zenz, [140] which they only did after I got involved there, so it's definitely not a coincidence. Horse Eye Jack has also made no contributions to the article I was contributing before this event.

    This is very disheartening and is making me have second thoughts on continuing to contribute on Wikipedia, considering it took me days to write and improve on the article and it was just easily reverted because they probably didn't agree with my contributions on Adrian Zenz. To rub salt into the wounds, they used a template on my talk page which felt really patronising, claiming I have not provided "reliable sources", when I clearly did and was probably just used as an excuse to justify the revert. I had to make this section because it's most likely that they might follow me around in future edits and I would want to put a stop to it before they decide to do it again. Thank you. Telsho (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Telsho did you miss the giant notice that says you must inform editors when discussing them here? Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You and HEJ seem to edit similar articles, so I assume you both know each other more than it leads on. It was barely 20 mins, so you couldn't wait a little? You seem to have already added it for me anyway [141] adding in some personal comments without assuming good faith of course, thanks a lot. And why exactly did you revert the edit [142] which you only did minutes after this ANI was created? Are you serious right now? Telsho (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I was attempting to see what the dispute was about when I noticed your persistent edit warring in recent changes. I guess you caught me, HEJ is clearly my alter-ego, since we have so much in common! Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What "persistent edit warring", exactly? I reverted twice, first from HEJ, and now you (which you reverted again). Tell me more. Telsho (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Things to consider: you deleted the warning template on your talkpage without following up on why it might have been placed and immediately decided the next correct step was to report the user who reverted you for perceived behavioral problems instead of engaging with the user in discussion. I suggest you withdraw this report and instead open talkpage discussion at the relevant page about your massive rewrite of the article; in fact, consider that you've not participated in any talkpage discussion at all, ever. Follow BRD and build consensus. But it's hard to take this filing seriously when you never even attempted to discuss on the article talkpage or with HEJ. Grandpallama (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have engaged in the discussion if they had made a section on the talk page of that specific article, but instead they reverted it altogether and slapped a template on me. Furthermore, this only happened after getting involved in articles they were in, and the article I was editing in question was never edited by them (like I've previously stated in the first statement). Telsho (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have started the discussion when they told you to get consensus, same as when I told you to take it to the talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Telsho, have you ever edited Wikipedia under another account? Grandpallama (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what, I don't know what exactly you both are attempting here by trying to deflect this on me as what HEJ did was clearly within the definitions of WP:HOUNDING. I also find it weird that most ANI reports (based on just scrolling up) don't really attract other users (especially non-admins) attention so I don't understand what's actually happening here. The fact that Praxidicae and HEJ has interacted before doesn't help either, so it's hard to assume they are interacting with me from a neutral point of view. I'm also not withdrawing this report whatsoever. Telsho (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure you understand what WP:HOUNDING is, but this certainly isn't it. I also recommend you stop doing this and this, unless of course the goal here is to get yourself blocked. Go make your case for the content on the talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at WP:HOUNDING once more and I understand it well enough for me to take it up to ANI, thanks. Telsho (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telsho I'm sorry that you feel you have been treated unfairly. However, can I ask that you stop casting aspersions against other editors? Praxidicae and Grandpallama are very experienced editors in good standing; the suggestion that they have some sort of clandestine connection with HEJ is not credible, and I'd strongly advise you to withdraw it unless you feel you can offer some concrete evidence to support it. Is the diff you've presented above at Singapore–United States relations the only occurrence that makes you think that this is a case of hounding? I haven't looked at it closely, so I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not it was an appropriate revert, but is this the only incident? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Girth Summit, thanks for your response. I initally thought this was the only incident, but after looking at my contributions once again they also made a revert here [143], which I'm not going to revert for now as it's another controversial topic which is a story for another time. However if you look at the timestamps it was made just shortly after my edits on Adrian Zenz, and HEJ never made any contributions to that article before their reverts to me. Thanks once again. Telsho (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Telsho, to be honest, I don't think that two instances constitute hounding. What sometimes happens, when an experienced editor comes across some problematic edits by a newer editor, is they might check to see what else they have been doing, and if it isn't in-line with our policies and guidelines, they might undo it. Ideally, they would drop that new editor a line and explain what the problems were, but failing to do that does not amount to hounding, which is really about someone persistently following another person around and harassing them. Can I suggest that you try to figure out what it was with those edits that people had problems with - ask them openly, and be prepared to listen to what they have to say. GirthSummit (blether) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit for what its worth I did drop them a line, I put a level 1 unsourced warning on their talk page which is very non-bitey and invites the recipient to come and discuss the issue on my talk page if they still have questions after clicking through on the other links. They reverted [144] rather than responding either on their talk page or mine. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Howdy hello @Telsho:, I've looked at the evidence, and have a few thoughts. I do not think this is a case of hounding. I know that it doesn't feel good to have your edits reverted, but looking at the page histories, HEJ was at Adrian Zenz before you were. He seems to have it watchlisted, and had edited it days before you first did [145]. For the Singapore article, a single edit does not hounding make. And in both cases, I think you should maybe ask yourself: why would someone else revert those? The answer should be along the lines of examining what content issues the edits had, such as being not neutral in the Zenz article, or poorly sourced for the Singapore article. For the Singapore article, don't worry, your edits aren't gone forever. Its just that you need to discuss the edits with other folks. Making big, bold changes to an article is good, but you'll have to expect pushback from time to time, especially on large or controversial articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @CaptainEek, thanks for your response as well. Apologies if I wasn't being clear in my initial statements as it took me a while to write it up and it wasn't easy being interrogated by two users at the same time which resulted in edit conflicts while publishing my responses. The hounding I was referring to wasn't at Adrian Zenz but in these 2 articles [146] and of course at [147]. These reverts were made only after I got involved in the Adrian Zenz article. And as i've said previously, HEJ made no edits to both articles before my involvement on Adrian Zenz, so it's safe to assume that it was clearly influenced by tracking through my edits which is why I had brought up WP:HOUNDING in this ANI report. Thank you. Telsho (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Telsho, I don't think HEJ is acting in bad faith here. He saw that you made a bad edit, and like many editors do, I assume he checked your contributions, and quickly found some problematic edits. This is not against policy, note that WP:HOUND says Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't ignoring it, I had a lot of pings that wasn't cleared at the time and I had missed it. I've self-reverted and responded on the talk page. Telsho (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telsho never alerted me to this discussion, I’m only here because Praxidicae notified me. I have little to add to whats been said above except to note their striking similarity to Honoredebalzac345 who created an account on the 8th and immediately jumped into making massive changes to controversial China related articles, including Adrien Zenz. Per WP:Boomerang I think it deserves looking into, they crossed paths on Adrien Zenz with Telsho chiming in to support Honoredebalzac345’s point “Neutral observer here...”[148] and has since made half a dozen edits advancing the same position as Honoredebalzac345. Pinging @Loksmythe: as they were involved in that discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telsho's account is barely a DAY old and the user has made 100+ edits with pretty developed familiarity of WP policies. Something is clearly off here. The Zenz article has attracted a multitude of new SPA accounts since his research came out in late June 2020 on sterilizations, forced abortions, and mandatory birth control on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Loksmythe (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't care less about Adrian Zenz, which is why I never disputed my reverts there. I only made this report after HEJ decided to follow my edits on unrelated topics. Telsho (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Gotta admit - Wikipedia sure has a way of making new editors feel welcome. ;-)
    Do you guys really believe that editing Wikipedia is THAT difficult? That new editors have to spend a days and days learning the ropes and acclimatizing themselves before they jump in? God forbid if an editor learns the ropes quicker than you might expect...
    Not to mention the lying. That user Telsho didn't "advance the same position" as me. They and I actually disagreed on the talk page section HorseEyeJack posted above. See for yourself. I literally told them to revert their changes, and also that they cited an unreliable source. So its literally a lie that they and I shared the same position. Its extraordinary how HEJ just lied about this and expected to get away with it.
    _____________
    Now that being said, I had similar experiences with HEJ - as described by Telsho in their first comment - when I first encountered them on my first few days. It felt like they were going around to the pages I edited and reverting my changes. That they were following me around as a sort of a welcoming committee :P. And I gotta admit that their behavior CAN feel like hounding, as if they're defending their turf as an old editor and not letting new editors into the club. However, I opened talk page discussions with them and we reached consensus on many issues, and the majority of my changes ended up being accepted, even though I found their repeated references to my account's newness on Wikipedia rather irritating.
    I bear no ill will towards HEJ. I've found that initiating discussions on talk pages generally helps move the problem forward.
    Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Honoredebalzac345 You're right, HEJ claims that we were collaborating were nothing more than fabrications. I don't think I'll be around the Adrian Zenz article anytime soon, it's not my forte anyway. What has really opened my eyes though were the hostility and aggressiveness that some established editors have against newer editors, as we've seen with Grandpallama, Praxidicae and of course HEJ. Users like them take Wikipedia a little too seriously and I'm sure there are more than meets the eye with their actions. I'm glad the admins were more amiable and understanding towards me and adviced me on the steps going forward in a less antagonistic tone. Telsho (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Unfortunately, I have to agree with what Telsho has said above. The same that has just happened to Telsho has also happened to me at one point... C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Telsho: I suggest the next time they revert your edits, just open a talk page discussion. Maybe you'll find, like I did, that after discussion they end up agreeing to the vast majority of your changes anyway (exactly the same ones they reverted earlier), with only minor differences in most cases.
    Of course, the question then arises, if they agree to the majority of your changes, why revert the WHOLE thing, instead of just manually changing that one small change they disagree with? Why revert something that you say you agree with? Well, I asked them exactly that, and they have yet to reply ;-)
    Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae and a few other editors have a real problem with policies like WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:IDHT, WP:ASPERSIONS and of course WP:FOLLOWING. I however thank CaptainEek and Girth Summit for helping newcomers to learn the ropes in a friendly and polite manner. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol I wasn't even aware there's a policy called 'Assume Good Faith'. That's literally the opposite of what they are doing!
    They once told me that the fact that I was making "such" edits before I had even "learned how to indent (my) replies on the talk page just raises the level of concern". On another occasion, when they saw that I removed just TWO links (which coincidentally happened to be from The Diplomat) from two different pages (along with some other links I added and removed; and I've added The Diplomat as a source on other places too), they asked me "why target this specific publication?"!!
    The operating principle seems to be literally the opposite of WP:AGF: Assume Bad Faith.
    Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy shit this bolded line in WP:BITE hits the nail on the head: "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". Couldn't be more true. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Honoredebalzac345: What they are following is WP:ABF (Assume bad faith) and WP:PBTN (Please bite the newbies). C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 11:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Telsho: and @Honoredebalzac345: If the situation gets worse, feel free to request a WP:IBAN. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C2A06: Well I did a little research and apparently this isn't the first time Horse Eye Jack have been uncooperative with other users. They have constantly edit warred [149] [150] on a wide range of topics, hounded other users multiple times (even when excluding me), have been blocked before for similar actions (note how they are suddenly remorseful and apologetic in the block appeal) and has a WP:IBAN (which you mentioned) with another user as well as being sanctioned on a bunch of topics. I'm not surprised and I'm sure there's more if one looks back even further. Telsho (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Telsho: I totally agree. Also, taking a look back at Praxidicae's editing history, this edit and then this one was an extremely big violation of WP:BITE. And lastly, this edit was particularly unacceptable to refer to constructive criticism as nonsense and then with this edit the offended editor also informed them of wikihounding. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 12:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    C2A06 can I suggest to you that your contributions to this thread are not helping to resolve it, and you may not be showing yourself in the best of lights. The diffs you have presented above show Praxidicae doing routine patrolling, removing blatant spam and unreliable sourcing (and, in one case, patiently defending herself from an inappropriate accusation of vandalism). Why you feel the need to involve yourself in this is not clear to me, but you might have been better off sticking to your original stated intention not to make any further comments to this discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: The reason for my involvement in this ANI thread is because I have seen this type of behaviour become an issue towards me and several other editors. I tried to step away, but it just felt very tempting to involve myself in this discussion. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    C2A06, I put it to you that it was unwise to involve yourself in this manner again. In this ANI thread, you were given some very clear guidance about the problems with your editing, and you agreed to back away. I see that you have since included links to some of those prior interactions, as well as a link to Floquenbeam's warning to you that you were very nearly blocked, on you user page as an example of when you were 'bitten'. I am concerned that you have not fully taken on-board the advice they were given then. GirthSummit (blether) 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, I would just to make it clear that I have taken the advice on board, and I'm sorry for participating in this thread if you don't want me to. I shall step away now. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I have to say is that I endorse the opening of this ANI thread... I will not make any further comments to this discussion. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal Close this thread without prejudice to the OP. Nobody has done anything terrible and the OP probably realises by now that this was a bit OTT, but nvm. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Roxy the dog this thread should be closed with no action taken before everyone gets out of hand. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandal range

    Could someone please help out with this fellow? I'm on a post-surgery wikibreak so I really don't have the energy to revert all of their contributions myself or file a proper AIV report. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They’re adding unsourced and presumably fictitious closure dates to articles on Pakistani TV stations, and similarly unreferenced end dates on articles about Pakistani TV series Neiltonks (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent Disruptive Editing

    Recently, @JurassicGodzilla: has been adding content that is unsourced and in violation of WP:BALL, (1, 2). I have left three warnings at their talk page so far, even offering links to WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:RS for them to study but the user has remained unresponsive and continues to restore the same disruptive content, (1, 2, 3). The user has even been blocked for 31 hours due to these disruptive edits, (1). I've also taken the issue to SPI (1) due to JurassicGodzilla's recent edits being strikingly similar to the recent edits of User talk:84.203.70.13 (1, 2, 3), and User talk:84.203.69.48 (1, 2, 3, 4). However, the clerk I was assigned declined to user-check the IP's and closed the case without determining if the suspected users were related or not. The pattern with the IP's were similar with JurassicGodzilla: they were warned on their talk pages (without responding), continued restoring the same disruptive content despite warnings, and blocked repeatedly. Armegon (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    IP block needed for 217.71.190.245

    User blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has been repeatedly warned to refrain from vandalism but continues to do so. Persists in removing Lidiya Litvyak from list of flying aces and ace category without explanation despite being explicitly told to stop.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked x 31 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent long term defamatory edits to Wade Robson

    I've requested indefinite full protection, and am asking here that someone have a look at the edit history. This really could use a lot of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:1D7D:1249:C1A7:F612 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. This article definitely does not need full protection, and we almost never add indefinite full protection to an article. Every time I see someone request indefinite full protection of an article on the requests for page protection noticeboard, it screams "I have not read the page protection policy", and I get a chuckle. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Long-term pending revision protection may be appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Gleeanon409 - That would work, too. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a pending changes reviewer with some passing familiarity with the subject of the article, I am happy to help if there are changes to the article lingering in the backlog thereafter: anyone may merely ping me if the wait has grown intolerable (though usually the backlog is addressed fairly reasonably/swiftly these days, it seems to me). Snow let's rap 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Although looking through the recent history, I can now see there would be very little likelihood of validating many edits, as nearly all of the new users there are fairly blatant vandals. Some of those accounts could still benefit from a block, incidentally, but I presume that Oshwah is just working his way forward through them and will get to them in due time. Snow let's rap 05:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Oshwah, it's Bob. Chuckle away, but wait until after you've sorted through the edit history. As stated, there's a ton of WP:BLP violations that merit permanent concealment. People love their MJ, and they don't like this guy. 2601:188:180:B8E0:1D7D:1249:C1A7:F612 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bob! I hope you're doing well! Okay, I'll parse through the edit history of the article and get those taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting a Technical page move when it is contested

    The RM is in progress and the the dispute that was brought here appears to have moved on, so no further action needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What is the right avenue when an editor files a misleading technical page move, which is not on the front page? Per Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement#Accords there was an ongoing discussion about whether "peace treaty" is an appropriate term. The editor, Bloom6132, then listed the page at WP:RM/TR without without telling anyone, the page was moved to the disputed name, and then, the page was immediately put on the front page in ITN with the disputed name. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all. If you looked carefully (before spuriously throwing around unfounded accusations), I did not put my request under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" heading. I placed it under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves", which this clearly is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm not going to be lectured about "right avenues" from someone who failed to follow the most basic of protocols listed above in red: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bloom6132: Unfortunately you lied in your submission, because the move was explicitly discussed. Also two separate editors moved it. You had no consensus for this, and misled an admin. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all – in fact, it was your move (i.e. the first one made) that was not discussed. You never had consensus either. Read up on WP:NPA, along with WP:OR and WP:FRINGE as advised by another editor on the article talk page, before making a fool of yourself. And again, still no notification on my talk page 2 hours later. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have linked to the discussion in my first comment above. It is odd that you would claim that it was not discussed when the evidence is there in black and white. And re consensus, you alone reverted two separate editors - it was two against one. Choosing to hide that in your "technical request" was misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually made it quite clear in my "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" that my original title was reverted twice. Nothing hidden there. Also, a reminder that Voting is not a substitute for consensus. Regardless, a mere two votes does not establish consensus. Again, you should read up on your WP policies before commenting. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close - bringing this dispute to WP:AN/I is way over the top, and I suggest we close this in speedy fashion with a slap on the wrist to the OP for making a mountain out of a molehill. For the record, Bloom6132 appears to be in the right here - they created the article under the present title, and the listing at WP:RM/TR was to restore to that title. It's true that the article was only two hours old at the time of the first move, but the instructions at WP:RM don't take that into account. The rule is: "Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted." There is now an RM on this topic at the talk page, and that should be pursued to determine the correct course going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Sdg100

    Sdg100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) History of uploading copyvio images and placing wrong license tags on them (15+ notices on their talk), 4 notices for vandal edits. Somehow skirted any block. A history of not providing edit summaries. Has a penchant for messing around with images on BLP's without understanding if they have issues. I reverted their edit with an explanation here and they reinstated it back here. The image they put up is unreviewed on commons, uploaded by a banned sock User:Jaishink. Same behavior and pattern of hit and run image changes without explanation here, here...too many to list. - hako9 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The fact that after 1000 edits to Wikipedia, they have made precisely 1 edit to any Talk namespace, is very concerning. Were I not involved on some of these pages, I would likely give them a final warning for non-communicativeness, and follow up with a block if needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA revocation

    Hello,

    Abhijitsilindia created a userpage which was quickly CSD tagged and deleted on April 21, then recreated yesterday. [154]. Jimfbleak blocked for vandalism [155] but allowed TPA. The user in question, Abhijitsilindia, then posted the promotional content on his talk page instead, which I reverted [156]. The editor has made no edits except adding their promotional content and vandalizing another user's page. I am requesting TPA revocation or possibly a WP:NOTHERE block extension.

    Note: I have notified the subject appropriately but I am not sure how useful that is considering they are blocked. I have left a message instead of the template on Jimfbleak's page as he is not the subject of the report but may have something to add. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Giraffer, TPA revoked and indeffed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Giraffer (munch) 12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While this individual ins't outright saying he wants to sue or will sue, the language he's using looks to be very close to this, by implication:

    Likewise, saying I was terminated from two institutions is false - I was never terminated for cause, yet Luke and Wikipedia insist on promoting that libelous and defamatory falsehood made up by Dittrich. If you must insist on continuing to support the libelous and defamatory Esquire article, please just inform Wikipedia readers that it has also been very much disputed, and debunked, and include the reference to Robert Mays' work. Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs)

    It's not like he wasn't ever warned about not making legal threats. He seems to be playing close to the edge here. I haven't said anything to him, and I will notify him about this posting ina moment. Just wanted to bring it to your attention! W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is definitely not a legal threat. --JBL (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree more - accusing Wikipedia of promoting libel and defamation then asking to talk to our attorneys creates a chilling effect and, especially considering his past behavior, gives every indication that he wants to take legal action. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wekeepwhatwekill:, from the first para of WP:NLT: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. emphasis added I directed Alexander to the legal team because it is the correct potential legal redress a living person has when they feel they are being defamed. It is their job, in fact (or, at least, one of them). Ealexander3 should speak to them but he has not threatened other editors in any of their BLPN postings. I hope that helps clarify. Side note: since when are necromongers "chilled" by legal threats, anyway?[FBDB] Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not their job. Any potential defamation, or anything else legally dubious, in a Wikipedia article is the legal responsibility of the editor making that edit, not the Foundation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger:, please see the actual complaints. Alexander's complaint is not that the article defames him but that the article quotes some-one else who defames him. If Alexander wants a legal opinion on the inclusion of a properly-quoted rs, then he does indeed need to speak to WMF legal. He certainly won't get a definitive response from BLPN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And he certainly won't get a definitive response from the Foundation's legal team. Their job does not include handing out free legal advice to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanmoy Roy and TumTum Cab

    Multiple pages and editors have been created/opened with a variation of Tanmoy Roy Ty and TumTum Cab. Most of these have been speedy deleted for being purely promotional. The webpage tumtumcab.com has already been added to the our blacklist. The following is the list of related editors I could find.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are more that I have not been able to find. I am requesting administrator's and others' help to clean this disruptive editor up. Thank you. VVikingTalkEdits 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just found another one User:Tanmoy Roy tmVVikingTalkEdits 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all  Confirmed and blocked. Just nuke the creations and duck block on sight if any additional accounts pop up.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dav.tay427 reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

    Hello Wikipedia Administration! Recently, the Greater Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and List of Texas metropolitan areas articles have been subject to a series of seemingly unconstructive contributions by User:Dav.tay427. This fellow Wikipedian collaborator has constantly added onto the official names of the metropolitan statistical areas for Greater Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, which are contrary to the names designated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Their initial contribution for Greater Houston's article appears to have begun on the first of August; they determined the name of the metropolitan area was: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston". On the sixth day, they also furthermore determined the name of Greater Houston by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston-Texas City-Brazoria". In addition, text to the lead infobox's caption was added with no relevant imagery. On August 2, the same person has expanded upon the name for the DFW metroplex, insisting that it's name was "Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington-Plano-Irving". They also changed the Greater Houston name in the List of Texas metropolitan areas to Houston-Galveston, which it is not. I reverted those contributions and left a disclaimer on their talk page. Today, I reverted their contributions again as they seem to continue allegedly insisting that they are more notable than the governmental agency which provides the name for such metropolitan regions within the United States. I allege edit warring and a disregard for notability, and I desire for the team to look into this issue as soon as humanly possible. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cassianto is out of order

    Both participants have been made aware of infobox DS. Otherwise, as pointed out, this discussion has run its course and is starting to jump the tracks. I counsel Govvy and Cassianto to remain WP:CIVIL, and if y'all can't get along, maybe stay away from the other. Should disruption in the realm of infoboxes continue, take to WP:AE. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am fed-up with the guy and his attitude, [157], can someone have a word with him. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He linked to a long-standing wiki essay, just as you linked to a behavioral guideline. Unless you've got more, this filing is non-actionable and in fact may WP:BOOMERANG on you, so I suggest withdrawing and closing it. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, then maybe you should treat others with the kind of respect you expect others to show you. Calling someone "weird" is offensive, and then expecting someone to apologise to you when they question your DICKish comment...oops, there it is again....is frankly delusional. CassiantoTalk 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, I'm not a big fan of that essay, even though I understand the sentiment and often see it used appropriately. That said, there is discussion Wikipedia talk:Don't be a dick suggesting that the current title "Don't be a jerk" shouldn't be used in a discussion. (am I violating that? Answer no, because the advice is not to use that directed at a person which is different than talking about the title). Using the redirect Wp:Dick technically avoids using the title directly but misses the point. If using "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be a dick" are to be avoided, then obviously the redirect out to be even more avoided. I trust this is obvious but if it's over the line to tell somebody not to be something, it is clearly worse to use a redirect that suggests they are something. Personally, I think the target should take the advice to heart, but I can sympathize that they weren't happy to be the recipient. While the proposal to retitle it "Be respectful" failed, there's nothing wrong with an editor using that as follows: [[Wikipedia:Don't be a dick|Be respectful]]. Then the problematic words don't show up in the discussion, but the recipient, if they go to the link will see the stronger wording. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attitude" like attempting to demean other editors with comments like "You're a weird one aren't you". I left you the Arbcom notice which warns about the expected standards of discourse and behaviour in IB discussions, and your very next post goes out of the way to be uncivil to another editor. Most people in that thread are discussing the merits of IBs in civil terms despite the disagreements between one another: you are the one going out of your way to personalise the situation. Guess who is more in the wrong here? - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ye right, all the weirdness of late, saying one is weird is not much of an insult, calling someone a dick is just vulgar and offensive. That policy should be TNT'ed. All I want is an apology, if people can't manage that, well, clearly there are some deeper issues with people are not my problem. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to be clear, you came to this noticeboard seeking to have an administrator force Cassianto to apologize to you? Just want to make sure I follow. Dumuzid (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're happy to question people's mental health (which is, effectively what you're doing, saying that I am "a weird one"), yet you want to play the victim card over a link to a behavioural essay that has been on the site for over fifteen years? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone weird is not an attack on their mental health anymore than calling someone a dick is a suggestion that they are literally a human penis. If you really want to initiate an in-depth analysis of your exchange with Govvy, perhaps we should talk about how you edit-warred to remove an infobox and then hid behind a ludicrous distortion of BRD to justify your actions. You should be glad that Govvy filed this ill-fated incivility report instead of reporting you to ANEW. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you can pop that somewhere I else don't care about? "calling someone a dick is a suggestion that they are literally a human penis" PMSL - what a ridiculous stetch of pointlessness that it. If you want to talk about my exchange with Govvy, it was sweet fuck all to do with that article: the thread is about the possibility of IBs on all biographies. If you want to try and play to the peanut gallery, do it with someone who gives a toss about this cess pool: I certainly don't. And if you think ANEW is the place to go, please feel free to waste more of your time on such a silly little act. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussion was precipitated by your removal of the infobox on Nick Wilton. You and Govvy edit-warred on Nick Wilton. Obviously the edit-war and the talk page exchange are related. You never gave a policy-based justification for the removal; instead you've twisted BRD into a pretzel by claiming that the introduction of the infobox into the article back when it was created in 2011 is still somehow a bold edit that you can arbitrarily revert without discussion. And when a pair of editors tried to reinstate the infobox, you reverted both of them without ever taking it to the talk page. Be as hostile as you like, but from a policy standpoint you don't have a leg to stand on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear... you missed the point of that thread altogether. It’s common that something on a page goes to a project where it’s not about that page, but the wider concept: that’s exactly what’s happened here. Sorry this is beyond your understanding. Anyway, I’m off. Having you refactor reality to play to the peanut gallery isn’t my idea of an enjoyable Friday evening. I’ll let you have The Last Word, as I’m sure it’s very important for you. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very generous of you. Govvy explicitly referenced the edit-war right after calling you weird, but feel free to continue with your fiction that the two are unrelated. Sure, you were talking about other things as well, but that hardly renders the edit-war irrelevant. I'm not surprised that you don't appreciate my efforts to provide full context for the benefit of any uninvolved admins who might be reading this, especially since the full context reflects poorly on you. Sure, nothing's going to be done about it right now, but maybe somebody will remember this a few months down the road after you perform another drive-by infobox deletion and then refuse to discuss it at the talk page. Or maybe they won't. Whatever. Have a delightful evening, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, I wasn't calling them a dick, I was saying they were behaving like a dick. There's a stark difference. CassiantoTalk 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was ambiguous because you only typed their name and "WP:DICK" and Govvy apparently took that to mean that you were calling them a dick. But it's true that you were linking to the 'Don't be a dick' page and I've never known you to be a liar, so I believe you. Besides, this is all far less important than the underlying content issue. It seems to me that this thread has served whatever purpose it had and those who care can go back to talking about the infobox question at the proper location. (I have my own opinions about how the edit war was handled, but frankly I couldn't care less whether an article about an actor has an infobox or not.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I help it if you don't AGF? CassiantoTalk 19:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on the current dispute. But I have noticed that whether people will accept that distinction usually depends entirely on whether they agree with you or not. Reyk YO! 19:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reyk, exactly. Do you have an opinion on the non-ambiguous slur of being called "a weird one"? CassiantoTalk 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming this has to do with infoboxes in bio articles, then go forth & open on RFC on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. If poor behavior has been repeated many times then you should take it to AE, if not then not.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would humbly suggest that this discussion has run its course. I personally don't see a basis for action of any sort. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent accusations of bad faith/personal attacks

    Meethamonkey replaced a significant amount of content from Bharatpur State, stating in their edit summary to not "post hear-say purposely to propogate higher castes narratives", that it was a "completely a racist attitude" and to do so is to "vandalise".[158] I reverted their edit and posted a general note regarding censorship on their talk page.[159][160] Meethamonkey gave a response in which they stated "that the changes you are making are malicious in nature".[161]

    I gave another general note, this time regarding the assumption of good faith,[162] and then clarified this guideline when it became clear they misunderstood it.[163] However, Meethamonkey once more became aggressive in tone, stating that "your repeated attempts to edit this page, despite various people telling you of the false nature of your edits, clearly suggest malice , Also hypocrisy since by removing my and other edits that are factually accurate or remedial in nature , you are showing bad faith to everyone".[164] (Note that the mentioned "various people" were sockpuppets which have since been blocked.

    I finally gave a warning regarding their persistent assumption of bad faith,[165] following which they ordered me to "stop you intimidation" and that I was "not fooling anyone".[166]

    Meethamonkey clearly has some very strong feelings regarding the content in question, but I do not know how I can be expected to have any meaningful discussion with them about it when they make such serious accusations and insults against me.
    Alivardi (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edit summaries

    So, this stinks, but someone's gotta do it. For the past year or so, Yngvadottir has included some variation of "this edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" in just about every edit summary she leaves. I recently brought this up on her talk page, explaining that I found it annoying (cluttering page history, etc), and that it's generally disruptive. And apparently I'm not the first to do so (two older threads: here and here). Despite multiple people independently bringing this up (including one explicitly pointing at WP:SUMMARYNO), Yngvadottir apparently refuses to cease this. As I said to her, "If you can't swallow the minimal amount of pride it takes to stop doing so, then you shouldn't be editing here at all." To add to that, if your disdain for the WMF is interfering with your day-to-day editing here, then you should step away until you can sufficiently compartmentalize the two.

    So yeah, this stinks. Yngavadottir has been a great contributor to Wikipedia, but let's be honest: if a new editor came along and pulled a stunt like this (whether or not it had anything to do with the WMF), there'd be no hesitation about what to do. There are times and places to air grievances about the WMF (a lot of us, me included, have plenty of them), but not like this. There needs to be an indefinite (not infinite) block in place, at least from the Article and Talk: namespaces, until Yngvadottir is willing to stop spamming edit summaries in this way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If I might ask a clarifying question: you are suggesting blocking an admittedly great contributor, whose edit summaries are otherwise useful and appropriate, for making you read an extra sentence that is neutrally worded and hints at grievances with the WMF? Dumuzid (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a clarifying question; it's a question meant to oversimplify the matter and frame it in a negative light. If you read what I wrote, the answer is pretty obvious. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping it might clarify your thinking on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said on my user talk, I disagree that someone had to report this, and I have just reviewed WP:SUMMARYNO and still do not see any violation in my appended disclaimer. I have severely cut back my contributions here for reasons of personal concience; I will state here for clarity that neither my edit summaries nor my responses to those who have raised the issue with me have been intended to impose my view on the matter on others and whether and how they continue to contribute. As such, in my view, if my addition of a disclaimer to most of my edit summaries (sometimes I forget, or use "new section" and it isn't possible) are causing any disruption to watchlists or increase in reading for recent-change patrollers, I consider it acceptably small and worth it for my being able to continue contributing here. (It should perhaps be noted that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, since I usually find myself editing relatively holistically and have a lot to sum up, so I'm glad of the unintended side-effect of the WMF increasing the size of the summary field to help out editors in languages with a lot of diacritics ... and that often means someone has to read a few lines of meat and potatoes summary before they come to my disclaimer, which I often have to truncate to fit in. I think the length of the meat and potatoes bit is a more legitimate complaint, since there are better reasons for reading that bit.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is disruptive; it's a far cry from anything one would consider polemical. You would have a better case if it were the only thing she left in her edit summary, but that's not what's happening. These are beneficial edits with beneficial edit summaries, neither of which are violating policy. Nihlus 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deacon Vorbis, this is in the best and finest traditions of Cato the Censor. While it may not meet with your approval it seems to be that Yngvadottir is indulging in a quiet protest using free speech.
    This has been an unusually fast escalation. What is your motivation? Fiddle Faddle 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: I know next to nothing about Roman history (I had to click that link to even know this was a Roman history reference), and I don't really know what in there is supposed to apply to this situation. In any case, the initial complaint was ~9 months ago, the second was ~3 months ago, and mine was was met with yet another similar response to the first two. That's a pretty generous timeframe. What good would waiting do? What else could I have done to get it to stop? My motivation is getting the clutter out of article histories and off of watchlists (mine in particular). It's not a quiet protest though, it's shouting it at everyone whose watchlist is crossed. WP:NOTSOAPBOX says:

    Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).

    While this doesn't mention edit summaries explicitly, the intent seems clear. We have project and user space to talk about this stuff. Doing so in every single edit summary is not the place for it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In case there is room for doubt, which I mistyped as 'donut', I do not endorse what you have decided to do here. I had read your reasons with full attention. I shall not get those moments of my life back. Nor these. Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comes off as a little silly or childish and outside the actual purpose of edit summaries but I am not seeing an direct violation of policy. I would suggest though if multiple people have brought it up as something of concern to maybe take that to heart. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yngvadottir, would you not find it less taxing to have this disclaimer on your user page instead of in every edit summary? Making an edit isn't showing support for the WMF, it's a neutral act. There's plenty of opportunity for us to tackle issues presented by the WMF, by getting involved in relevant discussions at the Village Pump and so on. I can understand anger at the WMF; i've taken out that anger myself in a way that got me indeffed. On an encyclopedia that's also a community it's not worth frustrating your fellow editors in order to get a point across about something out of their control. I can't see you getting blocked for your edit summary appendages, but please consider an alternative less disruptive way of protesting. Kindest regards, Zindor (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the suggestion, but my reason for adding the statement to my edit summaries is that the WMF does use activity metrics to bolster its claims, and thus takes credit for our work. It is a personal statement that enables me to square my continuing contributions with my conscience. No blanket statement except a retirement banner would work for me, personally. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the statement irritating (because I have to read it each time in order to identify that I don't need to read it) but not disruptive. I think Yngvadottir's extensive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh the irritation factor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yngvadottir, thanks for responding. I understand how that would aggrieve a dedicated editor such as yourself. Is it not enough however just to feel the joy of contributing to Wikipedia? It can sometimes help to just go back to basics, and focus on the reasons why we as editors enjoy making edits. The WMF is simply a tool for doing the administrative work that many of us would rather not do. Let them take the credit, our joy comes from the shared knowledge that we are building an encyclopedia together. As you can see in this discussion, many editors recognise your extensive contributions, please don't let the WMF jade your experience here. I feel you might find it freeing to write a standard length edit summary. Zindor (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So DV says "If you can't swallow the minimal amount of pride it takes to stop doing so, then you shouldn't be editing here at all", but thinks the problem is with Yd? I'm constantly stunned by the lack of self-awareness some people have. I guess the word "disruption" has finally lost its last little tiny shred of meaning. --(this edit is not an endorsement of the dismal swamp ANI has become) Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, if you want to disagree with me, fine, but do it without the snide fucking remark about how little self awareness you think I have. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      But it's integral to the disruption you're causing. I thought you'd want to know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think they are causing any disruption. This is a perfectly legitimate request, even if the community does not agree at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That is an interesting use of the universal word in the snide fucking remark. Not cool. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief... are we having to go into censorship and thought police action now? Per Floq. Does this use of free speech in an edit summary reach the level of disruption? No. Not even close. This thread is even more of a time sink than the waste of space I had to discuss matters with further up the page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not censorship. It's just the wrong place for the comments. If someone were selling a car in their edit summaries, I don't think that would be against policy either, but I think we'd block if they kept doing it. Basically yeah, it's a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POINT issue. Obviously, a polite request hasn't done the job. I think it would be best if wiki-friends counselled that it would be best to stop using edit summaries in this way. All Empires must fall, but this isn't the way to wage the war. Hobit (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=973008443"