Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 12 October 2020 (→‎Over exhaustive and indecent behaviour: blocking. rationale.). 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.

    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

    Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

    Hi.

    May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

    1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
    • a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
    • b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
    • c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"
    2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)
    3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.
    4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.
    5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag
    6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[1]]

    Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

    Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).
    Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[2][3] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [4][5]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    @Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [17] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [18] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [19]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [20], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [21][22][23]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [24] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [25], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:
    • "blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
    • "unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
    • "one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([26]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
    • "effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
    • "do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.
    —seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:
    • From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
    • From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
    • From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
    • From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
    • From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.
    • From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.
    I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. EEng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)

    Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.

    • Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)

    Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.

    • Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Object404, I think we'd fix that if it happened, by extending the ban. See also WP:ROPE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch

    This is a request for administrative attention at

    There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

    I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."
    The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lizzydarcy2008, I'm not attacking you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm just tired of repeatedly telling you for the past few months that your edits and edit-suggestions has been biased and unneutral so far; removing paragraphs for no reason (Diff 1, Diff 2), deliberately changing neutral word to discouraged words on sentences you disagree with even though you were previously told about such guidelines (Diff 1, Diff 2), adding puffery such as "stunning second quarter performance" and "extremely popular" (Diff 1, Diff 2), using "hounded by" and "beset with" to undermine criticism and included your words that were not even stated on the sources (Diff 1, Diff 2). Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs and to promote ideas or beliefs. You should read Wp:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CherryPie94, you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.
    Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.
    Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lizzydarcy2008, I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CherryPie94, we're going around in circles because you keep repeating your accusations of me being a fan and a litany of my past edits even after I had already answered them. Up to now, nobody still has answered my question of why Wikipedia would choose a flawed version A over version B that has such flaws removed. Can you point out anything in version B that was not well-sourced or based on Wikipedia rules? Please re-read WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lizzydarcy2008, listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CherryPie94, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya left no comments. Nangears mentioned lack of balance of version B. From his arguments, there is a misconception that the weight of low domestic ratings is equivalent to the drama's success in Wavve + Netflix South Korea + Netflix international all put together. This is the nonequivalence that version A espouses. Please read my responses to his comments. Revolutionaery suggested another version that has acceptable first and second sentences, but succeeding sentences also suffer from the same nonequivalence, not to mention containing the word "claim" that you have a problem with. In addition, saying the drama "failed to impress audiences" is false considering the drama's success in Netflix and Wavve. Nangears and Revolutionery both gave suggestions on how to improve the paragraph that I partly agree with. However, the main issues that triggered this dispute in the first place - giving more weight to low ratings than warranted and downplaying the international success - are still not resolved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lizzydarcy2008, again, I think Nangears already talked about this point and explained why the TV rating is given due weight, so I will give a short answer. The problem is not “giving more weight to low ratings than warranted” as TV ratings was the most talked about aspect in reliable news, the problem is that you don’t want to accept that most reliable sources did extensively talk about it and it was given due weight on the page, while “international success” in Netflix (Wavve is Korean and can’t be used outside of Korea, so it is not international platform) news almost all come from unreliable sources and thus given undue weight because it has not reliable source backing it. I asked multiple of times in different noticeboards and was told not to use flixpetrol data or Netflix daily top 10 country charts and to wait for the end-of-year Netflix reports (still a few months and we will include Netflix success if they report it in January). For now, we include what is reliable and wait for more news, instead of adding unreliable claims and be biased in trying to make the series seem like it was the biggest success this year when reliable sources (Korean and western) criticized it and marked it as a TV failure compared to what was expected in term of viewership ratings.

    All the people who votes in the RFC were all against your changes, so you should really listen and accept that all of them do not agree with you, instead of repeating the same points again. As Robert McClenon said to you before, “ Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time? Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree.” CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    CherryPie94, first, you make a point of introducing me as a biased fan and putting a spin on my past edits, smearing my credibility. Second, editors who tried to remove the negativity of this page have been blocked. I don't mean the sockpuppets but naive editors like me who were unaware of power games played on Wikipedia and were tricked into edit wars and blocked, as you had tried to do with me. This is why I asked before, how sure are we that those who vote on surveys are impartial? Now I know. Getting through prejudices and misconceptions is the hardest thing in the world. Just now, you have blocked out everything I just said about the need of Wikipedia editors to analyze sources and not just parrot everything they see online, especially in this age of fake news and smear campaigns.
    If Wikipedia editors just weigh the significance of items based on how many search results come up, it would be a tool of misinformation and smear campaigns. Even if we discount smear campaigns, logic still gives a reason for the "extensive talk" about the low ratings of this drama. This drama first aired from April 17 to June 12. This period is when the drama became most popular, thus generated most talk. At this point, nobody had an idea of why the show was "failing", so a lot of speculations abounded. Information about the main reason for the low domestic TV ratings, the surge of popularity of Netflix in April, as well as other well-sourced testaments to the international success of this drama became available only after the second quarter of the year, after the drama finale aired, after its popularity subsided. Armed with these new facts, why continue to sow misinformation?
    Knowing what we know now about this drama, this paragraph is clearly negatively unbalanced - its international success is not only the last item in a super-long sentence but is in quotes ("hit Netflix drama") lowering its credibility. In addition, the lower-than-expected domestic ratings in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand" puts it on equal footing with all the successes in the first sentence. As I had said, I don't deny that the domestic TV broadcast rating of this drama got lower after the premiere; I even mention it in version B. What I object to is the undue weight it is being given in version A. No matter how much you try to discredit this fact, it is plain for every unbiased and informed reader to see. Regarding sources, Version B does not reference Flixpatrol. It references reliable sources, notably testaments of the production studio itself about the streaming success of this drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lizzydarcy2008 I did not put a spin to your previous changes, you actually did them and your edit history shows those biased disruptive changes. You were a sleeper account that came back just to blank the controversy section multiple times for no reason, how do you explain that then? You blanked it until you were warned by others about edit warring, you then disregarded the warning after a few weeks and even went on to edit war with me. No one was tricked to edit war, if someone is edit-warring it is their mistake, not other’s scheme. Everyone receives warnings before being banned, whether they ignore the warning or not is their own decision and they should face the consequences. Also, please do not discredit the people who took their time to vote and reply to you on the RFCs, simply, because they did not vote for your version.
    Again, there was never a smear campaign against the series and you have no source backing that up. Saving the series from “fake news/smear campaign/hate” is advocacy and a biased reason you have been repeating for months, using it to make your changes seem neutral, while in reality it is all your false opinion which goes under original research and hold no ground on Wikipedia. As for the second paragraph about the rating and international success, Nangears and I already answered you about that on the RFC, so I will not bother repeating it, go read it there and stop repeating points you have already stated and has been answered multiple times. It is your problem if you want to ignore the answers given to you many times.
    To the admins, “When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause.” This is the case here and currently the discussion reached argumentum ad nauseam. I don’t think I will reply anymore unless an admin pings me here. We really need intervention, if either of us is wrong then tell us and end this 5 month-long dispute, so that we can go back to editing the page instead of this standstill. One of the RFCs already ended with a a unanimous decision and I want to edit the page and include the version with the consensus. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CherryPie94, please re-read my responses to the meanings you put (your spins) on my past edits. As I had mentioned several times, my main aim is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. I started editing this drama's page upon noticing its negative lean, especially after reading other web sources mention sabotage being staged against it. Please re-read my past comments about this. The controversies were among the tools used by saboteurs. You keep saying that the "smear campaign" is my personal opinion, ignoring my past comments about this. Guess what, smear campaigns don't come labelled as such. Here's a sample; google this drama and "tanked on Netflix". One of the search results is from "reliable" news site scmp.com. Note this is fake news since the series was in fact successful on Netflix. Read the article; it doesn't provide any proof of the allegation. Check out other "well-sourced" articles on this drama's Wikipedia page that did not mention the main reason, the rise of streaming platforms, in their speculations about the reasons for the low ratings. You keep accusing me of "advocacy", your personal opinion. Is it advocacy to make sure Wikipedia is not made a tool of smear campaigns? I am proud to declare myself an advocate of truth and up-to-date information. Regarding edit wars, you seem to have forgotten you started our last edit war by updating the title of a section while this dispute was going on, violating WP:DRN Rule A and WP:DRN Rule B. In fact you made other more massive edits in the middle of this dispute. Why you did not get reprimanded or subjected to other forms of disciplinary action is beyond me.
    But we got sidetracked again with personal attacks, creating more "walls of text". May we focus on the drama please? At this point in time, these are the things we know about it: it was highly anticipated, had high premiere ratings on domestic TV network but competition from Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later episodes. It was a streaming success, both locally and internationally, and was cited as one of the factors for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company.
    Which of the two versions encapsulate this UP-TO-DATE summary? Please see my previous post for details about recent news about this drama. We need to make sure Wikipedia does not sow misinformation by getting bogged down in OUTDATED perceptions. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia only deals with published perceptions. If there is a reliable newspaper or magazine which documents a changing perception (say a critically panned movie later gets a cult fanbase) that can be included only if newspapers or magazines talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The up-to-date information I mentioned were published by news sources such as Business Korea, Korea Times and Hancinema. Please see the references in the Reception section. Older references feature negative news including speculations on the low domestic TV ratings. More recent references are positive, including findings on the reason for the drama's perceived poor performance on domestic TV network as well as testaments to its streaming success that became available only after the second quarter of 2020. It will be noted that the average domestic TV ratings of this drama are better than those of its contemporaries It's Okay To Not be Okay and BackStreet Rookie, yet these latter dramas do not have their low ratings mentioned, much less blown out of proportion, in their lede sections. Many people had been conditioned to think this drama was a flop they find it hard to accept the fact that not only was it not a flop, it was a global success. Wikipedia should let go of outdated misconceptions and acknowledge up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not conflate TV ratings with the production company sales, they are separate facts and are each mentioned on the article. Also, I might have phrased it badly on the talk, but in the article, it is written that the ratings are only “lower than expected”, not “low” TV-wise. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the production company reports closely. The sales figures themselves are not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the reports cited the success of The King Eternal Monarch as one of the factors that contributed to the production company's record-breaking earnings. While the drama's global success had been reported before, the main source was Flixpatrol which was considered unreliable and was mentioned in Wikipedia with a dismissive "hit Netflix drama" cliche, including the credibility-questioning quotes. That TKEM was the first kdrama to be in the top 10 charts not only in Asia but in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America could not be reported because the data came from Flixpatrol. But the production company's earnings report is undeniable testament to the extent of the drama's success. And for the nth time, I don't deny the drama had lower ratings than expected. The main bone of contention is that the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to blow the low ratings out of proportion and downplay the drama's success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, Lizzydarcy2008 already confessed to being an advocate (diff). Per WP:ADVOCACY, "When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause ... Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and disruptive editing can provide the basis for blocking an editor."

    Currently, both RFCs ended as it been more than a month (bot removed the RFC template and there was no delaying to the bot or restarting the RFC by Lizzydarcy2008 so far), and no comments for 2 weeks as it reached argumentum ad nauseam, and a requests for closure was submitted by another editor. The decision on both was unanimously against Lizzydarcy2008 suggestions, so now they moved to engaging in Ownership of content and Tendentious editing by reverting new, of course reliably sourced, additions I added to the page that were not discussed with them first (talk, diff). I really don't know what to do anymore as this has been going on for 6 months and no admin stepped in. I shouldn't need to ask Lizzydarcy2008 permission before adding something to the page and fear it being reverted for no reason. Per consensus, "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Everyone, except Lizzydarcy2008, agreed to the current changes on the page, but Lizzydarcy2008 keeps repeating the same argument without convincing people and never accepting independent input and questioning their impartiality because no one agrees with their suggested change. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Used strikethrough on my request as the other user was blocked by an admin while I was writing my above message. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Telsho & LTA socking

    The LTA page can be found here. The relevant SPI can be found here.

    See the history above. Telsho popped onto multiple editors' radars after filing an ANI report where he claimed to have "stumbled" upon the Adrian Zenz article and was observed by numerous editors to exhibit most of the characteristics of the LTA in question; the CU check found Telsho to be a  Possible sock. However, the August 22 case was later closed (along with subsequent investigations) on September 2 and then archived without any conclusion regarding Telsho. Follow-up inquiries by me and Canucklehead about a behavioral analysis did not receive an answer. I'm bringing this to the community, considering Telsho has continued to be disruptive and has provided additional evidence of quacking since the SPI closure. If this should be redirected to SPI for a second Telsho case, I'll move it there, but I'm not clear on the policy about opening up the same SPI again.

    Significant behavioral evidence was provided in the SPI, which I have linked to, but here is additional LTA evidence, regarding subjects the sockfarm tends to focus on

    Quacking

    Frankly, you can look at most of the socks in the EIA and find significant overlap with Telsho, which becomes overwhelming once you consider how far-reaching that overlap actually is. I haven't even brought up behavioral problems outside of the sock connections, but there is incessant edit warring, refusal to use talkpages or abide by consensus, resistance to the use of sources (which he has in common with the Feinoa sock), a number of personal attacks, and a persistent use of deceptive edit summaries (some of which can be seen in the provided diffs). I'm happy to provide diffs of any of these behaviors if requested, but I'm trying to keep this report manageable for now and focused on the LTA connection. I propose Telsho's block be extended to indefinite and that he be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets of Ineedtostopforgetting. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([92][93][94][95][96]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.
      That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [97][98][99][100], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [101]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.
    An oldy but goody
    Casting of ass
    persians
    -EEng
    • Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.
    To summarize my thoughts:
    • At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
    • At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
    • It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so that everyone is aware Telsho resumed edit warring at Singapore–United States relations immediately after their block expired and is back at the edit warring noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The result was a warning issued by EdJohnston, hopefully they heed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is now reverting his article of the day to the slanted "consensus" version which was, in fact, created by him without consensus and which he edit warred to preserve. I don't know how this user can make it any more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE, regardless of the sock accusation. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic behavior is continuing (per recent, repeated EWN reports), and user has ignored discussion here. Pinging admins who are experienced with these sockpuppet cases (ST47, Mz7, Drmies, Callanecc, Sro23, creffett, Reaper Eternal). If nothing else, please have a look at the direct comparison diffs listed under 'quacking'; this editor has continued to avoid an evaluation of his behavioral connections to the sockfarm. The evidence, combined with the 'Possible' CU result, seems persuasive, but if the determination by admins is that Telsho is not a sock, that would at least close out this weeks-old concern of multiple editors. Grandpallama (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not ignoring this, but considering your reaction to my defense on the SPI back then and the subsequent reverts, it's clear that you (and that other user you're canvassing with) are not really interested in what I have to say but to just have me blocked at all costs. You're so convinced that I'm a sock that you constantly follow around my edits. I don't see why I should write long paragraphs all over again, what else is there anymore? The fact that you even have to bring this archived discussion back after barely 15 minutes and tag even more uninvolved admins just says it all really. I also find it weird that although you first approached El C, you decided not to tag them this time. And for the last time, I'm not a sock, and I edit on a wide range of topics. Wikipedia is a big place. Yes, I've had edit wars with other users before especially when I had first started, but ever since then I've tried my best to engage more often on talk pages and try to avoid that anymore which is in everyone's best interest. I've never vandalized Wikipedia or any of that sort, and all of my contributions have always been constructive and practical whenever possible. That's all I have to say. Telsho (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and that other user you're canvassing with Read WP:CANVASS, because you keep using that term incorrectly. The admins I pinged are, exactly as I described, ones who have been involved with the LTA at SPI.
    you constantly follow around my edits Diffs? We have interacted on a total of three article pages, and on all three of those pages, my objections to your edits were supported by other editors.
    I don't see why I should write long paragraphs all over again, what else is there anymore? How about an explanation for your comprehensive editing overlap with a blocked user?
    I've had edit wars with other users before especially when I had first started An admin recommended you be blocked for a second time just four days ago at WP:EWN.
    all of my contributions have always been constructive and practical whenever possible The history of your talkpage says otherwise.
    It's discourteous for you to mention El_C (whom I did not "approach" specifically because I'm not canvassing) and not ping him--that's the second time I've seen you invoke his name without cluing him in that you'd done so. Grandpallama (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think the continued silence has sufficiently demonstrated that fuck all is going to be done about this guy. If, after a month, we can't get any admin input after a partially conclusive SPI, multiple ANI threads, and direct appeals to admins familiar with this LTA, then I think the intended message to us is that we need to just accept that a WP:DUCK paid sockfarmer is allowed to hang around and declare victory by using his newfound immunity to abuse article space with bad-faith trolling ([102] [103] [104]). If that's the new rule, no biggie, although I would have preferred if someone just came out and said it before we wasted our time trying to uphold the old rules. Welcome back, "Telsho." Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. —{Canucklehead} 01:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pinged about this by another CU. I don’t disagree with possible, but it’s very important to note that the templates are rough instruments that don’t precisely convey what we see. In this case, the user in question has a static IP and the other accounts are on a dynamic range. There’s one common device, but let’s be clear what this means: two accounts from the same region are using a device from a popular manufacturer. It is certainly possible, but I would put it on the lower side of that template personally. It’s also technically possible that I’m the same person as some other CUs, WMF staff, and other admins, but there are technical details in my data that might distinguish me. I think it’s similar here.
      Finally, if the account is being disruptive just block it. Don’t wait on CUs or socking. The standard to block is of the account is causing disruption. The exact nature of that disruption doesn’t matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To follow-up on this (I am the aforementioned CU), Tony has described what I think is the main source of hesitation from a CU perspective. If this is a sock, then it would have to be the result of a carefully calculated attempt to evade CU detection, which I am not sure this particular sockmaster is capable of or interested in (the wide majority of socks in the SPI archive have very distinctive data and are usually blocked as "confirmed"). I think the possibility should be considered that this is a different user who happens to be disruptive in the same topic area. (To other CUs: I have dumped all of the notes I have on this sockmaster on CU wiki, see [105].) Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Mz7 and TonyBallioni, thanks for weighing in, and I understand the CU conclusion. Even if Telsho isn't the same user as the sockmaster, the fact that they are reinstating the exact same edits as the sockmaster (sometimes ones from months prior) suggests that some sort of off-wiki coordination is occurring. The evidence I provided in the 'Quacking' section is only a slice of the intersections, and it includes pages that Telsho and the sockmaster edited that are outside the Singapore interest area (e.g., George Floyd protests), which weakens the possibility it's just a giant coincidence. And while Telsho has been disruptive on his own, a significant part of his disruption is specifically in restoring edits made by the sockfarm. Grandpallama (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well since Grandpallama wouldn't stop making even more aspersions, I will make another response. You've got to be kidding me. "off-wiki coordination"? This is the angle you're going for now? At the peak of the George Floyd protests, the article had page views ranging up to 200,000 daily. Obviously, this event which happened earlier this year was extremely well known worldwide, so do you honestly think that if that user's sock made edits on that article months before I did, it also implies I'm a sock as well? Where is the correlation in that, exactly? Furthermore, my only edit on there which was made a month ago was merely changing the death count to "at least 25", as knowing the true death count wasn't established due to the chaotic nature at the time. No subsequent edits or reverts were made by me thereafter. How far of a reach are you willing to go? Perhaps tag even more uninvolved admins until you get what you want? Telsho (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I provided a diff that explained exactly why that single edit to that page was suspicious, particularly in combination with the rest of your editing patterns; in fact, I've provided a flood of diffs, while you've yet to provide any explanation for your significant editing overlap with this LTA. And none of the admins I pinged are uninvolved, as I already explained. Grandpallama (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not about to waste any more of my time on this trying to defend myself yet again, because frankly this entire thing is ridiculous and absurd to me. I'm not obligated to give you any "explanations" and I'm not about to let you cross-examine me for every contribution I make on Wikipedia. This has gone for far too long and you're the one that's continuously dragging this. Telsho (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You've never defended yourself in the first place, which is kind of the problem; innocent editors incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry are generally eager to disprove the allegation and are able to provide plausible explanations for their editing behavior. Instead, while this discussion has been going on, you've been busy continuing disruption with some sketchy edits, edit warring at multiple pages, and again being caught violating WP:CWW, which is a policy you've been made aware of multiple times. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You are more than welcome to hurl even more accusations dude, I honestly can't care less. I do use the talk page pretty often to settle disputes. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve here at this point. Telsho (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Grandpallama, it would be better to forget possible sockpuppetry and concentrate on whether this editor is being disruptive, whether a sockpuppet or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Phil Bridger, you are probably right. Per the accusations I "hurled", I'd encourage people to take a look at just the past 48 hours of Telsho's editing: maplewashing, where Telsho has edit warred to keep in his problematic inclusions and been caught on the talkpage violating WP:CWW again (something which he has received detailed and explicit warnings about in the past) as well as skirting the boundaries of WP:OR; edit warring at Economy of East Asia without opening a talkpage discussion upon reversion (but dropping an inappropriate and disruptive warning template on an IP's page, which spurred an ugly--and stupid--argument); and the latest attempt to remove articles they don't like by removing/altering text and tag-bombing the article [106][107] (a tactic I pointed out earlier in my diffs), and subsequently edit warring to keep the article in the state they prefer. Grandpallama (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now this editor has been edit-warring at Economy of East Asia to say that Singapore is in East Asia, despite reliable sources, talk page discussion, common sense and a glance at a map saying that it is not. Can't someone just block for disruption, rather than drag this discussion out for any more weeks? It doesn't matter whether the editor is a sockpuppet or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep

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

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

    Earlier discussion: Archive1048#Incivil_behaviour_by_User:DePiep
    Previous discussion

    First and foremost, I should explain why there is a topic on the issue on which has already been raised and discussed once. That is because my understanding is that the complaint was deemed incomplete the first time due to the lack of diff URLs, and there has not been a verdict per se; rather, the issue was not decisively considered. I have participated in the previous discussion, and since most of my commentary, which I believe added a lot to the case, was not properly considered (I somewhat understand that: it was more important to establish the claim by the original claimant first, and I understand the case as it was presented did not look particularly strong), I decided I'd change the original statement to some degree and expand upon it with what I have.

    Here's what happened in the last few days.

    Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

    Sandbh replaced the lead picture in periodic table with one of his own design and noted the change at WT:ELEM. A discussion ensued. At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words. At the same time, I noted that one color in our periodic table color scheme was disliked by editors (including myself). I figured that softening the color a bit would be fine with everyone, and so I did that, and I announced my action. The first reaction I got was a "like," but from there, I got three consecutive messages from User:DePiep, that announced it "would be nicer if you had published it" (in the sense explained above), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave. I did not make any edits between those messages, and this breach of civility came out of blue. That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw that brought him here in the first place.

    Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020

    At the same time, I am having a discussion with DePiep, at times peaceful and at times not, at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of a couple of particular actions taken by DePiep. One is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page. In short, the blurb initially had an image, then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design, then I undid that edit and quickly provided a rationale for my edit. Shortly before DePiep made the second revert, they replied to my reverting, "improvements [to their image can be made"] (whereas mine was "unacceptable" due to the wrong kind of brackets). For some context, Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours. Also shortly before reverting a revert, DePiep made this edit; I remark the uncivility here. (In this edit, DePiep uses a TFA talk page to set up a section that is titled by my username and that does nothing other than reprimand me and my "habits," claiming that I habitually "simply deny arguments" and "never aim to improve." -- added at 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

    Uncivil behavior on this page

    When Sandbh started his ANI, I pinched in, too. In the brief discussion that followed, DePiep made a demonstrably false claim that I had not tried to discuss the matter with them. When I pointed out I in fact had engaged in a discussion, it was claimed that I didn't answer quickly enough (twelve hours after the original post, most of which were nighttime in my timezone) and that "grow up and behave" was a "colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits." When I hinted that apologizing for the incorrect claim that I refused to discuss was still an option (I thought the hint would be taken: after all, that would be the civil thing, and the title of the discussion was, "‎Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep," so it was high time to act civilly), I was told that I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." No evidence whatsoever was presented to support such an outstanding claim against another editor (myself). I again remark the uncivility of this kind of discussion. (In truth, DePiep did bring up one Sandbh quote, but that was after I explicitly noted I was not responsible for Sandbh's words.) The discussion, as the title said, was actually about DePiep, but DePiep chose not to bring themselves up in that last quote.

    Previous uncivil behavior

    Unfortunately, I know that DePiep wasn't just having a bad day, this perfectly falls in line with their previous actions. In the end of the last year and the beginning of this one, ComplexRational and I were working on Talk:History of the periodic table (back then mostly, if not predominantly, CR). CR had improved the article significantly by April. In April, DePiep chipped into another discussion of ours and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done.

    A year and a half ago, there was an incident at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal. The core of that argument was that DePiep interpreted rules in a very particular manner. Even though nobody agreed with their interpretation and five people (including myself) opposed it, they still continued to act as if they were right. These actions included reverting a revert, oblivion to others' arguments (calling the version of the name of element 13 commonly used in the United States ("aluminum") outdated, even though other editors had pointed out that this was not the case), accusing others of misinterpretation of a guideline when the person had only, in fact, quoted it (the editor in question was surprised by this accusation as well as the accusation that they were not "performing this discussion sincerely", see the same edit), and making an "utterly false claim" about another editor's actions. Save for the first one, I was not the editor involved in these episodes.

    Final remarks

    Time does not help. We have run into this sort of problem with DePiep before where they don't listen to others' arguments and/or act uncivilly, as I have presented above. We've been here, this sort of problem should not have emerged again. Yet it has. I am genuinely sorry to write a complaint against DePiep, there is no good outcome in this situation as I see it, because they have been helpful with our graphical design, and losing such a member is a bad outcome. However, I believe that continuation of this behavior is worse.

    In the previous outcome, it was noted that "a. he [Sandbh] does not get to control who responds to an ANI thread, b. he is supposed to provide diffs, when he accuses another editor of disruption, c. when reporting another user, a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility." I do not intend to claim control over this thread, anyone willing to say a word in a civil fashion and listen to other editors' arguments is welcome as far as I am concerned. I believe the number of diffs should be sufficient for my case. I stated in the previous discussion that I was eager to be held accountable for my actions and I stand by that, though I would like the editors to note that my behavior that is not directly related to the described events is not the topic of this discussion, and a detailed discussion of it is best held outside of this section if there is enough desire to discuss it.--R8R (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC), amended at 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair it was not just about difs. There was nothing there to admonish anyone when referring to two BRD edits. Games of the world (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, yes, that may be the case. I was not watching that particular discussion very closely in its entirety; I was rather surprised to get involved in the first place, and my main discussion with DePiep was occurring on a different page. I only started to learn more about it as I was starting this section and while I was re-reading the post, I forgot to pay attention to the first paragraph, or else I would've altered it. My own message merely touches that discussion.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I reply, this procedural question for more serious admins: Salvio giuliano closed the previous, same topic discussion earlier today [108]: No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. So I ask advice: is this a correct reopening, and am I supposed/advised even to respond as if this is the first complaint? If not, may I expect a quick, zero-effect closure? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball. No materially new info or points have been put forward since the previous closure, and even the accusation (title) is identical. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, what DePiep said in the last two statements is partly misleading and partly incorrect. Contrary to what DePiep said, new information has been presented: first, it is one specific colorful edit from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020 (the last sentence in the fourth paragraph), and even more importantly, it was the claim (middle to end of the fifth paragraph) to which I referred to as "outstanding" in which a very serious accusation was made against myself but no evidence to support it was presented. That last claim occurred on this very page, during the last discussion, and it was not pointed out the last time, but it would not be appropriate to let such an accusation slip.
    As for the misleading part, those claims I did bring up the last time were not considered during the last discussion at all (again, I understand how this could have happened since I was not the nominator and the nomination was not complete), barring one specific claim that I did not repeat in this section; if one does not read carefully enough, they may think that the claims were opposed, which they were not. I have referred to this in the opening paragraph of this section. If they had been discussed and found insufficient for any charge, DePiep's plea not to reopen the closed discussion would be understandable. However, they had not, and it is only appropriate that the behavior DePiep displayed is held up to scrutiny.--R8R (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • R8R, this 1400-word wall of text is overwhelming. Assuming it demonstrates a pattern of obstructionism and/or incivility by DePiep, what do you propose as the solution? By the way, Euryalus placed DePiep under several editing restrictions four months ago in May 2018 [109]; namely [110]:
    1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
    4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.
    --Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC); revised 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Softlavender: Assuming it demonstrates ... -- are you serious? Please tell me, SL, which accusations you did not find am I supposed to clean up here? Is that all you can find, plus the feeding but not finding a Boomerang? R8R reopens a closed thread, under the same accusation, cannot demostrate points of trouble (that were refuted before), and we are supposed to start talking about the sanctions? -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, you are not helping yourself here. R8R has opened a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions, of apparently problematic behavior from and interactions with you. If your only response is to attack me and the OP, this will doubtless not turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am responding, and first of all I did question openly the newness of this thread. Only now you have established that, thank you. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, as noted in the links, DePiep's sanctions were placed by the Wikipedia Community after that ANI discussion not by any admin. Euryalus was simply the admin who closed that discussion, assessing the community consensus and logging it etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I may be wordy at times, unfortunately that much is true. I have divided the text into parts by subheaders; I hope that makes reading easier.
    The solution I've had in mind is a ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. Unfortunately, I don't know what duration of such a ban would be sufficient; there was a serious accident a year and a half ago (that I have brought up above), and in the last ten days or so, there were three accidents. I am somewhat hesitant to ask for an indefinite ban myself though I think that is a valid solution.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support by Sandbh for T-ban

    A ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. I declare a conflict of interest in light my previous closed grievance regarding alleged incivil behaviour by DePeip. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @R8R: I think you mean incident not accident. Anyway it's probably not worth going into details about the older stuff. The editing sanctions, even if it postdated them, and the long blocks are enough to established there's a historic problem with the editor's editing. Concentrate instead on demonstrating the most recent edits are enough or a problem to justify some sanction. Since the thread has several responses, I'm not sure if you should delete parts of your original comment but you could use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse the part about historic stuff. Edit: I see that the previous incidents includes both stuff from 2019 and April 2020. April 2020 was after any block so I guess some may consider it relevant. However while I have not looked carefully at your diffs, your description of them doesn't make me think there's anything there that will raise the communities concern. An editor expressing an opinion an article is crap is for better or worse, acceptable behaviour provided there isn't some other underlying problem. (E.g. an editor pursing another to always say their work is crap.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean. Since you say that the block record is enough to make my point, I'll let go of the past events. In any event, I believe that what happened in the last ten days stands out on its own account: I was, entirely out of blue, told to "grow up and behave"; a section at a TFA talk page was added with the sole purpose to disparage me; I was publicly accused of turning legitimate edits made in good faith into personal attacks, and not a single piece of evidence was presented to substantiate such a claim.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @R8R: when you open a thread, you should always expect your related behaviour to come under discussion in that thread. It's not the norm to discuss it in a separate thread since it's more confusing when were are discussing related things in different threads. As was noted before, a WP:Boomerang i.e. where the only action is against the thread starter is a perfectly common outcome of noticeboards complaints. If you don't welcome this, your only real solution is not to complain about other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Yes, I see what you mean. When I wrote what I did, I had in mind the unvoiced accusation; I believed that had such an accusation existed and been related to this discussion, it would've been presented, but it was not, and thus whatever there was, if anything, was not related to the present case. Of course I agree that what behavior I displayed in those cases I mentioned should be used to hold me responsible if other editors believe that it warrants such responsibility. I have amended my original post. I believe that now, it reflects well what you have said; if not, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, haven't read this thread in detail but got the ping re sanctions I placed:- noting as a mild addition that these seem to date to 2018 rather than earlier this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Euryalus, I have corrected that now. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (considering a reply) -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Polite comments by Sandbh: Ordinarily, I'd be satisfied if DePiep would observe Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". That said, in my experience, DePiep shows a pattern of incivil behaviour. I have looked the other way for many years, since DePiep brings other gifts to WP:ELEM. Given recent actions by DePiep, I chose/choose not to tolerate his behaviour any more.

    I'm not sure how to interpret the status of WP:BOOMERANG, which says, "This is a humorous essay." I don't see the relevance of humour in this forum and not when it concerns allegations of incivil behaviour. For what WP:BOOMERANG is worth, it does say:

    Responders: Investigate fully: When you encounter a reporter who wasn't blameless in the incident, or who posts a report in the heat of the moment, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the reporter is the sole problem without looking at the context. Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell to Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her.

    Upholding that recommendation would be appropriate, in my view. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the purpose of this edit. Not very civil Sandbh and is on a par with what you are repeatedly accusing DePiep of - making demands that you see as unreasonable and not necessarily put in a friendly way. If you want him sanctioned (which I'm struggling at times to see anything sanctionable), don't be surprised if you get sanctioned as well for the same type of behaviour (that's the point of boomerang). The point is Sandbh, you would have a stronger case if you don't do the same behaviour that you are accusing him of. In that light, I ask you, what makes you think that your edit that I've linked above is more acceptable than some of the other stuff that has been linked to showing "inappropriate" behaviour? You don't need to answer per se, just to reflect on it. Games of the world (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Boomerang may be an essay, but it still documents how things often work at the noticeboards. Someone posts about some allegedly bad editor. When people investigate, they find the reporter is actually the primary problem. The reportee is left be, the reporter ends up with some sanction, probably blocked. Editors don't need to be perfect to make a report, but their behaviour should not be worse than the editor they are reporting. I'm not saying this is the case here, but all editors should always remember just because another editor's behaviour is problematic doesn't mean it's okay for them to respond in kind or be even worse. (This applies both ways.) Putting that aside, especially with long reports it's imperative that you ensure you focus on examples that are a clear problem. As I mentioned above, I don't think there's any question DePiep's editing has historically had major problems. But when people have looked at any of the complaints in either of these threads about recent behaviour, they haven't seen anything that warranted sanction. The more people see this, the less likely they are to investigate further since it doesn't seem worth it. The editor complaining views on what sort of behaviour warrants sanction seems to be far from the communities. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: for the better or worse, it seems the rules on this are not set in stone, and I therefore could not check if the rules state that or not. It appears this is left to judgment of those editors who take part (please correct me if I missed something), so I'd like to ask you a question to make sure I understand the thinking here.
    If I, entirely hypothetically, started a section titled "User:Nil Einne" (or any other user of your preference) on this very page and wrote that what you're saying here matches the standard you've set previously, namely, that you simply deny what arguments you are presented and you never aim to collaborate, would that kind of behavior not warrant sanction against me? To me, it appears that this sort of behavior should be punished. And let's say you responded in a civil manner, reminding me that I could apologize, and I wrote for everyone to see that you were just attacking me personally without bothering to back up my words? Would that not be it, would I not deserve a ban after that? And let's say I also had a record of having been blocked before, so it is unlikely just words will make me stop doing this for a substantial period of time. Would all of that not be reason enough to impose a block on me? Should I as an editor who has just done that be allowed to walk away freely? As you can see, what I'm suggesting in this entirely hypothetical situation precisely matches what DePiep has done lately, or if not, I genuinely don't see the difference.
    Please don't take what I wrote personally, but I genuinely don't understand why you're saying such behavior does not warrant sanction, and I hope you could either rethink that or explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Games of the world: Thank you. The purpose of that edit, within the WP:ELEM project, was to respond to DePiep’s comment that he did not understand. I feel I spoke plainly to him, honestly setting out how I felt about his behaviour e.g. double reverting fellow project member R8R. I asked DePiep, as a fellow project member, to please consider Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" aka Don't be a jerk against boldness. The word “jerk” is not mine; it is set out in the article in question. I used bolding to emphasise my request. DePiep will know that I very rarely use bold text for this purpose. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Thank you. I remain perplexed as to how a self-described “humorous” essay could be taken seriously. What place does humour have in the context of incivil behaviour allegations? As to my closed complaint and R8R’s follow on, mine arose in the context of what I regarded (alleged) as repeated uncooperative and disruptive behaviour by DePiep, within our WP:ELEM project, ignoring preceding contextual discussions, and requests to desist (so to speak). R8R has set out essentially the same concerns and recent experiences. I did not take my action lightly nor, based on my interactions with R8R over nine years, did he. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While it may be only an essay, it does reflect norms here, i.e. that the behaviour of everybody, including the reporter is up for scrutiny when someone raises an issue here, and that poor behaviour by the reporter may rebound on them.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Brief note: the essay was tagged as humorous in the most recent edit to the page. I don't know why, as Soumya is not an author or contributor to the essay, their only edit to the page is adding the tag, and there's no note on talk explaining the tagging. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nigel Ish: Re, "it does reflect norms here". Are there any protocols setting out how grievances re incivil behaviour are handled here at WP:ANI, including "the norms"? I could not find anything like that. For example, there is no reference to WP:BOOMERANG. In contrast, for example, the protocol for considering featured article nominations is quite well set out at WP:FAR. Sandbh (talk)

    • R8R, my feeling is that your definition of actionable incivility may be a bit looser than that of the community. Some of the edits you present are uncivil (for instance, the "grow up and behave" one and this one); some others, such as this one are not. I have to say that I am unfamiliar with WP:ELEMENT, so I don't really know if you are used to a particularly strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL there, but, from an outside perspective, there is nothing actionable in your report, if the remedy you're seeking is a topic ban. In the light of DePiep's civility restriction, the diffs I identified as uncivil above might have led to a short block, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion. Salvio 08:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Salvio giuliano: Within WP:ELEM we seek to work collegiately on joint matters of interest.

    The incivil behaviour of concern to myself and R8R (who can speak for himself) occurred following good discussions or a well-known view within the project.

    We do not always reach unanimity within our project but we do recognise a majority opinion. We do not always engage in establishing formal consensus unless it is evident we need to do so.

    I allege DePiep does not recognise the concept of majority opinion and reverts on this basis saying "no consensus obtained", never mind no-one else in the project felt the need to formally obtain consensus, or raised any objections to the proposal.

    WP:OWN by DePiep comes into this a lot. If DePeip did something or feels that he "owns" e.g. a template then he will revert any change he disagrees with never mind previous discussion within the project given the context for the edit, including majority opinion.

    To put it concisely I allege that DePiep tends to behave like a jerk, per Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" aka Don't be a jerk against boldness.

    I feel that plays a big part in previous sanctions applied to DePeip, including this one, "DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions." Is that one still in effect? Sandbh (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Supplementary comment: I have added a section break below indicating that…

    Reply by DePiep to OP

    Just a caption, does not list all of User:DePiep replies
    • Sigh. While preparing my reply, handling frustration and angryness too, I met this edit: a personal attack saying I am lying. Please allow me more reply-time. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a very serious charge. I replied to it conclusively at the page where it was first made.--R8R (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to OP
    First the details

    See also the first, similar complaint (archived).

    1. re #Previous discussion. So R8R re-starts an ANI complaint 9 hrs after the first ANI thread was closed. For doing so, R8R admits "the issue ... has been raised and discussed". They also claim it ended with "not ... a verdict per se" — while the closing note says: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented." (closer Salvio giuliano, [111]).

    Here [112] Softlavender says they have read threads at WT:ELEM (found by their own research as diffs were missing). Softlavender did not find evidence and even made multiple counterclaims (=diffs, behaviour issues by Sandbh). This is to show that the complaint raised was scrutinised.
    Here [113] GirthSummit notes re the OP (complaint): "I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us".
    Apart from the OP complaint by Sandbh, R8R added a similar complaint: [114]. It containts seventeen diffs. I enganged in this subthread. Also, [115] GirthSummit addresses your post ("R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation 'WTF'"). They also asked "are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?").
    IOW, you presented your complaint(s), you added diffs, it was discussed, and at least one admin has judged your post. This too supports the closing conclusion: "No evidence ... has been presented". Your statement re your own post being "not properly considered" is not in place [116]. On top of this, given the quoted request to point out more clear-cut PA issues in diffs, this new complaint does not highlight problematic diffs.
    I disagree with the statement that the original complaint handling was not complete and not decisive. There is no reason to reopen the case.

    2. re #Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements: repetition from first complaint. Already addressed by me back then [117], second-last paragraph.

    For example, my "grow up and behave" post was already clarified as being ... a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits [118]. Still the same diff is repeated in this "new" complaint as if nothing happened.

    3. re #Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020:

    R8R: "then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design" false. The image I used expressly uses the standard formatting we use throughout the topic of WP:ELEMENTS. An illustration that R8R not hear this all along? See es, es. File history shows some stubbornness image hist, before finally solving it as was proposed (create new file).
    All in all, I did not find any offensive edit in the talkpage. Even worse: here is R8R turning a content-talk into personal animosity:
    [119] R8R: "Who do you think wrote the lead section as it currently stands? (It was me.)";
    [120] R8R: "Could it be because we are supposed to discuss your picture";

    4. re #Uncivil behavior on this page: In the diff from a regular talkpage provided, R8R is putting words in my mouth as an argument. Is a content discussion I don't see what it has to do with ANI. This is a talkpage discussion, I see no need to bring this up here (very confusing mixing up a talkpage and an ANI thread; easy to miss things).

    However, here [121] R8R writes "I kindly ask you not bring up the argument that you know to be incorrect", accusing me of willfully lying which is a personal attack; and in their reply they did not withdraw but instead introduced ANI-quotes for explaining (i.e., doubling down on the personal approach) [122].

    5. re #Previous uncivil behaviour:

    5a: Once again R8R here turns a content address [123] into a personal thing [124]. While, my reply back then [125] went back to content discussion, obviously not recognised by R8R.
    5b: re Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal: here, R8R turning a MOS discussion into a personal issue. Note that the thread had concluded and closed; I don't see how this is an admissable argument here.

    6. re #Final remarks: "they don't listen to other's arguments": I read this: ... even when I throw in ownership and authority [126], notgettingit [127]; and generally turn every counteridea into a personal issue [128]. None of the accusations fits the "uncivil" claim. None have been judged as such.

    Concluding (TL_DR, patterns)

    A. No reason to reopen. The OP has not provided actual faults in the earlier ANI discussion and its conclusion. They incorrectly state that there was "not a verdict". The "lack of diffs" back then was overcome by editors (i.e., instead links were checked and evaluated), and R8R's complaint there did have 17 diffs which were evaluated.

    B. No smoking diff. This OP cointains 30 diffs. I, and other editors here, have not seen any sanctionable diff (see Nil Einne [129]). Sure if we missed something, other editors are invited to point these out even this late.

    C. Other issues, non-ANI. Diffs provided and their background/thread show a different pattern: a talkpage discussion easily turns from content into personal animosity, by multiple editors.

    To be clear: this is not to throw a boomerang at R8R, I do not ask for admonishment. I think none of these talkpage altercations are worth an ANI intervention. I do note them to paint the talkpage atmosphere in which these posts were done; IMO they all are within talkpage discussion referring basically to content improvement (Of course, usually the quality of the talk may not be improved, but that's still not for ANI). One exception: I find this crossing a line.

    D. Overall. These two ANI complaints by Sandbh and R8R are pointing to a chilling atmosphere in the once great and productive WP:ELEMENTS project with loyal and cooperative editors (my opponents included). Already many discussions have been abandoned, and stuck in the sandy road, because of these hopeless recent changes in talk-habits (since beginning of 2020?) [130] [131]. Whether I am part of the cause or not: this can not be cured through ANI.

    -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Sandbh

    I suggest some of these comments show DePiep uses his own standards to judge his own actions and those of others, rather than the ordinary conventions of WP:CIVIL. For example, his incivil admonishment to R8R to "grow up and behave" is judged by DePiep, via quoting himself, [132] as "a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits". Just what are these good talkpage habits?

    To further justify his actions, DePiep refers to a standard format we use throughout WP:ELEM as way of criticising R8R's actions. We use a standard format for convenience not as a straitjacket. Changing the standard is notoriously difficult since DePiep considers he WP:OWN's it. For example, nobody within the project likes the red shade we use to colour the alkali metals. R8R changes it [133] for that reason. Another editor adds a like. [134] What happens next? DePiep reverts it along with the comment: "Please, grow up and behave".[135] WP:OWN once again.
    As for WP:ELEM becoming chilling, with initiatives abandoned and stuck, no such thing has happened. WP:ELEM is notorious for its lengthy discussions of the topic du jour. After a long, animated and heated discussion on the composition of group 3, the editors involved (me included) reached an accommodation. One of these editors decided to leave the project temporarily pending a decision by IUPAC. I have since been fruitfully discussing a range of WP:ELEM matters with that editor (who continues to contribute to our project). I recently updated the periodic table graphic in the lede of our periodic table article [after twice being reverted by DePeip [136][137]] based on suggestions by that editor. I made further contributions to the periodic table article, [138] with several supporting citations, as a result of discussion within WP:ELEM.
    In this context, for another example of DiPiep's disruptive behaviour on one WP:ELEM's projects, there is this R8R quote:

    ""In the end of the last year and the beginning of this one, ComplexRational and I were working on Talk:History of the periodic table (back then mostly, if not predominantly, CR). CR had improved the article significantly by April. In April, DePiep chipped into another discussion of ours and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done."

    For a good example of a stuck, abandoned issue, in March 2016 DePeip posts a review of the colours we use on our periodic table.[139] R8R comes with a colour scheme [140] attracting positive feedback [141][142][143], DePiep excluded. Four-and-a-half years later, nothing has happened due to DePiep's intransigence and, I allege, WP:OWN issues.
    For an example of petty behaviour today by DePeip, I added a section break at the start of this section so that I would be easier for me to ass this comment, and easier for others to follow the flow of the thread. DePeip reverts me [144] never mind I changed none of the content of his reply.
    Here is a recent WP:OWN claim by DePiep. [145]
    With thirteen+ blocks since 2009 [146] it is evident that DePiep does not, or chooses not to, learn anything and shows an ongoing, repeated pattern of incivil behaviour. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I cannot give a complete response at the time. I don't think that such a response is needed from me, either (for instance, I have explained my position on the first part of my post, and DePiep has explained theirs, and there's that. Similarly, a response on the fifth part is not needed because I previously agreed to drop that line of reasoning), although there are many references to my edits. I am merely asking other editors to examine the presented diffs closely.
    Lied? DePiep, you said twice on this page that I personally attacked you by claiming you had lied. This is not correct. What I did say is that you brought up the argument that you knew to be incorrect. You did not say anything that was factually incorrect with the intent to deceive other editors, and I did not use the word "lie" to describe your words. I suppose that you could have made that mistake entirely honestly the first time, but I explained my words since then to make sure you understood me correctly, and then you still used the notion that I personally attacked you by accusing you of lying. Moreover, you saw that post of mine before you wrote the second charge: you quoted that post twice in your message. However, you did not even acknowledge the central point that I was making. If you disagreed with it, that would be one thing, but not acknowledging is completely different from that.
    What a personal attack is When the idea that I personally attacked DePiep was brought up, I checked the definition of a personal attack. There is a list of things that are considered a personal attack; the one item on that list closest to edits that are being discussed is this: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." It was my honest understanding that providing those diffs on that page would give the impression I was purposely making DePiep look bad in front of other WP:ELEM editors. When I was told with such an accusation might be put against me, I learned the definition, and I wanted to stay clear of such a charge against myself. For that reason, I provided all diffs necessary to establish my case on the very next day, so that what I said no longer lacked evidence. (For what it's worth, I think that what I said does not constitute an accusation, and I specifically tried to word that phrase in the least accusatory manner I could think of, but I acknowledge the possibility that other editors may disagree with me.) However, all of those links did nothing to prevent a second charge of personal attack via accusation of lying, when it was no longer valid however you look at it.
    Why press the second charge? I was going to write, "DePiep, please tell me in your own words why you pressed that second charge when you had read my reply, which I know since you were referring to it?" However, one can learn from this question (which I found when I was in the middle of writing this message) that DePiep did not process my message addressed to themselves but nonetheless acted upon it. I don't see how communication is possible in circumstances when a message is written to a user and they use it as evidence against the original writer without even processing the defense in it.
    Personal attacks by DePiep I'd like to remind everyone of one definition: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I will bring up one quote from the starting message: I was told I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." That's a serious accusation, and it lacks evidence. Moreover, this unbased attack was made when DePiep knew I would not respond: I wrote previously that I wouldn't (see edit summary). It's a personal attack, and DePiep had a week to expand upon his words and provide some backing for their words. They chose to dismiss the part regarding this accusation as irrelevant. Here is another quote from WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). I presented in the starting message an edit, in which DePiep created a section in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020; the section was titled "R8R" and its contents were, "Per R8R's habit: always revert, simply deny arguments, never discuss, never aim to improve." This is exactly disparaging, and it is therefore a personal attack.
    Final remarks I wrote this message late in the evening yesterday, and I only sent it after I re-read it the this morning. I did my best to not write more than it was necessary but I apologize to other editors if that's still too much.--R8R (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The saga continues

    I do not understand the basis or need for the "hostile" tone of this edit [1] by User:DePiep. DePeip says, "Sandbh does not OWN the PT." Quite so. I have never claimed such ownership. Nobody owns it.
    DePiep adds:
    "You [Sandbh] keep changing FA Periodic table and its supporting features without crisp support. That is not acceptible. If you keep editing and behaving this way, I will have you blocked."
    The context for this post by DePeip was a contribution/edit I made to the PT article [A]. Four editors subsequently fix some typos: [B], [C], [D], [E].
    DePiep sees what I have done and posts the "hostile" edit I referred to above.
    In response:
    1. I do not "keep changing" the PT article. I recently WP:BOLD attempted to change the PT graphic [2], in the context of much background discussion at WP:ELEM. I explained the basis for my edit [3] and pinged WP:ELEM members [4]. Three WP:ELEM editors posted some minor comments and suggestions in response [5] [6] [7]. NB: There are only four to five active members of WP:ELEM: User:R8R, User:YBG, myself, and User:Double sharp.
    Nobody disagreed with the change. DePiep reverts me [8].
    DePiep then asks me to, "Please list where you prove consensus for each of the detailed changes." [9]. Note the expectation for me to "prove" consensus (when none was required in the first place) and I that I do so "in detail". I WP:BOLD post an updated version of the graphic, in light of comments and suggestions, and ask DePiep to D rather than R, if he has o/s concerns [10]. DePiep, continuing to act like a jerk, reverts me again [11]
    2. Since nobody owns the PT article there is no requirement for DePiep's notion of "crisp support" before editing.
    3. DePiep threatens to have me blocked. DePiep cannot do so. He can of course (after discussion) report my behaviour here, should he choose to do so.
    4. Following my revert, I am happy to D with him in the context of WP:BRD, to see if we could agree a reasonable way ahead. If necessary this could include seeking consensus within WP:ELEM. What happened instead was the edit that it is the subject of this post. Without further discussion, DePiep further edits the PT article [12], [13], [14], effectively undoing my work, in the absence of the "crisp consensus" he accused me of not obtaining. (Of course, DePiep is entitled to anyone's work in a civil, cooperative manner, with due discussion, where required, including consensus seeking).
    In summary, the preceding is a further example of DePiep's behaviour of concern. This behaviour falls significantly short of WP:CIVIL:
    "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."
    In this light, I repeat my support for R8R's request for:
    "A ban [for DePeip] from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time." Sandbh (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: I think it has been established that you undo other editors freely if you think that their actions lack consensus, regardless of whether the changes made in an edit have been actually disputed. Sandbh provides here one example of that. I provided more in the starting message of this section ("Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours.", you need to read the edit rationales of the edits listed in this quote; "At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words"). Here is also an example from a year ago, one that I have not brought up so far. I hope that is enough to demonstrate a pattern here.
    The idea of Wikipedia is that it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That quote comes from the Main Page. That notion is expanded upon in Wikipedia:Be bold, which is an official guideline of English Wikipedia. WP:BOLD essentially says that you think your edit is good, you should feel free to give it a try. If you know your action will be undone because you have not obtained explicit consensus yet, you may end up not doing what bold edit you could have made; for that reason, actions that make editors obtain consensus of a community before making an edit contravene the spirit of that guideline. Here's a quote from WP:BRD, which is a supplement to WP:BOLD: "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit." However, in those edits I have mentioned in the previous paragraph, you did precisely that: you undid edits without presenting any substantial objections; merely a lack of an explicit consensus. Those multiple actions violated the spirit of WP:BOLD and the letter of WP:BRD; the most recent such violation occurred less than twenty-four hours ago, so these violations continue.
    You are a long-standing member of the Wikipedia community, so you know about those rules. They have been brought up recently, too: WP:BOLD was mentioned a few times over the span of the last couple of weeks, both at WT:ELEM and in this very section. I quoted you referring to WP:BRD in the starting message of this section. So you do know the rules, and you continue to break them. I would not have even contemplated coming here in the first place if I believed there was another way to stop this. There was one time when I thought that things could get better: you recognized you were wrong and thanked everyone for bringing yourself to your senses (Sandbh said you were "very welcome"). Unfortunately, that feeling didn't last.
    I understand well what the problem is, and the problem is such edits. I came here to support a block as a solution because I don't believe there is another way to stop this improper behavior. Your actions during both ANIs only reinforce that belief in me.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @R8R: Simple: edit warring can lead to a block. Given the recent exchanges wrt non-consensus major edits, it is convenient to write that straight, as the addressee is obviously aware of the problem. Also, notions of "OWN" etc. are talkpage-level statements, to be handled locally. Yes such a talk may not develop greatly or easy, but problematic content talks including tough procedural notes are not solved by ANI. So I still do not see a case in here. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't understand the particular relevance of the first two sentences (are you saying somebody is edit warring? if so, who and what is the evidence?). OWN may be a local matter if it's a one-time issue, but if there's a pattern, then the pattern must be stopped because it disrupts normal editing for other users. Nobody owns anything here---that's an official policy of English Wikipedia, and its repeated violations should be reported. In any case, why did you choose to tell me about that? I haven't claimed once that you were owning anything, neither here nor in the previous discussion, though I find it curious you'd want to downplay the severity of such an action. In a vast majority of cases, content talks are fine as long as they are not a prerequisite for edits. I don't doubt your sincerity when you say don't see a case here despite all the rule violations pointed out by other editors and myself. That is precisely the problem; discussion would be more helpful otherwise.--R8R (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The reason that this overall thread is not gaining traction or participants is that once again, it did not follow (and continues not to follow) ANI Advice, which link I posted three times in regards to the previous thread on this same subject. That said, I Support an indefinite TBAN on DePiep from chemistry-related topics, broadly construed.

      It's very clear that DePiep behaves in a unilateral, bullying, non-collaborative way on these articles and talkpages, and that what is more, he hasn't taken the hint from these recent ANI filings to desist from such behavior. On the contrary, he has simply ramped up his behavior, with edits like this [147], just yesterday. Seeing as DePiep has already demonstrated serious behavioral problems elsewhere, as evidenced, for example, here [148] and here [149] as well as by his block log [150], I submit that unless he demonstrates his ability to edit collegially and civilly on other topics, he is possibly heading for a site ban as his next sanction, for lacking the competence to work in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender:: First of all, as I replied earlier extensively in my #Reply to OP, the original complaint here is a reopening of an earlier complaint. Your earlier note here that it was "a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions" [151] (first of all let me note that I did not introduce a GF doubt at all). The opening paragraph by R8R has serious misrepresentations, and the first complaint was closed with a judgement on both R8R's diffs provided(!) and on the threads that were linked by complainant (so reading the threads instead of diffs). Therefor, the closing was final. Furthermore, here you introduce diffs to old, closed and concluded threads. Since they are closed it means that they are not new, and not an argument. Accepting those as an argument reads "I want you be blocked because you were blocked", which is no righteous verdict. Finally, I ask you to consider that actually there is no case for ANI, as multiple editors have noted, since the cases brought up are considered talkpage-issues, not ANI. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This very much seems to be six of one, half a dozen of the other. I see uncivil comments from both sides and it would be unfair to single DePiep out solely for this as he is I feel not the only problem here and I would like to point out Softlavender that the comments like the one you have linked have continued from both sides. Sandbh's behaviour has been very poor as well, particularly on this board and for continuing uncivil comments. The continuation of this issue by R8R and Sandbh is poor as well. It was dealt with once and all we see is the same issues being regurgitated as the previous thread and now resulting to desperate measures to try and get their own way going back two plus years now. Sandbh and R8R should not be trying to ignore the rules of Wikipedia or claim that they have consensus for a different set of rules or expected behaviour within Elements which seems to be more stringent than Wikipedia itself. R8R should take what people say with a pinch of salt and not choose to be offended, yes you are a non native speaker, but take some time to learn how people use phrases before choosing to take offense for example your complaint about WTF. Said a lot normally in confusion and is not normally aimed to be personal. R8R you can complain all you like about DePeip's conduct on the feature 9 October page, but from a glance I see several rather unhelpful comments which seem to suggest that you did not really listen to him or Dank over two threads (they were trying to help you uphold wikipedia rules) and some of the comments from you are just as uncivil. Again Sandbh going into a thread 8 days after and undoing DePeip's edit is rather deliberate and provoking, yet you want the same treatment of silence is consensus. You can't have it both ways. Sandbh should note that just because no one else reverts you does not mean that your edit was OK as noted in the first thread where other people then said you had to do x, y and z to fix it. It seems to be that Sandbh has a bad attitude to DePiep and R8R jumped on the chance to try and shove him out. Where it got nowhere R8R started a new thread claiming his portion hadn't been dealt with when Girth had answered and summed up his problem. No one else from elements has commented on this and from looking DePiep has been correct in most of his reverts and they have been in good faith. I Oppose a T-ban for DePiep. If this continues to be an issue then sanctions against Sandbh and DePiep would be the way to go as they seem to be the only ones with an issue with each other. Sandbh seems to have a lot of issues with other users considering the content of this one, yes I know it was struck but still says something and the ANI thread titled Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh and this thread. These links proves once and for all that banning DePiep will not solve the issues at Elements. Finally if you STOP trying to POV the topic area it would help. I know you are getting published articles of your work, but that does not mean that you get to put it in Wikipedia before it is published or other sources before they are published. PREPRINT's from what I understand are also a no, no. Which I see is a frequent issue from this case which I think is one of the root causes. In addition DO NOT put your own ideas/or ideas of others in which are not even published. There's a comment from Sandbh telling DePiep that he should consider an idea that is not published! Basically this is a long winded way of saying draw a line under all the behaviour just noted in my comment and move on. Games of the world (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It was dealt with once". No, it wasn't dealt with at all, which was why this thread was opened, especially since DePiep is doubling down on his bullying and threats. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Softlavender: A few hours after you posted this, I put up my #Reply to OP. It also deals with this "was dealt with". The very first diff I gave is [152]. The author says that "I do see that you [Sandbh, complainer] have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: ... [+ 6 diffs]". This shows that the original complaint by Sandbh was judged, and its threads (not diffs) were read for judgement. So the first complaint was judged and concluded, even while complainer did not add diffs. The author of that diff: Softlavender. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I tend to agree with Softlavender's comment above. I didn't know any of the contributors involved in this dispute, but telling someone you will "have them blocked" is a kind of bullying and I see it more than once in DePiep's history. Deb (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replied to the OP extensively above (#Reply to OP), obviously after these subsection comments were made. I think my reply serves these here too. -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Polite comments re Games of the world allegations

    I regret the need for this post. Since allegations referring to me have been posted I presume I may exercise a right of reply.

    1. My behaviour on this board the first time I posted a grievance was uncivil. As well as learning a lot about how not to do a grievance I posted an apology to the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.[153]

    2. If my behaviour since that time is perceived to be incivil please post the diffs.

    3. Re, "The continuation of this issue by R8R and Sandbh is poor as well" and "It was dealt with once". Yes, it was dealt with once via closure as I was unable to provide the diffs in a timely manner due to physical and mental health issues. I have not discussed any of these matters with R8R either within WP or via PM. That he chose to raise a grievance of his own concerning DePiep was his prerogative.

    4. Re, "Sandbh and R8R should not be trying to ignore the rules of Wikipedia or claim that they have consensus for a different set of rules or expected behaviour within Elements which seems to be more stringent than Wikipedia itself." I don't consciously try to ignore the rules of WP. If there are examples of such please post the diffs. Within a project I interpret two kinds of consensus, tacit or explicit. Tacit means no or little controversy; explicit means consensus formally obtained, noting consensus does not require unanimity.

    5. If I reverted an 8-day old edit by DePiep I didn’t see it until then.

    6. The x, y, z things other people said I “had to do” to “fix it" were instead comments and suggestions [154] [155] [156].

    7. That other WP:ELEM members have not posted to this thread may be because they haven’t been notified of it. The first time I did so I was accused by Games of the world of apparent canvassing [157] As Black Kite noted, "It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)".[reply]

    8. The struck out comments re my alleged behaviour [158] were part of a WP:ANI grievance withdrawn by the same editor. That editor posted an apology to my talk page. [159]

    9. I don’t cite unpublished work.

    10. I’ve never published a preprint, so I don’t understand why you said, "Which I see is a frequent issue from this case which I think is one of the root causes." I float lots of ideas and incorporate quite a few in my edits. If a citation is needed I provide it. Yes, I do raise ideas within WP:ELEM. That is what a project is for. Whether or not the ideas are actioned depends on how they are received and literature support.

    12. I’ve been editing for nine years, with no block record. I can’t recall being warned by an admin (on my talk page) for bad behaviour. I’m not ruling it out; I just can’t recall any such.

    13. @Games of the world: When you make allegations concerning my behaviour sans diffs or what seems to me to be a lack of a full appreciation of the circumstances, I feel upset. In future I would prefer that you follow the advice set out in the WP:BOOMERANG essay re "Responders: Investigate fully" before commenting or making allegations of incivil behaviour. I make this polite comment and request as a form of assertive communication. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am only a very small person here and expect my views to carry little weight, but if the massive effort in creating and sustaining the above had gone into mainspace, we'd have several more articles. It's incredible how much time and text this has generated and how very little has been achieved as a result. Can some wise head please not close it for all our sakes? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Alexandermcnabb. As I see it, it is a case of short term pain in the hope of long term gain. I support a T-ban. R8R supports a T-ban. Softlavender supports a T-ban. Deb has expressed an inclination to agree to such a ban. DePiep himself, has incurred 13+ blocks since 2009, and was under (still is AFAIK) threat of an indefinite ban from WP in the event of another breach. Even Games of the world, who opposes the ban has had two blocks of their own and recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.” [i.e. other than WP:ANI][160] I hope that provides sufficient context. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Will you stop with the hysteria and bullying? What you are doing here seems like it is carrying on and on and on until someone agrees with you and you get your own way. The fact that I have been blocked is irrelevant along with what someone wrote on my talk page, I still have a reasonable and objective view. The fact is you are fast testing people's good will and time here. In fact I would go as far as stating that you've missed the point of Alex's post entirely. Games of the world (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Games of the world: I note your continuing interest in this grievance. I intend to not respond to any more of your posts here. Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside perspective

    I have been following this thread for quite a while now, and feel like a predictable pattern has emerged. I'd like to try to sum up what I feel are the problematic issues on all sides in this dispute. Full disclosure: I have interacted with DePiep about a decade ago, probably in the area of WP:WikiProject Writing systems - there is a barnstar in my userspace with DePiep's name on it - but I honestly can't remember the tenor of our interactions from all those years ago, so I don't believe there is any bias in my perceptions.

    1. DePiep there is nothing improper with the new discussion. The previous one was closed because diffs were not provided in a timely manner by the original complaintant to verify their concerns. There are no statute of limitations or double jeopardy that mean someone can't later come back with something verifiable to start the conversation again.
    2. R8R your walls of text make issues harder to address. A simple list of problematic difs and a paragraph or two would have been far more effective in making your case than the long slogs we had to read. Your lack of conversational fluency causes you to take offense at innocuous uses of things like "WTF", and this causes avoidable friction in your interaction with other users.
    3. Sandbh Wikipedia's prohibition of WP:OR includes things that haven't been published yet. Since all material MUST be verifiable, the conclusions from any papers that are unpublished are catgorically inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
    4. "No consensus" is a reason to revert an edit ONLY if the edit actually defies a consensus established by discussion. Additions do NOT need to be pre-approved. This edit by DePiep is unacceptable. If Sandbh believes that they are implementing a consensus from a recent discussion, the proper way to register an objection is to document the implementation at that discussion so that others can either agree or disagree with it, and then revert if others believe it was premature.
    5. DePiep, edits like this are absolutely unacceptable. In fact, you should have been immediately blocked as per your indefinite editing restriction as of 2018-05-29. The tenor of your interactions with other editors need to change immediately.
    • Suggestions:
    • DePiep has several problematic behaviors that need to stop immediately.
    • Their pattern of reverting instead of constructively discussing is disruptive and problematic, and they should observe WP:0RR in articles under WP:ELEM with unambiguous vandalism being the only exception. If they have a concern about an edit that another editor has added in good faith, the appropriate venue is the talk page, where you most importantly need to offer constructive alternatives instead of just objecting to what others have done.
    • Any edits like the "Please, grow up and behave" linked above should be immediately reported by any user, with reference to DePiep's indefinite editing restrictions (use WP:EDRC shortcut). Admins should immediately blank such edits and place a block on DePiep as is appropriate to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia community. DePiep needs to take a good deal of time right now to go through their editing history to strike out all such comments and apologize for them.
    • R8R you need to understand that you may not have the full cultural context with certain uses of language, and that WP:AGF applies to language use by other contributors. You could use more of your energies and native fluency to help improve Russian Wikipedia, which you have edited less than 4% as much as en wiki. Lastly, WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian would get a HUGE boon from a participant with your formidable language skills. Any or all of those courses of action could drastically improve your editing experience and make you an incredible asset to this project.
    • Sandbh please fully vest yourself into understanding WP:V and WP:OR. Your reactions to being challenged leave something to be desired, and you would be well served by taking your time when it comes to reading consensus in a discussion. More than a few of these situations would not have occurred if you weren't in a hurry to read a consensus before the conversation had run its course. A good rule of thumb would be to put in a formal conclusion, and give time for anyone else to object. There is no timeline on Wikipedia, and at its heart, consensus means that EVERYONE is okay with a course of action. A single editor with a substantive concern is worth hearing out no matter how long it takes. Learn to ask how you can meet their concerns instead of forcing them to deal with changes you've already made. Sandboxes and userspace drafts are an excellent place to work if you are trying to really get full input from others.

    Okay, that's pretty much everything I've observed. If there are any other outside observers that have anything to add, please do so. VanIsaacWScont 06:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Van: Thank you for your contribution and suggestions. WP:V and WP:OR or things along those lines, have been raised, IRC, by Games of the world; DePiep; and yourself. I do not know where this is coming from or the basis on which it is raised. Do you have examples where I breach these policies in the article space? I "always" AFAIK discuss issues with the potential to impinge on WP:V and WP:OR among WP:ELEM members or WP:CHEMISTRY members. Or I WP:RFC and observe the associated outcome. I edit the article mainspace in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:V as required. I am aware of WP:OR, having had this policy drawn to my attention early in my WP editing career.

    I am aware of WP:CONSENSUS. I note it says consensus does not require unanimity; that consensus is normally implicit and an invisible process; and that any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.

    Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vanisaac:. 1. The diff you refer to under "edits like this" was provided in the first complaint, and it was discussed. The conclusion was No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. Obviously this judgement includes that diff. 2. In my #Reply to OP I have expanded on the "no reopen" issue. (In short, original text prevails: I show that this complaint has been judged already. Also, I point out that complainer R8R here starts with wrong assumptions/statements re that first complaint.) -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I'd merely like to add that Girth Summit told me during the previous ANI that the wording used by DePiep wasn't quite as bad as I thought it was, and I agreed. That is precisely why I did not press this charge this time.--R8R (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    May I add further section breaks?

    @R8R, Games of the world, DePiep, Softlavender, Nil Einne, Euryalus, Nigel Ish, Mr rnddude, Salvio giuliano, Deb, Alexandermcnabb, and Vanisaac: I propose to add further section breaks to this thread to make it easier to follow. My first two attempts to add a section break were reverted by DePiep on the grounds that I had attempted to change his post [161][ [[162]. I have now added a section break [163] (provided DePiep does not revert me for a 3rd time). Does anybody have any objections to my proposal to add further section breaks so as to make the thread easier to follow? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer that you do not 'organise' the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to agree. It may be in good faith but I would still say that it is borderline refactoring others comments which is not acceptable and will cause an issue. Games of the world (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's one further section break - CLOSED - then I, for one, would be glad... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disregard of another editor's position

    I am sorry I have to start yet another subsection.

    DePiep and I are having a debate over what picture should be used in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. I have provided a detailed rationale why we should use the picture the page features right now. DePiep eventually provided a detailed response, so it is clear DePiep has read my message and processed it. They also called in other editors to join the discussion and agitated for their stance, and of the other opinion, it was said, "I note this here because this would be a deviation from our stable standards for no clear reason".

    This is clear disregard for my comment, as I have provided in great detail what the reason is. Disagreeing with that is one thing; saying there is no clear reason when another editor presents what they perceive as such is another. It is too hard to believe DePiep wants to have a collaborative discussion when they do something like this. That post by DePiep was written 24 hours ago, so it's hard to believe it will stop on its own volition.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever. Once again, User:R8R has turned a regular talkpage content discussion into a personal attack. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that I personally attacked you is a serious accusation. Care to elaborate? WP:PA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I (and, presumably, other editors) would like to see where I attacked you, and what is the quote from WP:PA which indicates that my behavior indeed qualifies as a personal attack.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, after I quoted WP:PA to DePiep, clearly hinting that such an accusation without evidence is a personal attack (against myself), DePiep refused to provide evidence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for BOOMERANG check on User:R8R

    Enough of this. Just today, in a content discussion, R8R managed to turn the discussion, as before, into a personal issue [164] (800+ words).

    In there, there are statements of personal attacks, bad faith, and paternalism directed at me. The "straightforward answer" has 150+ words, another condescending put down -- and really no answer at all.

    The fact that you, reader, may be thinking: "but where are the quotes?" says enough (they are present and hidden in the long long post).

    This pattern by R8R is shining throughout these two ANI threads. I do not wish any bad to my opponent, but I wish it would stop. Obviously, I think this ANI thread is fruitless. But since it has been brought this far, a topic ban for R8R might come in view. At least, it would be OK if someone could make clear and convince that such behaviour is not helping the Wiki. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DePiep, frankly, this modesty is not really suitable here. If you think you've got something on me, please do show how exactly so. You're clearly saying I did something bad but you're not giving any proof, and I (and, perhaps, other editors) might be tempted to think there is nothing "present and hidden in the long long post" you can actually show. You're making a claim, after all. Make it sound.--R8R (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From you 800+ word talkpage post (not necessarily complete):
    • "you manage to oversee"
    • "I have already answered this question and I'd like you to acknowledge this fact by not asking it again as if I haven't"
    • "Please read my words more carefully"
    • "you have missed something in my position or misrepresented it three times in your post"
    • "and while one honest mistake is understandable, three make discussion much more difficult."
    These are what I wrote. Telling you could ot discover them yourself. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will merely note that the first phrase was incomplete and I sent it by mistake. (I nonetheless did, and I'm not seeking to ditch what responsibility this might mean.) I quickly corrected it, and the complete sentence looks like this.
    As I said in the beginning of this section, I stand ready to be held responsible for what behavior of mine is related to the present case, and this certainly is related.--R8R (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here [165], in your OP compaint, you smear that
    • "then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design"
    while I actually used the enwiki standard design, as I wrote everywhere. Still waiting for your excuse. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an excuse, but I have an answer. You created that file, in the way you wanted to create it (by the way, that cell looks somewhat different on my computer, presumably to the difference in screen resolution), and then you uploaded it. That was what I was referring to, and that's all there is to it.--R8R (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this content post [166] was replied with [167]
    "Jawohl, Herr Oberst! Zu Befehl! "
    -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not related to the present case, since I have agreed to drop the matter of that interaction. If you believe that is still something to hold me accountable for, you're welcome to start another section on this page. In any case, for the convenience of the reader, I will provide an approximate translation from German: "Yes, sir colonel! At your command!" This was said after DePiep claimed there was no improvement after months of work by another editor (other than myself) and set out what was to be done then even though nobody had asked them to and DePiep had not done any kind of work he was commenting on myself. This may not have been the best thing I have ever said, I agree on that much, and I would not say it again.--R8R (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. R8R and DePiep, this thread does not create a good impression of either of you.
    2. R8R, posting walls of text is not helping you or the case that you are trying to make.
    3. DePiep, editors other than R8R have raised OWN behaviours. Your recent TFA change provides another example. R8R's style is not grounds for you to disregard input from others. Even if nothing results from this thread, please don't take that as vindication as I believe you should reflect on your approach.
    4. R8R, the diff from April that DePiep quotes above is offensive and could have justified some sanction at the time.
    5. DePiep, another's violation of NPA is not a justification for responding in kind, either at the time or many months later. Neither is R8R's style a justification for refusing to provide diffs to support a claim of an NPA violation.
    6. Oppose BOOMERANG as unjustified at present.
    7. Would an uninvolved admin please try and provide a reasonable close here? Letting the thread just die means the issues obscured by the noise in this thread will go unrecognised and unaddressed, which is not in the interests of editors or readers.
    Thank you. EdChem (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks well-considered, EdChem. Missing is a tought on the point that this thread is a reopening of an already closed thread; the reopening often being 'justified' on incorrect perceptions (see my #Reply to OP). -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I do not ask this check to 'hide' behind other editors behaviour (as being the sole problem), as EdChem seems to read it. I am asking for scrutiny, which could clarify the cause of editor's grievance as being multi-sided. That's all. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It has not been closed, DePiep, suggesting that your concerns about reopening are not shared by admins who have looked at it - and there are comments that reopening providing diffs that were not provided prior to the earlier closing is legitimate. More importantly, whether there are defects in procedure here, there is also clearly a problem. A procedural no-action closure despite the behavioural issues would leave them unaddressed. That may be to your benefit (and to the benefit of others being scrutinised), but it is not the the benefit of the community or the encyclopaedia. The issues that are raised here are a fire worth addressing, even if they are obscured by a lot of smoke and a forest of words. My advice to you, for whatever it is worth, is to focus on your actions, the problems in the area, and how to improve the present situation – and only on those areas... and I offer the same advice to everyone else involved in the issues. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Double sharp

    Oh dear.

    I am another member of WP:ELEM, and no, I have not been aware prior to today of how much this conversation has spiralled out. I was aware that it had gone to ANI, but not that it had gone at this length. And I see that my previous August dispute with Sandbh has been mentioned above.

    I really don't like being here: having been to ANI before myself (regarding that previous August dispute with Sandbh), I can't shake the feeling that going to ANI is basically an admission of failure, that things cannot be resolved amicably. But, I know all three of the main parties here (User:Sandbh, User:R8R, User:DePiep) fairly well on Wikipedia, I have interacted with all three a lot, I don't like to see them fight it out like this, and I participated in the discussion which seems to have led to this. I therefore guess that I am an involved party and I feel that I have to say something.

    It's currently late in my time zone, and I'll soon be more busy than previously, so I can't say more today, but I just want to confirm that I'm now aware of this discussion and will try to say something tomorrow. I will try to make time, because I really do not want to take up more of the time of uninvolved editors than this has already. Please, forgive my need for sleep. ^_^ Unfortunately I am naturally somewhat loquacious, but I will do my best to avoid posting walls of text.

    And, to the rest of the people who have posted: I am very sorry that this is a new section, rather than a closure, and I am very sorry to take up even more of your time. But I think we can still get something out of it; I think we all want to improve the articles, we just don't agree on how. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. YBG, since you have been involved in the discussion that led to this: I would welcome your view of the happenings as well, if you are agreeable and available to provide it. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Once we have heard from WP:ELEM members Double sharp and YBG I feel it would be appropriate to seek a closure of this grievance by an uninvolved admin, per EdChem. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I may need another day, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Regarding why I would want to delay another day; the current state of the discussion we have reached on WT:ELEM touches on some things that have previously been raised regarding User:Sandbh. However, given his time zone, he is probably asleep at the moment, so I would prefer to wait till tomorrow to allow him to respond there. I stand by what I said above that going to ANI here is an admission of defeat of sorts, so I prefer to see first if it's really necessary – I hope it won't be.) Double sharp (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, here we go. I'm so sorry that it is a wall of text, but I think it's partly needed to give the context between us, since I was not part of the early part of this ANI thread.

    On the main issue between User:DePiep and User:R8R, I do not feel qualified to express an opinion as I was not a part of it historically. So I will decline to say much about it, other than that I know both editors fairly well, have been able to communicate with them effectively with civility remaining on both sides, and that I hope that the situation can hopefully be resolved without sanctions. I have not been a paragon of civility myself all the time (see below for an example relevant to the rest of this thread), but we can change and improve.

    Now, regarding the issues that have been raised about User:Sandbh, I feel I am in more of a position to express an opinion on this. Since my previous August complaint on ANI against him regarding use of sources has been mentioned above, I thought it best to provide some context regarding how it felt like from my perspective, because use of sources by him has become a significant part of this ANI thread. My recollections after all this time may not be perfect (I tried not to think about this for a while because I'm quite ashamed in hindsight of how I acted), but this should be roughly right.

    In December 2019, Sandbh posted to the WT:ELEM talk page asking us to peer-review his work on the group 3 question (lanthanum vs lutetium) for outside WP: he supported lanthanum. Now, that's not really on topic for WP, indeed, but we have all known him for a long time and accepted in good faith; I at least did so with the understanding that it was for outside WP, of course. In the process of this a lot of interesting things were raised, and particularly strong advocates of lutetium were myself and User:Droog Andrey (the latter being a chemist; he has published an article on this dispute, but to my knowledge he never cited himself on WP – although I have cited him before on other issues).

    Then User:Dreigorich (since retired) asked in January 2020 if WP should perhaps change back to lutetium as the default (that was how it was in 2016 before an RFC at Template talk:Periodic table; there I am arguing for lanthanum because I knew less, and I don't agree with what I raised anymore). It should be noted that this dispute has been going on among scientists for decades: on WP what we previously did was to have one as a default and mention the other when appropriate. The default was lutetium since 2014 (I think this is the old ELEM discussion about making it so; before that it was the old compromise form that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry aka IUPAC shows, but seems to plan to deprecate eventually since it's now studying the group 3 matter with an eye at choosing either lanthanum or lutetium) and then became lanthanum in 2017, which it still is. I of course don't support unilaterally forcing only one form; but I've generally advocated simply changing which one the default is since Droog Andrey convinced me away from lanthanum back to lutetium around 2019. In fact now I've suggested (thanks to Sandbh's idea of footnotes on WT:ELEM) that perhaps this problem merits a footnote being placed on all our templates like {{Compact periodic table}}; nevertheless, of course, the question of which one gets shown and which one goes in the footnote remains.

    At that point I didn't think we should. However over the course of that discussion (which then stretched on from that link to archive 42 to archive 44 to 46 to 48) I noticed that in fact, one could come up with actual source-based arguments (I referred to what the sources focusing on the issue say at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_44#Jensen_on_textbooks; you can see I'm being rather jerkish there, and I apologised to Sandbh later about it) for lutetium.

    However, because the issue started over peer reviewing his paper, there was confusion between the scientific arguments and the source-based arguments. You can see this sort of conflation occurring in that Archive 44 link, where I'm making some points but being unnecessarily rude while doing it and mixing source-based and scientific arguments together in a way that in hindsight isn't really appropriate for WP. Actually throughout the thread you can see my level of civility declining, and in hindsight I'm really sorry that I ever did that in the first place; I really should not have. And because I was basically getting nowhere with convincing Sandbh with the scientific arguments (which in hindsight isn't terribly surprising given my tone), although it did apparently succeed at convincing Dreigorich and User:ComplexRational there towards the lutetium option, I eventually got fed up (or rather got more fed up than I was already) and filed an WP:RFC in July 2020 at Talk:Periodic table (in hindsight never a good move when fed up). And then withdrew it, because no one would read all that wall of text and to try to preserve some peace with Sandbh. And also because I was fed up, and in an ill-considered move gave the scientific arguments too much prominence, and User:Graeme Bartlett correctly pointed out at the RFC that "Just about all the arguments are irelevant". Indeed, in hindsight the discussion's importance for WP was skewed due to the way it started; as a discussion for something outside of WP that happened to just be hosted on WP as a side thing between editors that had previously collaborated together on similar topics on WP. As such I was conflating the two forms of justification needed for the on-WP and off-WP venues completely inappropriately, which I regret.

    There things stood until just over a week later (start of August 2020) I found a relevant statement from Eric Scerri, the chair of the current official project of IUPAC aimed at resolving this issue. So I started a new discussion at Talk:Periodic table, now at Talk:Periodic_table/Archive_12#IUPAC:_an_endorsement_on_group_3_(1988), aimed at being source-based.

    The upshot is that I did not think Sandbh's approach to sources followed policy, and took him to WP:ANI. And that's where the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043#Misuse_of_sources_by_User:Sandbh started, because I thought that was the appropriate venue to discuss what I saw as him misusing sources. And then I was told to go to WP:DRN by User:Beyond My Ken for this issue, and so I did: my thread is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_194#Periodic_table. Then while at DRN my text detailing what I saw as Sandbh's misuse of sources was collapsed by User:Robert McClenon as inappropriate for the reason that it "comments on contributors rather than on content".

    At this stage I more or less took stock, looked at my most recent comments (this is 7 August) and saw that this argument was beginning to compromise me emotionally, that I wasn't in fact being very civil towards Sandbh in my complaints, that I would soon have less time to argue this out. Part of me was starting to lose faith in the general WP processes of this kind for the reason that I kept getting redirected elsewhere when I wanted to make complaints regarding what I saw as another editor's misuse of sources. But another part of me remembered User:PainProf's comment at the ANI thread I started "you are holding each other to very high standards", which probably made me also think that perhaps my understanding of exactly what the proper WP culture when it comes to representing reliable sources was not the general norm. I don't exactly remember; if this sounds a bit contradictory, please be aware that I was not exactly emotionally at my best writing this (now I know very well why one shouldn't edit while angry; not only do you get more uncivil, but you also tend to act more irrationally). So I wrote there:


    My talk page apology to Sandbh is here.

    So here we are now, when I've hopefully made peace with him over this issue. So that's the story of that December through August dispute; I'm not proud of how I acted there, although it did do me a little bit of good in the sense that (1) I learnt more about the topic and (2) more importantly, I now have a better understanding of how to avoid acting like that again.

    I decided to temporarily leave the project; but I did lurk on the page on the side occasionally. Then I saw this new discussion about the colourings on the periodic table was getting somewhere, so I decided to put aside some caution and comment. We have, I believe, made some progress. In my apology to him I also wrote that I felt I went too far. So, I have been trying to be very polite with him on the ELEM talk page this time around.

    I think part of the unfortunate thing also is that this is probably the first time on WP where we eventually don't agree with each other. Previously, things on WP:ELEM did tend to meander into megathreads, but they all tended to get resolved into a solution that both he and I are happy with. Since we were usually the biggest posters, this rarely resulted in many objections. And it was a workable system as long as the two of us were in agreement. However, since we currently are not, I think the smallness of the project makes it difficult to resolve anything.

    However, although I did apologise to Sandbh and make peace with him, you will note that I explicitly said in my apology to him "That is not to say that I agree with your stances on chemistry or your interpretations of sources. I still most certainly don't. But: all that fighting it does is make me unnecessarily unhappy, and I will soon have no time to do it. ... Therefore, I apologise for my behaviour, even though I still disagree strongly with your ideas, and I will as I said leave the subject of chemical periodicity on WP and simply not comment any further on the subject at WT:ELEM. That way we can part in the most amicable manner possible at this moment, I hope, even as our viewpoints strongly differ." I trusted that he'd accept my right to disagree civilly in that manner, and apologised for my behaviour. And I thought that perhaps indeed I was the one who was holding him to a standard that was too high for WP as PainProf mentioned, but now that User:Games of the world and User:VanIsaac have stated that they have some qualms about Sandbh's understanding of the WP:NOR policy, I feel that perhaps what is really needed is a bunch of outside observers. At ELEM there are too few of us, and we know each other too well (I've collaborated with Sandbh for an actual real-life submission to the IUPAC project on this very issue in 2016, back when I agreed with him on the lanthanum option), and this is a situation in which norms in a particular group can spiral slowly or quickly away from those of the wider community.

    And unfortunately, I think the issue regarding how sources should properly be used for Wikipedia is still a point of difference between us. Currently I have raised some objections to text he has added to Periodic table at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Regarding_the_latest_additions_to_Periodic_table; he has replied, but I have elected not to reply first for reasons I will state in my next and yes, really final paragraph.

    I have some hope that this can be resolved, but I think we have reached the point where the project is suffering from the fact that it is very small and everyone knows each other too well. Perhaps concerns raised about whether the general culture at WP:ELEM matches the generally expected culture on the rest of Wikipedia are right. Therefore, as a way to resolve the dispute between us, I would like it if someone previously uninvolved with the ELEM project who has commented on this ANI thread comment at the current thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Regarding_the_latest_additions_to_Periodic_table, and guide us both regarding what the correct interpretation of WP policy in this case should be. I am sorry to have to try to invite somebody else to decode the way these discussions tend to be wordy and meandering, but I think it is necessary. And I think this has a chance to lead us to a solution with the needed fresh voices who are better aware of what WP policy means in the general WP culture, without having to go through the drama of ANI. I just would really like some sort of solution to be possible here between us and for me personally to find out what the general expectation is. Double sharp (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Thank you for your post, Double sharp. As I've mentioned before on these types of issues, whenever discussion has stalled with various parties offering various arguments and issues are merely getting mired down rather than resolved, the best course of action is to file an official WP:RFC. The catch is, it needs to be very simple and very clear and very brief, such as, for example, "Should the image of the table look like version A, B, or C?" (and then supply or link to each image). If it's not a simple brief neutral question, it's not an RfC, it's just another train wreck waiting to happen. Someone needs to be clear-headed enough to propose a simple, brief, one-sentence question -- that is either binary or has minimal (less than six) options. File it as an official RFC, ping every single active person on ELEM, and then let people !vote. Separate it into "Survey" and "Discussion", and insist that everything beyond a simple !vote be placed in the "Discussion" sub-thread. Let it run 30 days, and then have an administrator close the RfC. The result may not please everyone, or even match current anecdotal opinion in the outside world, but it will have WP:CONSENSUS, which is the best we can do on Wikipedia when editors and/or sources disagree. (Note: More complex issues need to be broken down into smaller simpler parts, and RfCs filed for each part of the whole that is still in intractable dispute. The key to an RfC is simple, neutral, brief.) Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: Likewise, thank you for your comment. However, I do feel that I'd prefer a little bit of outside help in these processes. For one thing: what has been said before here has merit, that norms on WT:ELEM may have gone outside what the norms on most of WP are, and I would like first to be clear about what the latter are. Since my general disagreement with User:Sandbh at this point is at the level of interpretation of what WP policy does or does not allow, I would very much appreciate it if you or someone else interested could comment at, say, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Regarding the latest additions to Periodic table to see if my expressed concerns about his additions are based on correct interpretations on policy. (Don't worry, it's still a short thread; just my response and his reply). If they are, then I can think about starting an WP:RFC with some help, and perhaps some of the issues that have been raised about his edits may get more attention; if they are not, then that's also good to know, and there should be no need for further action. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender: (Sorry, fixed a typo in your name above; so I need to re-fire the ping.) Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there are any citable "norms" for talkpage discussions on Wikipedia, except not to textually change other people's posts. It's normal to discuss and disagree about the whole gamut of Wikipedia issues: SYNTH, OR, V, UNDUE, POV, etc. It's also somewhat normal for editors who have been forced to co-exist and co-edit for a long period to have developed irritation towards some of those editors' personal styles/attitudes/actions. The thing we all strive for, however, is to put that aside and completely eliminate mention of the other editor(s), and instead only mention content. This is a matter of mind-training and requires some skill and vigilance. For example, when discussing on article talkpages I personally do not name other editors or use the words "you" or "your". I use the passive voice when referring to actions that were taken, and do not identify the actor. I discuss edits/content only, and do not mention editors (not even those who I have historically often found irritating or disagreeable or bullying or whatever). The only pronoun or person-reference I use is "I", and I try to use that a lot, since in the end everything we say is only our own opinion/perspective. (I realize this is difficult to do when you've edited so long with a smallish handful of editors that you actually feel like a family, and therefore it feels odd not to refer to each other. But I recommend that all of you try it.) I also do not respond to insults or insinuations -- they simply do not exist for me (again, that's a habit that takes vigilance); I only discuss content and edits.

    But the bottom line for all of you at ELEM is what constitutes a WP:CONSENSUS and how to achieve it. Since there is a group of "regulars", I recommend that you somehow establish what kind of consensus a major change needs before it goes live. Since there are apparently approximately six of you, maybe all six should be pinged for approval before a major change goes live, rather than jumping the gun in the excitement of the moment and then having blowback and/or edit wars. Or maybe you can all decide that if four people have signed off on something then that is enough for a BOLD change to go live (even though it may be objected to later). But if at any point there is intractable disagreement, then RFC is the way to go.

    Anyway, I hope that helps. All of my comments in this subsection are meant for all of you at ELEM; I merely put them here because you are the final person to weigh in on ELEM, and everyone on ANI will be happy when this giant thread is over. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: In terms of the content portion of your concerns/question (such as, 'Am I right, or do I have a valid point, about SYNTH, OR, V, UNDUE, POV, FA, etc. in this discussion'), ANI doesn't handle content issues. There are often noticeboards for specific content concerns, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, WP:DRN, and WP:3O. There are also venues such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:HELPDESK to ask such questions or to obtain clarification. Concerning FAs, you could possibly inquire at WT:FA. --Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: OK, I see. Thank you for your help and suggestions; I think they may well do a lot of good for us. Just as a final question: which of the noticeboards you mentioned do you think is the best venue for my query at the end? I haven't been around these parts of WP very often. Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you will have to determine that for yourself. That discussion is ongoing (the last comment was less than 30 minutes ago), and it should not have been directed at/to a specific editor. What should be discussed is content, not editors. If you disagree with the content and/or the sources, then provide specific sources of your own, with author and title, and either link or verbatim-quote the substantiating information which supports your point of view. You have to make your case with clear and credible and viewable/readable/quoted citations; no one is going to do your work for you. And if you go forward continuing to mention specific editors, you're less likely to succeed (which is why your statement at DRN was collapsed by Robert McClennon). If you feel strongly about a specific item, then create a thread devoted solely to that specific item, and see what the general consensus is. Do not mention editors, only content plus specific sources. Do that with each item that concerns you. If things still go around in circles, then start an RfC, or have someone neutral start the RfC. Last note: If there is currently disagreement between reputable chemists regarding any part(s) of the PT, then that disagreement should be noted and cited in the wiki article, either directly or in a footnote. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: Right, thank you so much for all your advice. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got involved in the TFA blurb after seeing this thread when it was much younger. I think my contribution there helped to get a consensus for that blurb, though I stayed away from the image issue. As a chemist and Wikipedian who is not an WP:ELEM member, I am willing to try to provide some perspective along the lines that Double sharp has requested, if other ELEM members are interested. As a chemist, I have some knowledge of the debates that exist outside WP on PT topics and impressions / opinions on some of them, though I am far from an expert in those areas. As a Wikipedian, I agree with most of Softlavender's advice even though my approach might not be the same. For example, my impression is that the La / Lu debate is viewed as largely resolved by many chemists (and is of little interest to many others)... but WP can only state a definitive view in WP voice if that truly reflects the RS after DUE is applied, and otherwise the disagreement needs to be covered. A week ago, I would have anticipated that that view is non-controversial amongst ELEM members as you are all experienced Wikipedians – but maybe I am wrong. In any case, this thread needs resolution and ANI is not the place to discuss content, so I simply ask: Would my trying to help be welcomed? I am specifically asking / pinging Double sharp, R8R, DePiep, Sandbh, YBG... is there anyone else I should invite to comment? EdChem (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EdChem: Thank you for your offer. I cannot speak for the others, but I feel your help would be very welcome indeed. I feel that your expertise as a chemist would make your help extremely valuable as you would be able to give a clear and definitive answer what the literature is saying and exactly how much weight should be accorded to the sources being discussed. Moreover, I think you could help provide a clear voice on exactly what constitute the WP policy norms outside our little project and keep us on track if needed.
      • It seems to me that there's two issues that are causing the disagreement, viz.:
        1. Exactly how should the La vs Lu thing be reflected?
        2. Is it warranted by the literature to carry on with the current colour-code categorisation in things like {{Periodic table}} along a metal-nonmetal continuum, or instead change to colouring just by blocks? And if the former is warranted, exactly what should our categorisation be?
      • These naturally both affect the article periodic table itself as well as the templates and images showing periodic tables that are naturally ubiquitous on chemistry-related articles. I present them here not to discuss content, but so that you can see them and know what this is going to be all about should you decide to participate.
      • As for other commenters: I would say that Droog Andrey should absolutely be contacted, as he participated quite vigorously in the ELEM discussion on the first issue even if not the second. He is also a chemist, but since he published an article supporting the Lu option in the debate in 1999, perhaps it's better to have another chemist opine like you as well; Sandbh has just published an article supporting the La option, FWIW.
      • If you're agreeable, then I think it would be best if the six of us main ELEM participants in this (me, Sandbh, R8R, YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey) took a step back from engaging each other (we've done way too much of it and it doesn't seem to have been notably helpful so far) and instead present our cases separately on each issue wherever we differ without comments on each others', of course clearly referring to our sources when doing so. That would end up being at most twelve statements, one by each of us on each of the two issues (it's possible that there will be less than twelve if some of us happen to agree with each other, or decide to abstain from providing an opinion on either one or both of the disputes). I will defer to your knowledge of WP norms regarding whether or not it is acceptable to comment on others' sources to give our own interpretations of what they mean for WP, that may differ from theirs. That way everyone's view is clear, we don't engage each other directly, and we keep things about the content rather than the contributors as Softlavender remarked above. When we're all done, you as an impartial observer can review the situation and make a decision as a sort of closer to determine consensus (since we don't seem to be in agreement over what consensus means between ourselves), that I would definitely respect and accept. I would be glad to do it for the options I support in both parts of the dispute, and hopefully the others would be too. It goes without saying that I don't know if the others are amenable to such a system, and it's dependent on whether or not you think it is a good idea, but I think it may have potential and that is why I throw it out here. Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Double sharp – I'll take that as you are willing.  :) Let's leave the content issues for the moment. Thanks also for pinging Droog Andrey.
        • I do want to respond to one comment, though... you said that I can "give a clear and definitive answer what the literature is saying and exactly how much weight should be accorded to the sources being discussed" and that I can "help provide a clear voice on exactly what constitute the WP policy norms outside our little project and keep us on track if needed." I can certainly express views on applications of policy, etc, but when there are disagreements, I think it is rarely justified for a single editor to make what amounts to a content ruling. Perhaps in a case where the scientific consensus is unambiguous, but then there is likely to be little debate. I am offering to add some perspective and make suggestions in the hope of finding a consensus, but not to act as an arbiter / judge ruling what will be. I hope that aligns with your expectations, and that it clarifies for others that I am anticipating discussion. An outline of individual positions and sources could be useful to clarify issues and focus on content rather than on other editors – I don't know – but WP does not have empower individual editors to issue binding content rulings and no one should attempt, and I would not attempt, to dictate outcomes on encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @EdChem: Ah yes, certainly. Well, you can see that I'm not quite up to speed on exactly how WP works outside our little project. I'm definitely keen to learn and align my understanding of it with the wider community as I said. ^_^ I just had in mind that you could help to determine what the consensus between us actually is and provide some sort of resolution similarly to how closures seem to work in my limited understanding, and that it might be clearer if we didn't start discussing with each other over again but simply discussed how we saw the situation as our understandings of what WP policy are seem to differ (and I am certainly not confident that mine is necessarily correct!). I'll definitely defer to whatever you think is a better way to resolve this. Double sharp (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Thanks, Double sharp, for this wonderful story, this description of what played. I also note that here, you more than once took blame without accusing other editors (worth noting).
    It helps me a lot to understand the background (what happened until those bad August days). And of course it helps us to make our mutual WP-interests better. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: Thank you. I took the blame because I thought I deserved it. I feel I'm not correctly placed to accuse others without a clear understanding of what the WP norms are regarding the policies we've referred to. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Sandbh re EdChem
    EdChem:

    • Any editor is welcome to join our discussions at WP:ELEM so, yes, feel free to drop on by!
    • Double sharp's contributions to WP:ELEM have been *outstanding* and I have largely enjoyed our many, many discussions, including recent ones where we were able to reach agreement on another matter.
    • I concur with your impression that the group 3 debate is viewed as largely resolved by many chemists (and is of little interest to many others). Pending the report of the IUPAC project looking at the issue, I suggest no further action is required, here at WP.
    • To clarify, "I" did not publish an article supporting La. Rather, an external author suggested to me that I may like to write and submit an article addressing the question, to a peer-review academic journal. I did so and the article was accepted for publication, after being peer-reviewed three times.
    • The colour categorisation approach to the WP periodic table is something we have been discussing at WP:ELEM for many years, on and off. The latest discussion is no different and does not require special intervention by an editor external to WP:ELEM anymore than this has been the case for previous discussions. That said, any editor is welcome to comment!
    • Double sharp made some good suggestions along these lines, which I actioned [168]
    • I suggest ComplexRational may like to be involved as they have been participating in some our discussions
    • I have no intention to stop engaging with other WP:ELEM members per Double sharp's suggestion.
    • The establishment of consensus within the project has always relied on the normal way of seeking to do so including…
    1. informally, where there is no or minor disagreement;
    2. semi-formally, via a show of hands; or
    3. formally via an RFC, posted at the applicable talk page, usually at the periodic table talk page.
    …noting in all cases that consensus does not necessarily require unanimity (IIRC this was brought to my attention by Double sharp).
    • WP:ELEM is a bit like the four seasons, except one cannot tell which order the seasons occur, or if there will be repeats. We have our winters as well as our springs, summers, and autumns. The winters can sometimes drag on a bit. I choose to go snow skiing during these times rather than staying under my doona.
    • I don't support Double sharp's extraordinary proposal for an impartial observer to review the situation and make "a decision" as a sort of closer to determine consensus. As you noted, "WP does not have empower individual editors to issue binding content rulings and no one should attempt, and I would not attempt, to dictate outcomes on encyclopaedic content."
    • I regret the need to address content-related issues at WP:ANI. That said, inaccurate statements have been posted in this thread about what I am supposed to have done, did not do, or am doing. I merely seek to correct or clarify the record.

    --- Sandbh (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Final comment: Why official RfCs are useful. The reason RfCs are so useful on Wikipedia is that when they are concluded, the consensus is regarded as the official Wikipedia standard, and article content must reflect that. This prevents a lot of back&forth afterwards, because the results of an RfC are set in stone. (They can be overturned by a subsequent RfC, but a new RfC on the same question is not allowed within less than six months.) RfCs also require an editor to clearly and concisely ask a neutrally worded question. This eliminates walls of text containing tangential/unrelated/person-related thoughts. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      official Wikipedia standard ... set in stone ... a new RfC on the same question is not allowed within less than six months – Maybe I've missed something, but where does all that come from? EEng 08:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally accepted practices as far as I've seen. If that's not correct please let me know. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not agree with User:Sandbh that the group 3 question is largely viewed as resolved, and think that some action is required to actually address this with a proper discussion. Currently, among significant participants to the discussion, he and R8R seem to be supporting lanthanum in group 3 as default at the moment; but I, Droog Andrey, and YBG have explicitly come out in favour of lutetium. (ComplexRational who he mentioned didn't participate much in the discussion proper, but he supported lutetium as well.) AFAIK DePiep did not express a view. (And incidentally, when I say lutetium as default, I personally mean that I prefer it to be the main option displayed but for a footnote to always accompany it noting that lanthanum is sometimes placed there instead in the literature; can't speak for the others.) As can be seen on the main WT:ELEM talk page, we don't seem to agree with each other about the proper interpretation of policy in some cases. Therefore, it is not clear to me how the current 3–2 deadlock should be translated into action because we do not seem to agree on what WP policy means for these layout and categorisation issues – particularly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: I am not convinced that the other side's case is truly supported by how I understand WP policy; and judging by Sandbh's comment to me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_48#Ac_and_Th "WP policy would not be behind you", the same thing is true the other way round. In fact it is not clear to me how any course of action could ever satisfy both parties simultaneously as long as such a difference in understanding exists. Neither is it obvious to me that further communication between us is going to be particularly effective unless this disagreement can be resolved by someone outside who has a clearer idea than us about what exactly these policies mean and how they apply to our case. That is why I suggest that we present our cases separately to an external mediator such as User:EdChem who has volunteered to step in; it seems to me more likely to resolve the problem agreeably to all. He could, for instance, act to interpret policy and advise us on whether we are interpreting it correctly, thus removing the essential barrier; and if an RFC for the change turns out to be warranted, he could probably help us draft it to make sure it's clear, concise, and neutral. It would be nice to have a decision we can stick by for a sizeable period of time, without either side feeling as though the other may not be following policy.

    As the current situation was only fixed on WP by an RFC in 2016 (at Template talk:Periodic table), which I participated heavily in, and I have a completely different view now, I suggest that there should be no problem with relooking at the situation in a proper manner. It is a few years later. The previous RFC from July was aborted and I did not express things very well as detailed above; should we carry on now, I will endeavour to make my case properly, civilly, and with reference to sources. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck to make it clear that I currently understand that this is not the place to discuss content; it was not my intention to do so with this post, but apparently that is what I did, and for that I apologise. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:

    • @Double sharp: When I said the group 3 question is largely viewed as resolved, I was echoing User:EdChem’s comment: “For example, my impression is that the La / Lu debate is viewed as largely resolved by many chemists (and is of little interest to many others)...”
    • Group 3 with La in it is the most common form in the literature.
    • A literature survey conducted by the IUPAC group 3 project confirmed this.
    • Eric Scerri, chair of the IUPAC project on Group 3 has confirmed this.
    • Accordingly, pending the report of the IUPAC project, WP shows La in group 3 in our periodic table article and we note the other possibilities in the main body of the article.
    • That was your position; to await the report of the IUPAC group 3 project.
    • In the context of all of the preceding, I feel another RFC proposing Lu in group 3 is unwarranted.
    • As User:EdChem noted, “I am offering…not to act as an arbiter / judge…WP does not have empower individual editors to issue binding content rulings and no one should attempt, and I would not attempt, to dictate outcomes on encyclopaedic content.” Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ::@Sandbh: We have different opinions, and as I understand ANI is not the appropriate place to go on about them as this is a content issue. I would prefer, and think it would be more productive, to have EdChem see our positions at an appropriate venue (i.e. not ANI). And not only on the La vs Lu thing, but also on the categorisation issues. And then he may help us similarly to how he helped some of us arrive at a consensus for the blurb for Hassium (TFA yesterday). I will be ready to accept such a consensus whatever it ends up being. But I feel an outside perspective that will allow us to have a unified understanding of policy is necessary, and will allow an eventual neutral closure and decision. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck to make it clear that I currently understand that this is not the place to discuss content; it was not my intention to do so with this post, but apparently that is what I did, and for that I apologise. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: Since I admit that I am not yet in the good habit of it, can I ask you if my comment above is succeeding in terms of not commenting on contributors rather than content? I'm unsure about the first sentence mostly. And also my previous comment; my intention was just to give a sense of how the views seem to be and why I think we need outside help at consensus-building, but I worry if this is beyond the line of making it about contributors since I mention them and what each one's view is. If that is so, I apologise and will endeavour to stop (I admit I don't have the best grasp on exactly what the pan-WP norms are). Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: "Discuss edits not editors" refers to article-talk and project-talk. You are free to discuss editors (and behavior) on usertalk pages and noticeboard pages; in fact, that is what they are for. Keep content discussions on article-talk; keep editor and behavior discussions on usertalk and noticeboards. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: Thank you, I believe I understand now. I'm ready to be corrected whenever needed about the general norms in these parts of WP. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked a simple question: In any case, this thread needs resolution and ANI is not the place to discuss content, so I simply ask: Would my trying to help be welcomed? I am specifically asking / pinging Double sharp, R8R, DePiep, Sandbh, YBG... is there anyone else I should invite to comment?
    • So far, I have had a "yes" from Double sharp and have clarified what I see as an appropriate role as a facilitator and not an arbiter. A ping for Droog Andrey was also suggested.
    • I have had a response that can be perhaps paraphrased as "welcome to participate but we don't really have a problem" from Sandbh
    • DePiep has not responded on this question but comments elsewhere in this thread leave me with the impression that my participation would be unwelcome.
    • Double sharp and Sandbh, you both persist in arguing about content, which is irrelevant here at ANI. This is not helpful. Please stop.
    • Double sharp and Sandbh, while ANI is the place to discuss behaviour, the purpose is to provide information for outsiders to help resolve a problem. Arguing with each other (especially if it is repetitive) is likely to annoy ANI readers and create an impression that removing combatants from the area is the way forward. Please reflect before posting more to this massively bloated thread.
    • I see no response on my question from other ELEM members, which is concerning me. I am having doubts that what I suggested would have sufficient buy-in to be worthwhile and likely productive. I am interested in hearing about whether my suggestion is welcome / workable / etc... but here is not the place to debate the issues. Please please please can we try to keep focussed? Please? Pretty please? EdChem (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EdChem: I'm sorry for giving that impression; I have not been trying to give content arguments here, and did not think I was doing so, but I guess that that was a mistaken identification of what a content argument is on my part. In the interest of keeping things focused as you suggest, I have struck my above posts. I do not think I have anything new to say for myself that I haven't already said, so I will take your advice and try not to post further in this thread if in any doubt. Again, thank you for helping us keep on track. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdChem: Yes, please ask ComplexRational Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdChem and Softlavender: I only respond (AFAICR) to content matter posted here when other editors post such comments in the context of my alleged involvement or opinions in such matters. EdChem, as I said, you are welcome to drop by at WP:ELEM at any time and contribute as little or as much as you feel appropriate. Pay no heed to how I feel whether or not there are problematic relations at WP:ELEM; you can make your own assessment if you feel so inclined. Nor does it matter if you have or have not heard from other WP:ELEM matters. Participation at WP:ELEM is open to all, and we do have non-project members who contribute from time to time. Sandbh (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdChem: I would welcome your participation at ELEM. Our root problem, as I see it, is that we have a group of dedicated editors that want the best content for our small corner of this encyclopedia which we have invested untold hours in over the years. Another complicating issue is that our collection of articles naturally go together and deserve a unified look and feel in our infoboxes and template system, but consistency forces us to make editorial decisions about things where the literature has not reached a consensus. Because we feel strongly about content, we sometimes find it hard to compromise and it can take an inordinately long time to finally reach consensus. When we care deeply about the content, we sometimes act in ways that appear like WP:OWN. I know I am guilty of this, but I think others are worse than me - which I know is because of my myopic inability to see the log in my own eye but my superhuman ability to see the specks in others' eyes. EdChem, I get that you do not want to be an arbiter, but a facilitator, and I think that would be very helpful. I would welcome a PM to me if you see my behavior starting to stray off the straight and narrow, and I AGF that other active ELEM participants would do the same, though, of course, I cannot speak for them. A few areas that would be helpful would be

    1. A watchful eye on our discussions
    2. Suggestions now and then if you see our discussion becoming repetitive or veering off topic
    3. General reminders occasionally with suggestions for improving our conversation and collaboration
    4. Private reminders to me if you ever see my behavior lacking. I welcome other ELEM participants to give you their own invitation, either publicly or privately.
    5. Suggestions about when issues should be separated into separate discussions and when they should not.
    6. Suggestions on when walls of text are helpful and when they are not and how to avoid the unhelpful ones
    7. Assistance in determining when a freewheeling discussion is going someplace and when it should be converted into a formal RfC
    8. Assistance in formulating the appropriate RfC
    9. Guidance in developing project norms for how to approach changing aspects that are currently consistent across multiple templates and articles in our project
    10. Guidance in determining whether we need other project norms, behavioral or process.

    In all of this your knowledge of this domain of knowledge would be tremendously helpful. Thank you for volunteering your help. YBG (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC) PS, I have been less active recently for a number of reasons. Much of my editing these past two or three months has been on a rather ancient smartphone and it is very difficult to find the appropriate place to add a comment in one of our huge discussion threads, and this is only complicated when page subheaders are few and far between. YBG (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not provided a response until now because this thread required careful attention to comprehend it. Having comprehended it, I am somewhat afraid to think that it is not directly related to the case at hand, which only adds to the enormous length of this section.
    I don't believe there is a group 3 problem that requires immediate attention; it appears to me that nothing should be done about it for the time being but we agreed the issue can be revisited when a decision from IUPAC is made. That could be when we start an RfC, help might be needed then.
    I don't think the project is in a state in which it requires help to keep going. The group 3 debate was heated but what tension there once was has vanished since then. I perceive the conflict that eventually led to this ANI thread, in its entirety, as isolated from the rest of the usual proceedings of the project. And that's about it.
    It appears to me that broadly speaking, we don't need facilitation for our discussions. Having said that, I will note you are most welcome to join or pinch in from time to time. I will also note that all of this is only my opinion and other different interpretations of past events may have their merit.
    If my understanding is correct, none of this is directly related to the case at hand, so let's move this discussion elsewhere and hat what is already written. I presume our case is not closed yet only because it's too long to read through, and we could help facilitate its conclusion by removing the need to read such a big part of it. If my understanding is not correct, I'll be grateful if someone points out how so.--R8R (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by YBG

    I echo what Double sharp says above about ANI being basically an admission of failure. I was saddened by the August dispute mentioned above and by DS's self-imposed exile from WP:ELEM. Happily, he has now returned to active participation in our project, and the previous broken relationship seems to have been largely repaired.

    My impression is that this started to spiral out of control with a disagreement on how best to engage in WP:BRD. In the initial stages, I found myself surprised by the behavior of both DePiep and Sandbh; the former being much better than the controversies in the past and the latter less collaborative than my past experience with him. But since then, my impression is that both have returned to more long-standing habits.

    Overall, these past couple of months have been the saddest I have experienced at WP:ELEM. Most painful is my own failure to be civil, but close to this is the pain of seeing a breech between my friends. I consider all of the WP:ELEM participants to be my friends; I long to increase my 1 IRL encounter to include 100% of project participants.

    Thinking outside the box here, I wonder what it would take for us, the active WP:ELEM editors, to contrive some sort of an internal project resolution process so that we might stay away from ANI. Or maybe that would make things worse instead of better.

    YBG (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hatting disruption. --Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Note: no reopening of a closed thread
    I, DePiep, want to point out clearly that this thread is an incorrect reopening.
    See primary argumentation w/ links: #Reply to OP
    (Since Grand Marshall Sandbh seems to controle the flow of this thread [169], I created this placeholder for future completion, to allow me to make this clarification).

    I note, for any closing or judging admin:

    • This thread is a reopening of an earlier, same ANI thread/accusation/report: IncidentArchive1048.... That thread already has concluded on these accusations: see my #Reply to OP.
    I have clarified this from the start in my #Reply to OP.
    Troublesome: many responding editors do not recognise this, and repeat the "no diffs so anew" line. Wrong. Later more (and, of course, earlier more).
    • more [placeholder]
    -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, you have already said this several times. No one has moved to re-close. If you want to avoid being taken as seeking to avoid scrutiny, I strongly advise you to make no further posts that give that impression. My view is that you are only increasing the chances of being seen as disruptive and being sanctioned for the sake of the community and the encyclopaedia. EdChem (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This overall thread opened by R8R is a new thread that has been open 10+ days, never yet closed. I am therefore hatting this disruptive subthread. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    This thread has been open more than 10 days, many people have posted a lot of words, and at this point the thread takes up half of ANI. I think this is an appropriate time to close the thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support the closure, as I think we will be able to work this out. Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to this judgement and action by Softlavender. Yes I did raise the point more than once: first time to question it neutrally [170], then the statement detailed and supported by diffs with diffs, and again as a reply(1), reply(2) in the ongoing discussion. It is my right to speak up against questionble or wrong statements made here. The fact that none responded (?) is not a reason to judge my post a disruption.
    Also this: twice now Softlavender has threatened to hold my postings re this against me. I therefor think that Softlavender is not the independent person to close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, advocating my case (rationally, in replying, with diffs), returns prejuduce threats: [171], [172]. And [173]. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. I did not even check whether SL is an admin. Distraction.
    I state that my claim ("this is a re-opening") deserves open judgement, an cannot be dismissed by prejudive threats "this will doubtless not turn out well for you", "disruptive"
    It is not up to you, EdChem, to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed.
    And there is this: Softlavender did judge that first complaint [174], and then denied it.
    Any closing admin will take a good look. No need to force their judgement. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I am not going to close the thread; I am a participant in the thread. That's why I made a motion that it be closed. You are the one prejudicing the case against yourself, by not only the posts you have now re-highlighted, but also by the rant you just posted. Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
    DePiep, I think there are many here at ANI, including me, who would have been astonished if Softlavender had acted to close this thread. She is a highly respected and very experienced Wikipedian (80k+ edits) and ANI participant (5k+ edits), with a clean block log, who has contributed thoughtfully and wisely to this and many other discussions. You may disagree with her, of course, but I urge that you at least consider her words and advice as I believe that she is trying to help you and the other participants in WP:ELEM. EdChem (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, I want to respond to what I see as an inaccurate characterisation of my contributions here. You have written, above, It is not up to you, EdChem, to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed.:
    1. You are correct that it is not up to me to decide what is relevant. I do not believe that I have done so, though I have made comments that reflect what I view as relevant and important. Whether my opinion is given weight by you or others is entirely out of my hands, and everyone is free to agree or disagree with any or all of what I have said.
    2. I have not tried to silence you or anyone else, nor do I view you or any other editor as an opponent. You have been availing yourself of your right to contribute to this thread and advocate for your position. I have chosen to participate in this thread after first looking to facilitate consensus on the TFA blurb, choices that I made reflecting my view on the primacy of encyclopaedic content. Our equal abilities to contribute to a discussion as we choose is exactly how WP is supposed to operate, so long as we (and everyone else) continue to contribute in a policy-compliant way.
    3. I have offered you advice, which was done in good faith and meant to be useful. You have chosen not to follow it, as is your right. I remain of the view that you are not helping your case, but the resolution of the thread remains for an uninvolved administrator. I have no influence on who that might be or on what close might be implemented.
    4. It is my opinion that Softlavender has also been seeking to offer you advice. You have taken some comments as threatening and I can see how a comment like "this will doubtless not turn out well for you" can be interpreted in that way. Can you see how it could have been meant as advice, perhaps strongly worded, that your approach could lead to consequences? Can you see how Softlavender might have intended to convey the desirability / importance of choosing another way? Believing that your actions are inviting sanction, Softlavender choosing to hat the sub-thread can be taken as trying to help you avoid further postings that could increase the chance of sanctions, as was the intent of my advice that your actions seem unhelpful to your case. I understand that you might not favour such interpretations, but are they possible... and if so, in light of WP:AGF, perhaps you have over-reacted?
    5. I did not hat the sub-thread that has been described as disruptive. You might see that action as having been taken to silence you. Softlavender would likely see it as consistent with contributions being made in a policy-compliant way. How your point about re-opening, the hatting, and the contributions and actions of every participant are available for scrutiny and comment / action by the closing administrator. If I have done something warranting comment or action, I expect that the closing administrator will act appropriately. If no comment or action is taken in relation to me, I will infer that the closing administrator has decided that there is nothing warranting comment or action. I will not see that as an endorsement of my comments or actions, but merely that resolution of the issues for the sake of the encyclopaedia, its readers, and the editing community is not seen as needing a comment or action about me.
    6. I am disappointed to learn that you see me as an opponent who seeks to judge you and silence you. Such is not my intent, and for whatever I have done that has made you feel this way, I apologise. I hope that you will be open to my trying to help resolve content issues facing the WP:ELEM team members because I truly believe in the goals of WP and value high quality content and those who have worked to contribute it. ANI is needed to deal with issues but it is far from the best part of the project and I hope that you and everyone else in this thread can get a close that addresses any ANI-type problems and return to the more enjoyable task of building the encyclopaedia.
    Thank you. EdChem (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, support a call for closure as there are behavioural issues that would benefit from an uninvolved admin decision (whether that involve formal action, or not, or some input / advice, or whatever). I have just posted an offer to help on the content side and hope for responses from those I have pinged (I guess on my talk page if this thread has closed) but (absent further developments) believe that the ANI-relevant aspects of this thread have been explored more than sufficiently for a conclusion to be reached. EdChem (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thx, as my 1st reply. Realy nice to read. My 2nd re may need more time ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi EdChem. You wrote: My view is that you are only increasing the chances of being seen as disruptive and being sanctioned for the sake of the community and the encyclopaedia. I consider that a 'shut up', not an argument. Also, talk for yourself, not for Softlavender. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to close this with the following closing statement: After almost two weeks, this thread is over 27,000 words in 14 subheadings, making up about 1/3 of WP:ANI. If any admin or other uninvolved editor wants to read it and close this with action, please feel free to revert my close, but I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time. AFAICT, at least some if not all editors participating here have worked out some if not all issues. Remaining content issues can be discussed at WT:ELEM. If there are conduct issues that repeat and help is sought from uninvolved editors (e.g. admin), perhaps consider requesting 20 minutes of help (e.g. by limiting yourself to ~1,000 words in the ANI report) instead of requesting many hours of help (27,000 words). In the meantime, a block for using the "f" word is unlikely, as is further involvement by admin/uninvolved editors, so let's send this to the archives and reduce the size of this page by a third. But I commented in the last thread so maybe someone else can close instead. Lev!vich 03:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose: ich On the basis of:
    1. WP:BOOMERANG, which says: "Responders: Investigate fully";
    2. DePiep's latest comment in clear violation of the indefinite editing restriction he is under per WP:EDRC:
    "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."
    3. The very bad (I suspect unprecedented) example that would be set by closing it, per the summary of the behaviours concern, here.
    4. Support for immediate topic ban, by myself and two other editors, in the context of WP:EDRC.
    --- Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary, as Sandbh sees it, of overall issues of concern

    Three editors support a T ban, including me.

    Other editors commented:

    • the "issues that are raised here are a fire worth addressing, even if they are obscured by a lot of smoke and a forest of words";
    • "there are behavioural issues that would benefit from an uninvolved admin decision."
    • "editors other than R8R have raised OWN behaviours. Your recent TFA change provides another example."
    • "telling someone you will "have them blocked" is a kind of bullying and I see it more than once in DePiep's history."
    • "DePiep has several problematic behaviors that need to stop immediately."

    One editor opposed a topic ban

    The respondent:

    • has 13+ prior blocks
    • proposed to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball
    • called for BOOMERANG check on User:R8R
    • accuses another editor here of "feeding" but "not finding a Boomerang"
    • was placed by the Wikipedia community, "indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions."
    • had one of his contributions to this sub-thread described as "disruptive" and consequently hatted
    • without providing any supporting evidence [175], said another editor in this thread had, "turned a regular talkpage content discussion into a personal attack"
    • wrote that an editor here has, "threatened" to "hold my postings re this against me"
    • responded to another editor, here in this thread, as follows:
    • "It is not up to you…to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed."
    • (following a civil contribution by the subject editor): "I consider that a 'shut up', not an argument. Also, talk for yourself, not for [another editor]."
    • Double sharp (below) opposed a T-ban
    • DePiep yesterday (10 Oct) posts the following reply [176] to R8R:
    "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R"
    • An editor (further to three mentioned at the start of this summary) supports an immediate block of DePiep [177] for violation of WP:EDRC, specifically incivility in the above comment.
    • I strongly support an immediate block [178] in light of this latest comment by DePiep, WP:EDRC, and related behaviour documented in this thread.
    • A further (uninvolved) editor supports an immediate block. [179]
    • A further editor opposes an indefinite block [180]

    --- Sandbh (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (For the record, since I don't think I put it up very visibly; I oppose a T-ban for User:DePiep as my interactions with him make me confident that civilly working together with him is in fact quite possible. Nonetheless, I do think that he should be reminded that some behaviours of his are not seen well by many other editors and that he should consider changing them – and I say this because I really do not want to see him blocked when to my mind he is a net positive.) Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest the issue of concern is the broken glass one has to walk over before getting to the net positive. Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandbh, DePiep has been blocked 13 times, not 15. Could you please correct that? Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender Thanks, I changed 15 to 13+. Looking at DePiep's block log [181], It looks like his first block for 24 hours was increased about 7 hours later to 72 hours. Does that count as 1+ blocks? Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sandbh, I submit that it is not your place to unilaterally summarize this thread (although it is certainly your place to post your view/opinion), in that you are by definition a non-neutral participant. You have posted your perception/opinion of the situation, and it does not seem to reflect what has gradually tended towards a resolution of the conflicts between a variety people at ELEM. The summarization of the thread should be made by the closing admin. I suggest that you somehow change the header or the opening statement of this subthread to indicate that it is your closing argument, or your own summary/opinion, rather than an objective summary of this overall thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Thank you, @Softlavender: I've changed the header. It's curious that WP:ANI procedural guidance for matters such as these e.g. summarising a thread for the convenience of all concerned, is nowhere set out. The matters discussed and their potential impacts are quite serious, yet participants have to work out what the conventions are by themselves. In contrast, as noted, the procedures for WP:FAC are very well set out. As well, within WP:ELEM, anybody can summarise a matter regardless of their involvement in the matter.

    I made no reference to, as you said, "gradually tended towards a resolution of the conflicts between a variety people at ELEM." As I see it, there are no conflicts between people at ELEM. The only "issue" is the concerns raised by myself and R8R re a recurring pattern of incivility by you know who. Double sharp and I have difference of opinion on some technical matters. I've already enacted some of his good ideas and incorporated some of his other suggestions into a proposed way ahead, for further consideration and discussion. That is par for the course at ELEM, which I suspect is no different to any other project. Sandbh (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point you again to ANI Advice, specifically to the section called Desirable outcomes. Although you can't see it, this thread has tended toward a resolution of the conflicts between a variety of people at ELEM, and, with the participation of EdChem, is likely to be successful. That success, and [your] following my guidelines (in the Double sharp section above) would eliminate the need to topic-ban DePiep from the subject. It would also retain a valuable POV that you may not always agree with but that others may. I personally agree that DePiep has behavioral problems, and that thus far he seems to have been unable to see and/or admit those behavioral problems, much less how destructive they are to Wikipedia. But at this point, even though it would resolve a lot of conflict at ELEM, I do not think the TBAN is the best solution per Desirable outcomes. (I think at this point, DePiep is going to end up at ArbCom and/or or long-term blocked if he continues in the behavior patterns he has demonstrated all over Wikipedia. So I personally recommend [a warning of] blocks of increasing length rather than removing him from ELEM altogether. He can take this overall thread, and the feedback he has gotten, as a word to the wise, or not.) Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Speaking calmly, and as a long-standing WP:ELEM member, I again note that there are not "conflicts between a variety of people at ELEM". R8R and I have raised concerns here, about DePiep's behaviour. Double sharp and I have a difference of opinion but cooperate on other matters. I cooperate with, and support, YBG and ComplexRational on other matters within the remit of WP:ELEM, even though we do not always agree on everything. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Double sharp has posted 3,000 words here about his issues/conflicts with you. Your previous recent dispute with him caused him to leave ELEM. YGB stated here that "I found myself surprised by the behavior of ... Sandbh, ... less collaborative than my past experience with him." Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: Thank you. Double sharp and I had a difference of opinion. As he said of himself, he is loquacious. He choose to take a wikibreak as, effectively, we agreed to disagree, and he wanted to await the outcome of the IUPAC report on group 3. He and I have since been discussing a range of matters of WP:ELEM interest on talk pages, and at WP:ELEM, and we reached agreement on another issue. YBG and I continued to discuss WP:ELEM matters at WP:ELEM or via PM. I have continued to support one of YBG's proposals, and am currently discussing a variation of it at WP:ELEM. Mountain out of molehill territory, as I see it. Yes, Double sharp came here in a GF but misguided manner, about our technical difference of opinion, and as this was a content matter rather than a behaviour matter, he withdrew the complaint. Sandbh (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your endless self-justifications and historical revisionism are becoming very tiring, and an enormous, enormous time-sink. And YBG wasn't even talking about your interactions with him (YBG). Please don't respond to this. I am very very tired of all of your circular arguing, self-justification, self-righteousness, refusal to listen, refusal to read, and self-absorption, and I can assure you that the rest of ANI visitors are as well. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I reserve the right to respond civilly whenever comments are made about me or imply my involvement, especially here at WP:ANI. If anybody has concerns about my behaviour they are welcome to raise these via any of the accepted WP avenues. When comments about my behaviour are posted here, and I am asked to please not respond, I feel like I am being suffocated, metaphorically. I would prefer to be extended the courtesy mentioned at the start of this post. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that this is a pretty poor summary. One where anyone with an opposing view was whitewashed from it. Anyone can see that more than one person objected to the T-Ban if they want to read the whole thing. Don't know what you are trying to achieve Sandbh, but it certainly is not accurate in the summary of this mess. As I pointed out before removing one user is not going to solve anything at ELEM. At this point Sandbh, as I have noted before no one has behaved particularly well in the last few months at ELEM and I would advise you and everyone on the project to focus on your OWN behaviour, instead of continuing to make inaccurate statements or rather tedious links to any rules regarding civil behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IMPORTANT COMMENT Sandbh. Will you stop with the running commentary in your summary, updating it every time someone says something or as it appears correcting some of the justified criticism that has come your way with the summary. At this point if an admin were to block you, I don't think many would be questioning it. Games of the world (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Final remarks by R8R

    When I asked myself if I really wanted to participate in Sandbh's first section and what I wanted to achieve, it was that I wanted to stop the pattern in DePiep's uncivil behavior. I did not believe this could be achieved by any other means than banning DePiep from editing chemistry-related articles altogether. Now that the discussion has lasted for nearly two weeks and is awaiting its conclusion, I am only reassured in that thinking.

    Developments since the first ANI started

    When Sandbh launched his request, DePiep was in danger of being banned due to allegations put up by Sandbh. It was in DePiep's best interest to present themselves as a reasonable party in those negotiations, to not give mitigate what impact they had caused and to assure other editors this wouldn't happen again. Since I first joined Sandbh's original entry, however, DePiep personally attacked me by saying that I had attacked them and they were merely adding clarifications, without adding any proof to their statement (all relevant diffs can be found in this section though I can point them out again specifically if anyone requests me to do so), which, as I later learned, was a personal attack (I only learned that because DePiep themselves brought up the relevant rule). DePiep has also exhibited since the inception of this section behavior that was rightly identified by Sandbh as a WP:OWN issue. Softlavender identified that "DePiep is doubling down on his bullying and threats." DePiep also called other editors to a dispute they were involved in and entirely disregarded the other position. And then there was again a WP:OWN issue, as pointed out by EdChem. During the course of the latter, DePiep also claimed I had personally attacked them and refused to provide any proof to that even after I pointed out that such a claim without proof is a personal attack, and even tried to launch a boomerang against me saying that the evidence was "present and hidden." It was only when I pressed again to add substance to the claim that DePiep provided quotes. Still, they did not provide any quote from any rule to back that up even though that would help their case and I had asked for that, too (I did provide quotes myself a couple of times when I pressed a charge). Is this the kind of behavior an editor should be allowed to walk away free after? Again, this was the time when it was in DePiep's best interest to collect themselves and present themselves as a reasonable editor. What could we expect after this ANI is over?

    Remorse

    As I said, I wanted uncivil behavior to stop, that was the goal. For instance, if DePiep had admitted that those personal attacks against myself were made when DePiep wasn't themselves and committed to not doing anything of the sort again, it could be that one would think that DePiep had a change of heart and could still be a useful contributor to the encyclopedia who would not cause any trouble in the future. However, DePiep didn't acknowledge even a possibility of any wrongdoing on their behalf. Worse than that, they tried to dismiss the seriousness of some of their actions. For instance, their remark pointed at myself that told me to "grow up and behave" was, according to DePiep, "a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits" (WP:CIVIL: "No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages," emphasis in original). As for WP:OWN, "motions of "OWN" etc. are talkpage-level statements, to be handled locally" (WP:OWN is an official policy, its multiple breaches are to be reported). Of course, if there is something that DePiep has acknowledged by now and I'm forgetting things, I'm eager to stand corrected. My belief is that this denial hits the the nail in the coffin. To solve a problem, one needs to first acknowledge the problem. DePiep hasn't acknowledged it, and we can't know whether they ever will. (I know, for one, that over the span of the last three weeks, I wasn't always right, but when that was the case, I did acknowledge that on a couple of occasions.)

    ELEM editors

    I am thankful to other longstanding ELEM editors, YBG and Double sharp, for coming in and trying to offer a peaceful solution. I admire the noble spirit of cooperation in which they suggest mediation. However, again, to solve a problem, you need to acknowledge the problem first, and this has not been done, which is why I have little faith in the offered suggestion, as noble as it is. A lot of uncivil behavior and breaches of policies were committed this time, nothing was admitted, no effort was shown to make us believe this would be the last time, and as such, there is nothing stopping us from ending up here again at a later date. In fact, now is the later date set up previously: "DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith."--R8R (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Here's the thing: We've heard from four people at ELEM; two (both of whom disagree with DePiep on issues of content) who have a problem with DePiep, one who doesn't, and one fairly neutral observer who believes DePiep has recently fallen back into old bad habits. It's observable that DePiep has behaved very belligerently and indeed disruptively on this thread; on the other hand, it's somewhat common for people dragged to ANI to be hostile and defensive. It's true that DePiep has a long history of behavioral problems; it's also true that YBG believes DePiep is capable of behaving better and that he has done so in the recent past. It's also true that literally none of the editors in the controversy have ever abided by "discuss edits, not editors" policy when on articletalk and projecttalk. DePiep has received feedback and guidance on this thread (from Vanisaac and others); whether he takes that to heart when he is out of the hot seat remains to be seen. EdChem has volunteered to participate at ELEM. It remains to be seen whether ELEM members can abide by "discuss edits, not editors". Until that has been attempted, assisted by EdChem, and until ELEM determines how to approach consensus and BRD, perhaps turning over a new leaf, laying aside grievances, and starting afresh would solve more problems than sanctions right now. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will add that I at least am ready and willing to do the above. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • At ELEM we very largely discuss content, news, or proposed content, and the occasional edit. Apart from occasional tethchiness we don't discuss editors. As noted, the establishment of consensus within the project has always relied on the normal way of seeking to do so including…
    1. informally, where there is no or minor disagreement;
    2. semi-formally, via a show of hands; or
    3. formally via an RFC, posted at the applicable talk page, usually at the periodic table talk page.
    …noting in all cases that consensus does not necessarily require unanimity (IIRC this was brought to my attention by Double sharp). Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single time you or anyone mentions an editor or uses the words "you" or "your", you are discussing editor(s). You still not getting that after all of the times in this thread (and in the ANI thread you opened prior to this) I have explained that, says to me that you are not taking in what other people say about this entire situation, and that is a problem. And now your apparent wikilawyering that a couple of people agreeing with you is apparently a project-wide consensus, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is another form of WP:IDHT. If you are not going to pay attention to the solutions put forth to resolve everyone's behavior problems, including your own, then that is a problem that will resurface at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment concerned WP:ELEM only. I stand by my comments concerning how things operate within WP:ELEM.
    I apologised at WP:AN for my behaviour in the ANI thread I opened prior to this one. I do not know what more is expected of me in that regard.
    Now I am accused of wikilawyering. No WP:ELEM member has objected to my explanation of how I understand consensus operates within WP:ELEM. As a WP:ELEM member I presume I may provide such an explanation without attracting an unsubstantiated allegation, in this case from a non-WP:ELEM member. You say, "despite all the evidence to the contrary". If there is such evidence feel free to hold me to account. I float lots of ideas and incorporate quite a few in my edits. If a citation is needed I provide it. Yes, I do raise ideas within WP:ELEM. That is what a project is for. Whether or not the ideas are actioned depends on how they are received and literature support.
    Within WP:ANI it seems to me that referring to another editor (such as you have just done, and as I did then) is apparently problematic even though the matters raised here concern the behaviours of other editors.
    If other editors make comments about me or provide IGF advice I reserve the right to respond as I choose (nearly always striving to be civil).
    Re, "solutions put forth to resolve everyone's [italics added] behavior problems, including your own", I feel that most of us in WP:ELEM do not have behavior "problems". We've achieved a lot. I've been editing for nine years with a clean record. I aim to keep it that way for the next nine years. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I wrote closely. "Discuss edits not editors" applies to article-talk and project-talk, because those spaces are for discussing content. In terms of assessing consensus (and BRD), that is clearly unresolved on ELEM or we wouldn't have had so many issues around it being discussed on this thread by nearly all of the ELEM members who have responded. In terms of behavioral "problems", if you would prefer the word "issues" that is fine, but the fact is that there are behaviors of a number of people which need to be modified in order to reach harmonious solutions at ELEM. Double sharp immediately agreed to the new approach. I'm not sure why you would not agree as well. It's starting to seem to me as if you want to get your way on ANI no matter what. You want to remove from ELEM an editor who disagrees with you. That's not what ANI is for, and that's not how Wikipedia works. At this point your extensive and stubbornly restated rebuttals to nearly every point someone makes are becoming endlessly disruptive, which is exactly what happened in the ANI thread you filed. At some point you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK before there are repercussions to this time-wasting. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The continued growth of this thread with repetitive and irrelevant materials is not encouraging me to be optimistic that a resolution of the underlying issues through collaboration / cooperation and consensus is possible... and I am still unsure whether my offer is actually welcome to the majority or even wise. Our mutual goals should be quality encyclopaedic content developed in a collaborative environment, but there are plenty of posts in this ANI thread that seem more concerned with triumphing over an opponent. Please, will all involved in this disagreement try to avoid focussing on personalities and personalising disputes? Further, please please please avoid adding to this thread with things that have already been said. It will (hopefully) be closed by an uninvolved admin who is well-versed in WP policy and who will evaluate the behavioural issues raised, and there is already far too much heat here – I implore all disputants to avoid adding further heat. EdChem (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • re "Final remarks by R8R":
    When I asked myself if I really wanted to participate in Sandbh's first section ... -- You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support immediate block of DePiep for violation of WP:EDRC, specifically incivility in the above comment. VanIsaacWScont 23:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support immediate block in light of this comment and related behaviour documented in this thread. Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support immediate indef block of DePiep, and see if they respond appropriately on their Talk page before setting a length or unblocking. I'm completely uninvolved in this matter, don't know these editors and have never edited in this topic area. Obviously DePiep is a valued content provider, but their substantial block log combined with various needlessly hostile comments here, indicates severe issues working with others. It seems others here are not blameless as well, but blocking a expletive-hurling editor with years of documented issues, who should be on their best behavior when brought to AN/I, seems a good place to start. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Oppose indef block Uninvolved in this dispute and involved in this conversation only to ask for it to close, I have read much of the content of this thread (aghast most of the time) - not all, that would be a mad task - and it would seem to me that goading DePiep into just such an explosion was part of the MO of others here. IMHO (FWIW) block 'em all for a week to let them think things like appropriate, collegiate behaviour over and close this thread. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted, struck expletions. HTH understanding what is happening. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add this observation. In this thread, I have been smeared numerous times, and not once was the smering editor reprimanded or put to check. Not even when I pointed out these false and incorrect accusations (with diffs). Not once. Also I pointed out, diffed, contradictions, incorrect reasonings and flat out "shut up or you'll look bad" threats. No correction. kilobytes of posts I am supposed to counter seriously, while noone seems to read & use my response? And first and foremost, I have argued with diffs that this thread is a reopening of an already closed thread (juridically a strange feat), reopening based on incorrect statements in the OP -- noone took action; instead, incorrect statements were repeated. I might as well 'not feeding the trolls' by not responding here at all -- catch22. Quite probably this unevenness is an inherent ANI problem, but anyway here we are. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I oppose any block of DePiep for the swearing struck comment above. DePiep is just frustrated and justifiably so. R8R keeps moving the goal posts on what he wants and what he thinks is incivil. This is not to excuse his behaviour, but I don't see why you would punish DePeip when others have been just as deplorable in their behaviour seems a little off to me. DePiep has struck the comment and that should be the end of the matter. Games of the world (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Race and intelligence block and ban issue

    Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling in April, the range Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked from Race and intelligence, while the editor was also topic banned. The block expired after three months. At Talk:Heritability of IQ#Claims of "scientific consensus" the IP seems to think this also means the ban expired. My understanding is that ban was indefinite, and the IP editor has not appealed this. As far as I know, they haven't addressed it at all. The use of a huge IP range makes this confusing, and the IP knows this and is clearly taking advantage of it.

    This editor has resumed the same bad-faith pot-stirring and POV pushing which lead to the ban in the first place:

    As this IP shifts very frequently, there is no simple way to notify this editor of this discussion. Notifying the most recent IP would just be theatrics, but I'm sure they will figure it out from other notifications. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the question of whether my topic ban has expired or not, there is something else that ought to be discussed here. The most important reason I'd like these articles to be in arbitration is that there is a banned Wikipedia user who has been editing them semi-regularly for nearly a year, and I would like to present evidence to ArbCom about this editor's identity. I know this editor's identity because until five months ago, I was a participant in a private Slack server in which this person's actions on Wikipedia were coordinated. However, this evidence involves private information, so I think that it would be inappropriate to present it outside of an arbitration request.
    There are a few other Wikipedia users who also are aware of this banned user's actions (due to also being members of the Slack), but the other users aren't particularly active and are unlikely to raise the issue themselves. Thus, I think that having the opportunity to raise this issue with ArbCom myself is the only way any action is likely to be taken about it. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to summarize, you are repeatedly violating a topic ban, but what you really want is to violate WP:OUTING? --JBL (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) IP's revelation that RationalWiki is being deliberately undermined by alt-right parody trolls has led me to the realisation that I need to procure a stouter gauge of tinfoil. Narky Blert (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually know quite a bit more about the trolling at RationalWiki than I initially let on, because this was coordinated in the same Slack server that I mentioned previously. Most of the RationalWiki trolling happened in 2018, and I didn't leave the server until the end of April this year, so I had full view of what they were doing to RationalWiki while it was happening. So if anyone wants a list of some of the articles that I know were written as parodies, or clues that their authors deliberately left so that astute readers would know they were trolling, I'd be happy to provide that. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of addressing the topic ban in any way, the IP claims to have participated in a coordinated trolling campaign which targeted both Wikipedia and other projects. Is this supposed to be a bargaining chip? Since the IP was editing this topic while still part of this supposed slack group, this is an admission to having been part of an off-site trolling campaign. This is WP:MEAT and WP:HARASSMENT.
    Doubling-down on this strained conspiracy theory is disruptive. If the IP editor wants to appeal, they should actually appeal. After that, they can follow WP:OUTING if there's anything to this. If that means creating an account, so be it. It's damning that this only comes up now, as change-of-subject after violating a topic ban. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit to approving of the parody trolling at RationalWiki, but when they started doing the same thing at Wikipedia I never supported it. Isn't that obvious? If I'd supported it, I would have voted "yes" to the proposal in the RFC. I previously avoided discussing the Slack server in public because I wanted to avoid betraying the contents of private correspondence, but keeping something private isn't the same as supporting the trolling or participating in it. And now that I've been removed from the Slack, I also don't feel the need to keep it private anymore.
    And we can stop calling it the "supposed Slack group". The Slack server in question was titled "Quantitative HBD Workspace" and it was located here: http://kirkegaardjp.slack.com/ This server had a channel named "Wikipedia" where the parody trolling at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia was discussed. The server apparently has been deleted now, but that didn't happen until after I was removed, so I don't know whether the deletion was related to what I posted about this in April. 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're avoiding the issue of being topic-banned, and no, it's not "obvious". You actively edited a topic while participating in a private off-site trolling campaign. You will have to create an account and email ArbCom if you want to pursue this.
    So now you know what you have to do. You must abide by WP:BANEX. Changing the subject again isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @IP: Visit User:Arbitration Committee to see how to confidentially report problems such as an active banned user. That page gives an email address you can use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice, but my existing experience with ArbCom suggests they're very unlikely to do anything unless someone requests a case (and maybe not even then). 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How convenient. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A conflict of interest has previously been declared by the IP and is still obvious. If this closes without action a COIN thread is likely a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 08:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! I don't want to get involved in your dispute, nor do I want to file any report against any editor. Thank you. Iroh (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that this IP-editor has repeatedly violated WP:CANVASSING. Near the end of the RfC on race and intelligence [182], the IP-editor went in succession to two admins' user-pages to solicit them to close the RfC, apparently believing that they'd be favorable to the IP's view of it. This is discussed in the section of the archived RfC titled "Discussion of appropriateness of proposed/solicited closing of this RfC". Later, when the IP proclaimed that they were no longer topic-banned and opened a new discussion on the Heritability of IQ talk page [183], the IP canvassed two likeminded editors to join the discussion. I responded that this canvassing was improper, see [184].

    When the IP contacted the two admins about closing the RfC on race and intelligence, in both cases the IP also complained about me to the admins and made accusations behind my back (that is, without pinging me). The accusations were false, and nothing came of them. The weird conspiracy theory that the IP concocted about me at ArbCom has already been mentioned, as has the IP's recent aspersions against me at someone's user-page. The IP's hostility toward me is apparently due to my role in initiating and arguing for the RfC proposal, which was that the belief that certain races are genetically superior to others in intelligence be categorized as fringe. NightHeron (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ban IP editor and reinstate IP block. WP:NOTHERE user is clearly using IP addresses to evade their topic ban and abuse our processes. We would not put up with this nonsense from a registered user. If they have information they would like to share with ARBCOM, they're aware of that process and should use it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban and reblock - I remember this IP and how disruptive they were (detailed by others above); it seems they've resumed those disruptive activities since the block expired, so it should be reinstated, for a longer period of time if not indefinite. Lev!vich 18:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban and reblock - because obviously, but also because of how utterly tedious the trolling is. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the topic ban was not time limited, and although it doesn't look like it was logged it sounds like the IP was aware of it. The block was time limited as IP blocks often are due to concerns over collateral. Since it was only (eventually) a partial block on 2 pages, collateral was limited, still I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's concerns. As always, if the block needs to be extended it should be, I don't think we have to discuss this further. While I'm not opposed to a community site ban, it seems unnecessary to me given the IP doesn't seem interested in anything else. Note that "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" is an exception to a topic ban, but this is generally taken to only apply to dispute resolution surrounding the ban itself. It doesn't include participating in arbitration surrounding the topic unrelated to the ban. And AFAIK while arbcom can still theoretically overturn community bans, their current policy is that they won't. That said, if the IP's only actions had been to open a case, and participate in it and they had accepted the outcome, I personally would have opposed any reimposition of the partial block because their arbitration request was technically a violation. But this isn't what the IP did, so it's their own tough luck. They are still able to email arbcom which sounds like it will be necessary even if they didn't have a topic ban given that it involves private information. Also, I wouldn't actually mind if arbcom decided to allow their participation despite the topic ban and overturned any partial block. However this can only come from them actually talking to arbcom about it, and convincing them and it will need to be restricted to them participating in any case. (Last time they tried, it didn't seem to go well probably in part because they gave no reason why their participation was needed Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 15#Blocked from participating in a request where I'm a party.) Whatever the correctness of the IP's views of arbcom, one thing I'm sure of is nothing is going to happen as long as no one actually does something about this. And since the IP is the only one who seems to think there is an issue, it's going to have to be on them. Arbcom can't do anything about something they know nothing about because the IP has spent all their time arguing over other stuff elsewhere in violation of their topic ban rather than informing arbcom of the alleged problem somewhere they will consider it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Could you please clarify what you're suggesting I should do here? You seem to be suggesting that I raise the issue with ArbCom, but you also are saying that for me to do so would be a topic ban violation. I'm also not clear on how you suggest that I raise the issue with them, because arbitration requests can only be made by registered users. For the reasons I've explained, it would be a waste of time for me to try emailing them about this issue out of the blue, although I could present evidence to them in an email if there was an arbitration case already underway. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm saying it was a topic ban violation, but I wouldn't have cared if that was all you did. However since you spent your time doing other stupid stuff, you now bringing up arbitration as if we're only trying to stop you seeking arbitration is silly. You're in trouble mostly because of the other stuff you did not because if your desire to open an arbitration case. Even if you felt you needed someone else to open the case, this doesn't explain why you were trolling on the talk page about RFCs etc on things unrelated to any arbitration. Also I'm not aware that there is any requirement for an account to open a case. I had a quick look at the guides etc and can't see that it's a requirement although I can't be bothered looking carefully. It's true that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is semi protected, still if I'm right then I assume all you have to do is convince someone that you actually have a reasonable case. This would likely be someone in arbcom or a clerk, not other random people. It's probably difficult since last time that was tried it doesn't look like it went well [185] [186] however that's really none of my concern and it doesn't explain why you did the other crap which just made things worse. If I'm wrong, then you will either need to register an account or instead use email to bring a case. You will still be violating your topic ban after you register an account if you do it on Wikipedia, but again, I think people would care a lot less if this is all you were doing. The moment you start to do other crap in violation of your topic ban is when you really get in trouble. I'm not even sure why you want a public case since it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that could be presented publicly. You've offered no coherent explanation as to why you think bringing a case with good evidence via email will fail just because someone hasn't done something on Wikipedia first. Indeed, from my POV, although I've never served on arbcom, if someone wastes time opening a case on Wikipedia when they can't actually present public evidence, I'm more likely to ignore them since they don't seem to know what they're doing and so are likely just wasting my time. As said already, you doing the other stuff in clear violation of your topic ban and then talking some dumb crap about how your topic ban had expired because the partial block had, is also likely to mean you get less attention. In other words, the more time you waste on this stuff rather than actually bring your case somewhere, whether by email or on Wikipedia as conditions allow, the less likely it is to succeed. You're spending all your time talking about how you want to bring a case, without actually doing it, so the logic conclusion is you know your don't have a case and are just wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention that frankly you trying to open a case on Wikipedia when the case page says "Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page" is another sign to me that your case will be ignored if you try that route. Email is your only option under these circumstances. This doesn't mean you need someone else to open a case first. Putting aside no one is going to open a case when you are the only one who has the evidence, and it's private so not something many are going to want to receive nor can it be posted publicly anyway; as I implied before, it's actually harmful to any prospects. We have processes in place to deal with issues such as your, your refusal to follow them and instead trying to do other weird and unwelcome stuff like contacting random people means you are convincing people you should be ignored. Those processes are 'use email and don't discuss it publicly when the evidence can't be'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There actually is a fair amount of evidence that I would be able to present in public. The banned Wikipedia user who's primarily responsible for the parody trolling was sporadically corresponding with ArbCom via email at the same time, and the timeline of his correspondence with ArbCom closely matches his on-Wiki actions. I know the contents of this correspondence because it was shared on Slack. The person responsible had told the Slack's other members that if ArbCom were willing to unblock him under his main account, he would return to normal editing and not add any more parody material, but ArbCom never unblocked him or (as far as I know) acknowledged his last few messages at all. ArbCom presumably still has this email correspondence in their own records. Thus, I would not necessarily have to send ArbCom any new private material; it might be enough to describe how the private material they already have lines up with the on-Wiki actions of the parody account.
    Anyway, here is the part that matters: if I want ArbCom to open I case, do I have to email them out of the blue, or should I try to convince an ArbCom member or clerk? You're being unclear about that. I'm willing to try the second thing, but in that case I'd need clearer instructions how to do so. When I previously contacted an individual arbitrator (SilkTork) in his user talk, I was told that doing that is disruptive, so presumably there's some better way to do it. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obvious your are trying to drag this out as a deflection. You already know that ArbCom will review private evidence since you claim to have been part of a secret club which discussed this. If you have the ability to participate in a Slack server, you have the ability to create an account! Create an account and use that account to email User:Arbitration Committee. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Will you please drop this issue about me editing as an IP? I participated in Slack using the Slack app, which isn't affected by my inability to use cookies in a browser. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first excuse for not having an account was just that you didn't want to get too involved, then you started changing the subject like you're doing now, then eventually it was the cookie thing. If we accept you were part of an off-site trolling campaign, why would we believe any of this anyway? Nobody is obligated to accept this cookie excuse anymore.
    If this information is private, one way or another, you're going to have to use email. If it's not private, this is just a waste of time. Regardless, this still doesn't explain why you violated your topic ban, cast aspersions and misrepresented other people's edits, spread bizarre conspiracy theories, and even now are canvassing to ostensibly sympathetic editors. You haven't even acknowledged why you got banned in the first place! Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was topic banned for trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), right? And it's the exact same thing that happened to the user "Concerned" at RationalWiki, when he tried to make a similar case about the parody trolling that was happening there. You certainly seem quite determined to allow Kirkegaard's trolling and ban evasion to continue. If you end up succeeding at that, well, congratulations in advance. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I object strongly to the IP's words trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), which suggest that the ban for the IP's ludicrous conspiracy theory about me was unjustified, and that there really is some private evidence from Slack that I'm a right-wing troll who's pretending to be liberal or leftist so that I can later expose Wikipedia for something. Any editor can compare the IP's denunciation of me at ArbCom with my editing history, and see that the IP's slur against me is an outlandish personal attack with no evidence. BTW, I have never participated in Slack. The IP is so disruptive that they even use the opportunity of this ANI discussion to make further attacks and innuendos. As I said, the IP's real reason for hostility toward me is my role in the RfC that was closed with a decision that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the racialist POV on genetics and intelligence is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we may need a range block for the IP. I have reverted and revdel's an edit that contained an editor's first name here. Any admin can feel free to revert me if this was in error. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, the original account of the editor that I'm referring to has his real name on his user page: [187]. Is it outing to mention someone's real name when they have themselves disclosed it? I'm not clear on the exact rules in this area, but if that's outing, I won't do it again. 2600:1004:B154:E893:C872:359A:2878:1012 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) 2600 I thought my post was already clear enough. If you want to complain about something and the only evidence is private, then email arbcom to open a case in private. There is absolutely zero reason to try and open a public case, it's a silly thing to do.

    However if you did want to open a public case, which only makes sense if you have information that can be presented in public, then the way to do that is to either get an account with auto/confirmed status or to contact someone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a case as an IP. It's mostly definitely not posting about other stuff on the Heritability of IQ talk page, not even asking other random editors to do it.

    I have no say on what anyone else does & especially not arbcom, but IMO you are unlikely to be able to convince anyone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a public case if the only evidence you have is private. Especially since you're topic banned from the area and you violated your topic ban to do stuff completely unrelated to opening a case, stuff which strongly suggests you're trolling. You will probably be ignored and told to bugger off, which sounds like it already happened. (This also means any case you open with an account will probably be reverted.)

    If you are really not trolling, well sorry but since you spend all your time doing everything other than the logical thing, emailing your private evidence to arbcom to open a case, it's very difficult to believe you & arbcom is likely to feel the same. Still if you actually have evidence, especially evidence which isn't easily faked, like emails send to arbcom by someone else which haven't been made public AFAAK, there is still a chance you may be taken seriously. (Although that supposes you are "someone else".) The chance is much lower given that you didn't just email arbcom in the first place instead spent your time doing stuff unrelated to opening a case, then asking how to open a case when everyone told you to email. The more you post silly comments or questions here, the lower the chance becomes.

    Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban is still in place; a reblock is likely to impact others. Yes, ArbCom needs to look into this. Agreed that the proper thing to do about the other user[s]' Slack-organized trolling and PoV-pushing efforts is submitting private evidence to ArbCom. And no, doing so is not outing. Pointing out that Kierkegaard used his real name on WP is not outing. Tying that individual to some off-site user at another forum might well be, so use a private ArbCom communication as advised. I think that this user is entirely correct that another user (who opened an RfC on this topic) is in fact intentionally trolling. I had already said so, based on pretty obvious inconsistencies, such as citing far-right "sources" and advancing arguments that are not actually leftist but right-wing parodies of leftism.

    As for the particular user before us right now: I don't see any evidence that the topic-ban has been lifted, though I think benefit of the doubt could possibly be extended to mistaking an end of a block for an end of a ban. I.e., I don't think the anon in question needs additional sanctions placed on them. The t'ban should be enough, and it might actually be appealable at some point, if the user does that properly. I don't support re-instituting a broad IP block unless it proves necessary, since that impacts too many other people. (I find such blocks a regular thorn in my own side; most of my VPN exit points get hit with them, and I sometimes have to bounce around between VPN servers until I find one that will work here, from somewhere like Serbia or Singapore or some other far-flung location nowhere near me, which in turn results in slow loading.)
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC); revised: 21:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish:, please look closer if you intend to repeat these accusations. According to the IP, NightHeron is a "parody" because NightHeron cited The New Observer. Heiner Rindermann is a contributor to quoted in The New Observer, and that's what NightHeron was citing.[188] The specific point was that Rindermann is not reliable. The New Observer is a far-right fake news site which published white supremacist content. That was NightHeron's entire point, so the IP's accusations are nonsensical. Again, NightHeron was citing Rindermann's own words in a fake news site as evidence that Rindermann promotes fringe views. If you accept that New Observer is a bad source, then you agree with NightHeron, not the IP. Nothing about NightHeron's use of this source, on a talk page, in this context, is suspicious.
    The IP also calls Leon Kamin a "communist part member" without linking to that person's name for context. In addition to invoking literal McCarthyism, this is simplistic and misleading. At the time the specific source was published, Kamin was chair of Princeton's psychology department, and he went on to be a Guggenheim Fellow. Kamin is not a fringe source merely because he was targeted by McCarthyism.
    The IP block was never broad. It was specific to Talk:Race and intelligence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The only collateral would be if somehow another Verizon user in the same area, who also refuses to create an account, wanted to get involved in this specific topic. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Rindermann is not a "contributor to The New Observer". The New Observer published an article by someone else that was praising Rindermann, and Rindermann may not even be aware that this article exists. Claiming that Rindermann contributed to this site is a BLP violation, so I suggest you redact that part of your comment.
    Here is what's suspicious about NightHeron's citing of that article: if you click the link he posted to the article he was quoting, you'll see that the article is not publicly accessible. It either is paywalled, or requires registration to view. Why would a real leftist have registered an account at a far-right fake news site, and/or be paying to read articles there? 2600:1004:B118:7657:E86C:A065:4028:3E46 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC) (striking topic ban violation) –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not pay or register to get access to the article in New Observer. I just now tried the link I used, and it has become a deadlink. My purpose, as Grayfell says, was to show that the German racist alt-right enthusiastically cites Rindermann's writings. The quote about Rindermann can now be found (no paywall) in another racist alt-right publication, Vdare [189].
    McCandlish has been around long enough to know about the policies WP:CANVASSING and WP:NPA, so I'm surprised that when the IP canvassed him to support the IP's nonsensical complaint against me, McCandlish obliged. As I said when the IP presented his conspiracy theory to ArbCom, I'll gladly answer any specific accusation if other editors want me to. But the IP's attack on me here is really just an attempt to divert attention from the IP's own conduct. NightHeron (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific article the IP is pointing to is this one, which is available on Archive.org without registration. This is still a huge, annoyingly transparent distraction though. If multiple white supremacist outlets are enthusiastically citing Rindermann, this is a red flag that this author might not be reliable. Mentioning that on a talk page is perfectly reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grayfell, I came to my suspicions through my own analysis and observation, in a discussion in which I was a participant, not at the anon's prompting. Please don't make assumptions about how "closely I'm looking". Please also do not presume that because I have expressed skepticism that happens to coincide with some skepticism (or outright accusation) expressed by this anon, that I somehow agree with every idea and accusation made by the anon against everyone everywhere. I have no interest in debating with you the pros and cons of these various editors (whom you and the anon are naming, not me). My central point is that this is the sort of thing which ArbCom should look into, with necessary but private (per OUTING) evidence. It is not a matter to try to air out in a public venue like this.

    Nightheron, et al.: I assume you're well aware of the fallacy of guilt by association, so it seems weird to have to point out that "the German racist alt-right enthusiastically cites Rindermann's writings" tells us nothing at all about the nature of Rindermann or his writings. (I'm not mounting a defense of Rindermann, mind you, just pointing out that criticism of a subset of his fans is not a criticism of him or his work.) In other words, "multiple white supremacist outlets are enthusiastically citing" all sorts of things, like FBI and DoJ crime and incarceration statistics, yet this doesn't make the FBI and DoJ reports unreliable sources. There's no connection between who likes and uses previously published material (often with intentional or ignorant distortion), and the actual quality of that material, which is to be judged on its own merits (editorial and publishing process, professional assessment within the pertinent field, etc. – what we collectively call "reputability").
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In the course of the RfC on race and intelligence several reasons were given for Rindermann's unreliability, and Rindermann was debated at great length (his name occurs over 80 times in the RfC). Is this really the place to relitigate the RfC? NightHeron (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Implying that there is some reason to be "skeptical" of another editor, without providing any basis, is casting aspersions. Refusing to "name" an editor who has already been named is pointless and confusing. None of the reasons you've given for this skepticism hold up, but more importantly, this isn't even the place for this in the first place, as we all seem to agree. These aspersions are not appropriate here, so casually mentioning them in this way was a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The aspersion being cast by the IP [190] is not directly related to the complaint against them and is a clear violation of their topic ban. This is disruptive and should not be allowed to continue. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. This should never have been raised on-wiki, but through ArbCom-L.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued addition of irrelevant material by User:122.53.222.246 despite one-week block.

    IP blocked for 1 month by Admin Rosguill. Jerm (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    On 29 August 2020, 122.53.222.246 (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week after persistent additions to Timeline of the 21st century against consensus and despite repated warnings. He has now returned and re-added the same material, without discussion. Serendipodous 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:DoctorHver and edit summaries

    RESOLVED
    User DoctorHver has changed their Wikipedia preferences, which should stop more nonsensical edit summaries from being created. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I have notice that DoctorHver, a long-time editor (since 2008) has rarely properly used the edit summary feature (see contributions). This issue has been raised on his user talk page twice ([191] and [192]). As an "acknowledgment" of the most recent inquiry, he summarily deleted my question. While this may not be an earth-shattering bit of vandalism, it does represent a certain attitude that ignores Wikipedia norms. (I should also note the other discussion I have started with this user regarding the wholesale refactoring of various list pages without discussion among the community.)

    I deleted your question about edit summary, because you forgot your signature with that question, so I thought at first that was some IP edit, and I think you are free to remove IP edits from your talk page if they don't sound legit. I was about to restore it and I put your signature on it if thats ok, when you made this complant with the noticeboard. But if you feel better I have restored your question and put your signature on it if you are fine with that. But some time ago, I was altering my settings on my profile and for some reason when I was done, I couldn't publish any edits unless I give edit summary. I wasn't to sure what to do in the settings to fix the problem, So because of that i became used to making this annoying 1 letter summaries. Personally I find this annoying that I cannot do edits without having to do edit summaries, but most epdits I try to do should be self explainatory. If they need explaination I do an proper edit summary on them. So if any admin or mod could know what I should be looking at in mysettings to fix this problem it would be great. DoctorHver (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoctorHver: I apologize for neglecting to sign. I do slip up that way sometimes. However, that does not excuse the practice of not using proper edit summaries. I'm not sure what happened to your settings that forced you to use edit summaries, but you should have used the opportunity to create meaningful edit summaries, even when just reorganizing stuff. A reason why you are reorganizing would be useful. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoctorHver: I believe you may want to uncheck the box labeled Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) in the Editing subsection of your preferences, here. :) Leijurv (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this solves the issue. :) and thanks@Leijurv:. it was getting rather tiresome giving all these meangless edit summares. So no wonder someone like @WikiDan61: thought I was abusing the system and if thats indeed the case then I applogy for that. DoctorHver (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that the issue as described need any administrator action. If the edits are good (which I haven't checked) then it's better that they should have been made, even without an edit summary, than not made. Of course it's even better if an edit summary is provided, but let's not make the best be the enemy of the good. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I whole heartly agree edit summaries are better than no edit summaries but in some cases some edits are just continuation of one another such as if you are reorganizing page. or creating/converting text based list to a table based list. Tebles are very useful and more readable when it comes topic such as films, TV shows, Video games etc. With that said it might be understandable that wikipedia might offer such feature where you can interlock your account in such a manner that you will have to provide and edit summary each time you edit something. Maybe there are some article were this feature might actually be very usefull but they seems to be out of my general scope of editing. So iF Wikipedia wants too make edit summaries mandantory with each edit then I would would be fine with that, as I think would actually help most with the issue of vandalinm as if folks have to explain what they are doing each time they make an edit. Of courese some individuals will probably still attempt to vandalize articles and replace their factual content wwith a gibbrish but I think mandantory edit summary would help along way with preventing incidents were edits get reverted because one editor couldn't understand what another editor was trying to do. DoctorHver (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoctorHver: There is no need to make dozens of edits to restructure tables or reorganize pages; this is what the edit preview feature is for. One edit summary can suffice for a large number of changes in a page. And no, edit summaries are not mandatory; but the pattern of single character edit summaries was disturbing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help/mentoring needed for uncommunicative editor

    This is a contributor who specializes in doing maintenance work of a bot-like or repetitive nature. Specifically, they seem to primarily work in addressing dead links. The user clearly works hard and is trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is an asset to our encyclopedia, but is causing disruption by: (a) being very uncommunicative, (b) failing to use edit summaries or justify edits (this is a particular problem given the mass nature of the edits that the user makes, which create difficulty in reviewing the edits for problems), and (c) not demonstrating a commitment or even effort to prevent errors going forward. Examples of this disruption are all over the user's talk page, where numerous editors (including Magnolia677, Berrely, Ravenswing, Meters, and Pigsonthewing) have tried to communicate over months. Though I haven't had the time to go through the thousands of very minor edits made by the user, some recent representative examples of the kinds of edits that can go unnoticed within these mass changes include Special:Diff/979329087 and Special:Diff/978658384, which broke links in the article.

    Of the thousands of edits that this user has made, only 19 are to talk pages; many of those are not true talk page posts, and even when the user is actually responding to a well-thought-out carefully-composed message the user presents a one-line response without punctuation or even capitalization.[193] [194][195] [196] In these edits the user has shown a disregard for other editors' time spent reviewing and correcting the user's problems.

    I've tried to raise this with the user, but I have been repeatedly put off by the uncommunicative style of the user and am looking not for sanctions, but perhaps for a better approach to guiding or mentoring this user to maintain the work while reducing the disruption. To Cesternino: I want to emphasize that I am not starting this thread because I don't appreciate your work; rather, I'm trying to find a solution that will minimize the burden and disruption your edits create for other editors, while maintaining a space for you to make the productive contributions that you like. Any suggestions? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Honestly, I don't think there is a gentle, kindly way to get this guy's attention: his handful of responses over the months have been of the "what do you mean" "i didn't do nuttin" barely literate sullen type. I doubt ANI will get his attention any more than anyone else has. If he's continuing his antics -- the most obnoxious of which is fiddling with margins and links on other editors' user pages -- then the only way left is the cluebat. Slap a block on him, with a "We will remove this when you begin to meaningfully communicate with us" tag. Ravenswing 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has been editing for nearly 7 months, with not an edit summary in sight, zero communication (or jackass communication). This editor clearly needs an attention-getting block until he (A) starts using edit summaries on all of his edits and (B) communicates collaboratively whenever the situation requires it (which includes when he receives messages on his usertalk page). Until he does both of those things, he lacks the competence to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) It looks like Cesternino is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia pages, but is acting in a "sloppy" way that others are finding very unhelpful, and they are failing to listen, understand and/or act on the advice given. Just one small example: I note, after repeated requests, that they have still used WP:EDITSUMMARIES in just 12 of their 1,600+ edits (0.7%). Hopefully, they will respond here and agree to improve their editing patterns. But if not, a short block to avoid further disruption might serve as notice that many editors have politely asked for improvements, and that they do need to undertake to address this. If it helps them, I'm sure a few bulleted requirements for improvement could be highlighted on their talk page for them to agree to address if they want to then be unblocked and continue contributing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no view on the issues described above, but my only post on Cesternino's talk page was to leave a copy of {{uw-tilde}}, to which I expected no response. To cite that as an example of disruption by Cesternino is at best misleading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm starting to think this is a genuine troll. Editing other people's userpages (24 so far: [197]), and when politely asked to desist says "oops sorry" [198] and "what do you mean" [199]. Makes trollish edits to Wikipedia-space pages (36 so far: [200]), and when politely asked to desist says "Are you joking i am trying to stay out of trouble" [201]. And so on with every trollish edit he is questioned about on his talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm blocking until Cesternino can coherently explain what's wrong with editing in this manner and what he'll do differently if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "but why is my edits Disruptive" (on TP; post-block, unsigned, and [sic]) is not an encouraging sign, in several ways. Narky Blert (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not, especially since I think my rationale was fairly straightforward. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wielding the Salmoninae?

    There is a bad-tempered exchange at talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) following a WP:RSN thread. Emigré55 seems unhappy with the results and The Banner is being goaded. I'm now WP:INVOLVED, so could another admin take a look please and see if Emigré55 needs a warning. Thanks Guy (help! - typo?) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1/ On «following a WP:RSN thread. Emigré55 seems unhappy»:
    Unless I am mistaken or have forgotten, I have not expressed any feeling about it so far, happiness or unhappiness, other than :
    • to the closing of the thread WP:RSN:
    "Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982219698&oldid=982205474
    and confirmed it to Guy here:
    "JzG, You are mistaken. I have written here above that I respect your decision ("Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "). And, on the contrary to what you write, The Banner is the one who asked that you reopen the case, here. And you accepted. Why then blame me/others? Why don't you blame him then for not respecting your initial decision? and fueling instead the dispute, as he enjoys to do, as evidenced in other cases?--Emigré55 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982384939&oldid=982383315
    • to the freezing itself of the main page, I expressed only:
    “That is OK to me.",
    here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982393918&oldid=982393331
    2/ On “The Banner is being goaded”:
    My apologies if I wrote something that mislead anyone to think that I have goaded someone, which never was my intention, on the contrary.
    As Guy did not provide any diff, I frankly do not see where and when I have goaded him.
    On the contrary, I have been goaded several time by The Banner:
    ...I could add other examples if needed.
    The present discussion on this talk page also shows that The Banner has a history for goading other contributors, such as @Eissink:, in my opinion, whom I let express if and how he feels goaded from The Banner.
    I therefore think that, if someone deserves, at least, a warning, it is The Banner.
    As I expressed to The Banner several times, as here: "I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)", I even really feel harassed by him, which I could also further substantiate if needed.
    --Emigré55 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of one of the first "goading" message, posted on my personal talk page, which started in August the harassment I suffered without interruption until then, with numerous other messages of that style, from The Banner: "Nice try to hide your battleground behaviour and the fact that you simple do not have a clue. The Banner talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)"
    Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emigré55&diff=975033946&oldid=975017205t . --Emigré55 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are several people in that discussion (I count at least 5), and everybody is goading everybody. Nobody is refraining from discussing editors, everybody is discussing editors. If everyone goes back and follows guidelines of discussing only content and not editors, everything would be fine. Stop naming editors, stop using the words "you/yours", stop making accusations. Discuss content, policy, guidelines. And if it doesn't get resolved that way, create an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, here, and as far as The Banner is concerned, the problem with him is that his attitude goes back to other discussions too, as I have illustrated by other goading messages from him to me just here above, e.g. on my own talk page, about other articles.
    Another example of a "goading" message to me by The Banner, in another discussion he created, which lead nowhere, after numerous messages to prove him with adequate sources he repeatedly ignored that he was wrong in spite of what he was claiming: "Great, you clearly have no flipping clue. And due to your lack of understanding, you need edit wars and personal attacks. To be honest, you give me the susicion that you and Marc Couwenbergh are identical."
    Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=975030543&oldid=975015946
    In my opinion, a strong warning to him would help calm down not only this very discussion, but all others where he decides to intervene, sometimes with even false statements (which I can substantiate also if needed), creating endless discussions, and also pointless discussions, which he keeps "fueling" this way, literally goading people. --Emigré55 (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat: There are several people in the discussion (I count at least 5), and everybody is goading everybody. Nobody is refraining from discussing editors, everybody is discussing editors. If everyone goes back and follows guidelines of discussing only content and not editors, everything would be fine. Stop naming editors, stop using the words "you/yours", stop making accusations, don't respond to provocations. Discuss content, policy, guidelines. And if it doesn't get resolved that way, create an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, just one question, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I do not know everything: what is an RfC, and, if needed, where can I find guidance and explanations to create one? Thank you in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFC. RfCs concerning article content should be opened on the talk page of the article. RfCs on whether a source is reliable should be opened on WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in the opening sentence, there was already a discussion at RSN. The Banner talk 20:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never accused User:Emigré55 of harassment, something he did repeatedly. Is it strange that I get grumpy? The Banner talk 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ​In defence of Emigré55, and of myself, I like to state that at least initially I am the one that was "goaded" here, by User:The Banner. The disccusion concerning Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), more specifically Couwenbergh's blog as a source, started already in June at Anna van Egmont, after I had removed Emigré55's lengthy addition that I considered copyvio. As can be verified on the Talk page, we had some discussion, wherein I suggested a separate article on the painting be made, before in August Emigré55 returned with a considerably more balanced submission, saying that he was preparing the separate article I suggested. Now of course I knew the reference to Couwenbergh's, being published on a personal blog, was near the edge of reliability, but I was a bit impressed that Emigré55 after months had returned on the subject with a quite different, decent approach. I didn't feel like starting a quarrel over the source, especially since Couwenbergh's comparison made sense to me and drew my interest, but also because Emigré55 was a relatively new user that I didn't want to scare away.

    A day later, The Banner, with whom I have quite a history on the Dutch Wikipedia, seemed to have gotten track of my activity on this project, and out of the blue he reffered to that shared history (which is why I think I can and even have to mention it here, I wouldn't have otherwise) in the midst of a discussion on ANI that he was not participating in, saying "This is a typical example of your battleground mentality that caused you so much trouble elsewhere." [He uses that expression, "battleground mentality", a lot: it must have made an impression when it was given as a reason for his last block; and of course it lays all the trouble at the opponent, basically clearing himself of said mentality; he has, by the way, similar catch phrases, notably where he baselessly accuses others of personally attacking him, always in a reflex to avoid accountability or explanation of his limited arguments]. If he had only wanted to give me a friendly warning, he could have done so on my Talk page, but he chose instead to try to publicly discredit me in that ANI discussion. His very next edit then was to remove Emigré55's fresh submission on Anna van Egmont, which I had more or less approved of. (Notice that he failed to remove the image of the painting that the removed text was about, leaving it in the article without any reference whatsoever, superfluously showing that The Banner wasn't really interested in the subject at all.) Then the six week discussion began, of course hopping over to the article on the painting, that was created soon after (which, consequently, is now devoid of a rather interesting view angle, but that discussion has been settled).

    In the first days of the discussion that developed between Emigré55 and The Banner, I decided not to join it. That was partly because I hoped The Banner would lose interest if I kept quiet, and partly (not unconnected to the first) because I am nothing but traumatized by the conduct of The Banner, who played a significant role in my, still ongoing, September 2019 ban from the Dutch Wikipedia – I can request a revision of that ban coming November, and I have the very unpleasant feeling that The Banner would love to see nothing else than that I could be tricked into a ban here also, which then might help him getting me blocked from ever returning to the Dutch Wikipedia.

    This is how, and not otherwise, this discussion started. Had I not, largely from trauma, jumped to the defence of Emigré55's case, not wanting The Banner to have yet again some sort of victory, while of course thinking Couwenbergh's comparison might be valuable, we would not be here. Talking about "goading", this is my view on it in this case, and it's a very, very sad story. Eissink (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    In fact, your are blocked for a breach of privacy. And I have nothing to do with that. I have also nothing to do with the fact that your appeal with de Dutch ArbCom failed (In Dutch: nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Deblokkade_Eissink). The Banner talk 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you, falsely, try to silence the fact that the ArbCom didn't judge over the alleged breach of privacy (it wasn't). And of course you fail to acknowledge that your conduct was part of the fact that many considered me to be a nuisance that had to be taken care of. I'm not saying I could have responded in another manner when things got heated up, but you have contributed a lot to me being put in a false daylight, don't even try to deny it. And anyone in their clear mind would try to appeal a block at the day it was given, and not many succeed in getting such a block removed, it doesn't say or mean anything. But of course your reaction doesn't surprise me, because all you do now is once again trying to avoid accountability, by trying to remove the focus from you goading me here, which is exactly what you have been doing. Eissink (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I am stunned to discover that User:The Banner has been blocked already 10 times, and in particular for harassment, but for very limited periods. Whereas harassment is exactly what I have been suffering from him for months now. His behaviour, together with the very negative turn of events concerning the contents of the disputed page, largely due to him and his relentless goading actions of others to this very aim too, has nearly killed my desire to further contribute to the encyclopaedia, as I was wrote it an in earlier post to one of the involved contributors, Vexations.--Emigré55 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ow, I do not deny that my block log has something to do with my depressions. But as you can see is my last block from 5 years ago. So why you are contacting HJ Mitchell is a mystery to me. Unless you want to get me blocked because you fail to proof that the blog posts of Marc Couwenbergh are reliable sources and Marc Couwenbergh is a reputable (art) historian.
    But I am not interested in your or Eissinks games and disruptive behaviour. The Banner talk 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare you call my explanation of the sheer trauma that your haunting has inflected on me "games and disruptive behaviour"?! I ask administrators for a block of The Banner immediately. This accusation is crossing all lines. Eissink (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    And to be sure: I have nothing to do with The Banner's pre-2015 depressions (if he had any and not only stipulates them for the comfort of playing victim again), I joined Wikipedia not earlier than 2016, having the displeasure of encountering the person even later. Eissink (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I would have preferred to stay out of this. I did not consider myself involved in this conduct dispute. I have, regrettably, gotten involved in a content dispute, and made an appeal for civility. To no avail, apparently. I urge all involved to return to improving content. Vexations (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor

    47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making unconstructive edits for a long time, with their main contributions being adding unneeded linking of common words, all around unconstructive edits where they do a range of things such as adding unencyclopedic language and change quotations so they don't match the source, often breaking sentences, sometimes veering into vandalism. More examples here, here and here. The user has not responded to any attempts to get them to stop these unconstructive edits and continues to do so. Whether lack of WP:COMPETENCE or unwillingness to engage, the result is a lot of disruption. Eik Corell (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eik Corell, I agree with you, that in general these edits are not constructive at all. But most of the edits are not really disruptive either. There surely is a problem if this anonymous editor does not want to talk about his edits. I'm not an admin, and I don't know much about procedures concerning this kind of things, but I'll keep an eye on it and if there is anything I can do to help you to solve this problem, let me know. --Dick Bos (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Highly disruptive /28 range?

    Is there anything that can be done about blocking a /28 range? Not sure as a lookup of a /28 range on Wikipedia tell that, "The requested IP range is larger than the CIDR limit of /32."

    IP range has been super disruptive, persisting at articles such as Ollie's Pack, Lego City Adventures, and Looped (TV series) for months on end- and I'm sure many others- with no end in sight. Just take a look at the full history of Ollie's Pack here and do a search of "2804:d49", has been at that article since May and continues to this day.

    Just a few of the IPs include:

    ...and plenty more than just those three. According to the WHOIS, it seems like the main source would either be 2804:d49::/28 or 2804:d40::/28. I tried using the rangeblock calculator for these three IPs, and it gave me '2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C/42', so maybe that could be the source? Either way, is there anything that can be done about this easily, or would this need to be tackled by blocking quite a few ranges? Would love to put a stop to this, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The /32 v6 block limit is a santity check, because blocks larger than /32 generally have unacceptable levels of collateral damage. Your proposed /28 rangeblock would block access for every customer of the third largest ISP in Brazil. I believe this is could be a sock of Ednei_Campos_De_Jesus_De_Brito, and I think a short block on the /42 (whilst still a bit heavy-handed) would stem the abuse until they get bored. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if you're using a sample of a mere 3 IPs to calculate a potential rangeblock, that suggests the range you should get will be about as narrow as is practically possible. If you're sampling 3 IPs, and the smallest range you can narrow it down to is /42, then that implicates well over four million /64 subnets. And that's just based on three actually-disruptive IPs. That's a huge rangeblock to deal with one editor. If you factor in more IPs, the range will at best stay the same, and at worst grow substantially larger. And you're talking about blocking a /28 range, which involves nearly sixty-nine million /64 subnets. Once the ranges get that big, they're simply no longer a useful piece of data. At that point it becomes clear that disruption is not limited to a narrow range. The point of rangeblocking is to block disruptive IP-hopping individuals without blocking a greater number of constructive individuals. The goal is to prevent disruption without impeding the general public access. If we have to rangeblock, we only want to block the narrowest range possible, to avoid blocking this public access. Even when rangeblocking is indicated, it's only ever executed if the disruption outweighs the good and the neutral, and as a last resort. It's not something that's ever done lightly, no matter how small the range. You're talking about insanely huge ranges that the software will not even allow us to block. It's just not realistic. Having to block a /32 range is an extreme, last resort measure. If a /32 range is overwhelmingly disruptive, we can do so. I've never seen anything that extreme actually done, but it can be done. But when you talk about a /28 range, you're talking about an already-extreme /42 rangeblock, which is presumably the narrowest possible based on those three IPs, multiplied by more than 17. If you have disruption coming from a /28, then the range is simply not relevant. We will block, page protect, and document LTA all day, but rangeblocking thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people from editing, because of the actions of one or two or three IP-hoppers is not something that is ever going to happen. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating

    I first interacted with Graywalls when they AFD'd the Civic Media Center library. I was alerted to the discussion since it was on my watchlist, I frequently edit articles about infoshops, social centres and squatting movements. I noticed Graywalls was exhibiting battleground behaviour, jumping on every response. We then met on Template:Squatting in the United States and ABC No Rio. At the latter Graywalls was deleting a "see also" section which had become sprawling, I offered a compromise and was reverted. We then discussed and I was not impressed with their appeal to an imagined consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proper_use_of_SEE_ALSO. Graywalls used the term BS which I took to mean "bullshit" and I queried why they would use it.

    Graywalls then popped up at Squatting, making bold edits such as adding "Original research" and "Unreliable sources" to the top of the article without specifying what needed improving. I reverted and asked for clarification on which of the 130+ sources they were referring to. The talkpage debate became acrimonious since Graywalls would link to a guideline, I would reply with my interpretation, then Graywalls would launch into incomprehensible ranting so the debate would grind to a halt, then the BRD cycle would begin again. They were also throwing around terms such as bullshit, garbage, junk which I do not feel are conducive to a cordial debate.

    Overall I found it hard to have a reasonable conversation and started to doubt that Graywalls is here to improve the encylopedia. I certainly lost faith on this edit, where Graywalls reverted me and took out the inbetween edits I had made. I was cross about my edits being carelessly discarded so I said "redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page", Graywalls gave what I thought was a grating apology, then seemed to get angry about my edit summary later. They even came to the brink of 3RR on a talkpage discussion about article rating!? I also started to notice that Graywalls was tracking my edits, for example popping up at Squat Milada.

    Which brings us to today. After i have disengaged from Graywalls for five days, I see that Graywalls has now popped up at Squatting in the Netherlands, saying "search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this" - funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list, especially since I have been editing it these last few days as part of a GA nomination. You could say it's a remarkable coincidence.

    Graywalls has also reverted my edit on Dutch squatting ban, saying "(removing indymedia per WP:RSP and RS/N Oct. 2020)". This despite the only person to respond to my question about this specific source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indymedia actually saying "However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful". Meanwhile, Graywalls had contributed to the debate there by saying "I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back".

    To sum up, I feel that Graywalls is hounding my edits and probably editing not sober, as the replies tend to become incoherent as the day goes on. I am happy to collaborate to improve pages but this now becoming difficult. I have followed the dispute resolution steps and disengaged completely with Graywalls since October 4. Unfortunately their battleground behaviour continues to the point that I feel my edits are being hounded. I am disappointed to have to come here instead of spending my time on content creation. I feel I have already tried to engage with Graywalls and work this through on various talkpages and at RSN, but it hasn't worked. I feel the trend to double down on a position instead of debating is all too common on wikipedia. Normally I can simply ignore and move on, but the acrimony is spread across different pages and shows no sign of abating. Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls' infoshop AfDs are also worth nothing (see, in particular, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)). Their nom-only AfD stats do not demonstrate a great correspondence with consensus, which suggests to me that Graywalls may be interested in nominating articles, particularly about left-leaning subjects, for non-notability related reasons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga:, I understand BS was impolite and you will see I withdrew it, I was just getting quite frustrated in the back and forth. If I come upon articles and problem sources (such as unreliable sources Independent Media Center, blogspot, and similar), I sometimes search them via insource: search. "funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list". Why yes I actually do, and you can check that yourself. I don't edit, or not edit because of you. I am making them because they contain anecdotes and personal accounts and share same type sources. I clarified that to you in talk comment you left. In Squatting in the Netherlands, I noticed it was being processed in GA review, so I actually took it to talk instead of removing it directly to minimize disruption. BTW, for those not aware; IMC includes domains such as Indymedia.org, Indymedia.nl, Indybay.org, Phillyimc.org. The variants are listed in the "Independent Media Center" in WP:RSP list. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @AleatoryPonderings:, I do nominate things in a cluster of similar things if they share similar issues. That was not a good nomination and I should have dug better for sources. I try to avoid these situations, and I do actually dig around deeper for sources after that happened. My decision to nom things are not based on left leaning or not. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hell_Shaking_Street_Preachers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camilla_Tyldum.
    Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga:, as I already [retracted about an hour after it was originally said once you made me aware that it was offensive to you. I apologize if "BS" used in the context of my frustration with the argument. It's interesting that you keep insist on inserting sources like Squat.net, Indymedia.org even though you seem to be well aware of proper sourcing as can be seen here. It's rather contradictory that you're here using directed slight against me such as the unwarranted and untrue accusation that I am "not editing sober" when you came here partly to express your concerns about my language. In a different, but similar concerns about introducing contents based on questionable sources, you took to making attack on the other editor like calling their edits "vandalism" in your content dispute just as you labeled my edits "trashed" where it seems to be you were suggesting the onus was on them to prove the sources are not reliable source rather than on you to show sources are RS to be included. While you're not using swear words, you're making here directed attack such as accusing them of driving editors away. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the issued raised by OP, there are WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns about Graywalls's photo uploads. These were uploaded as "own work" and added to articles with the following captions and edit summaries:

    Is #8 a social distancing criticism? Additionally, (9) I'm scratching my head about adding a picture of an alarm system to Wapato Corrections Facility and (10) this image might be copyvio. Haven't gone through all the uploads or looked at other edits, but in looking through uploads, these ones jump out. Lev!vich 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Levivich:, I am not seeing how this relates to anything here. The mural picture was taken by myself and it is of relatively low resolution as part of the view of a park. No concerns about copyright have come up and if you believe that's a concern, I am happy to try to resolve it. And I don't know where you're going with the alarm panel. That seems like a content dispute. No issues have been raised before. #8 is visualizes the observations made by one of the newspapers; with my own picture since I happened to have one. "social distance criticism" where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding the images especially problematic, and suggest NOTHERE problems. Behavior aside, there are NOT, OR, and POV problems with these images and their use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is about your editing in articles related to squatting (homelessness). Photos #1-5 are about homelessness, welfare, and drug addiction. #6-8 are other examples of OR/NPOV problems with photos. #8, "a number of workers close together in July 2020" is not really accurate (three might be a number, but "a number of" implies "many") and overly focuses on "close together", implying the company is ignoring social distancing protocols during the pandemic (July 2020). Otherwise, why would you write "close together" instead of just something like "a Hoffman construction site"? #9: why are we including an alarm system photo in an article about a facility? Seems like ... well, not a great idea to publicize that kind of information. #10: Unless you painted the mural, I believe it's copyvio for us to publish a photograph of it without the author's permission. Lev!vich 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't willfully put infringing images, but I took it down until it is figured out. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    99. Tax cheat living in public housing
    Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. EEng 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that they want to work for a tabloid rag or internet shaming site rather than an encyclopaedia. Very poor quality photos of zero encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would anyone think that these photos and captions are suitable for the encyclopedia? Number 4 just blows the mind, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng:, it was built as a jail and it was never put into use and this is what the building is notable for. I didn't name the article so that isn't my issue. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: - It looked rather interesting and someone who has never seen inside of such a building might find it cool too. Who knows if it's even in use. It's part of the original install back in early 2000s. The pictures weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. If you take contents issues with that page, why haven't you taken it to the article's talk page? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there are ten of them. (Maybe more, I just stopped at ten.) Lev!vich 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remove a copy and paste of the Belinda Johnson article into their user talk page, without attribution, which also put mainspace categories into their user talkpage. It should be noted that it was not Graywalls that pasted it into the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Endofcity and Clive Tyldesley

    I recently spotted that there was a claim in the Clive Tyldesley article that the subject is referred to by the nickname "The Ghanaian" in reference to a perceived bias in his commentary of the team's games at the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Although a source was cited, it was a very recent source that looked to me like it had taken its info directly from Wikipedia, and as I was unable to back up the claim in any other sources, I removed it from the article. Within hours, it had been restored by User:Endofcity, who ignored my comment on the article talk page (see here) and claimed without justification that the source was reliable and thus the claim was valid. Having done more research, I have discovered that Endofcity originally added the claim in 2016 (see here) using a different source (now a 404, archived here). As you can see, although the source acknowledges Tyldesley's bias towards Ghana, it does not mention him being referred to as "The Ghanaian". Because I apparently have a decent standard of evidence for including information on Wikipedia, Endofcity has now baselessly accused me of being a fan of Tyldesley, or even being Tyldesley himself, and refuses to engage in discussion on the article talk page. There is clearly a slow motion edit war going on here on their part, and I suggest it not be allowed to continue. – PeeJay 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add, I've googled the terms tyldesley "ghanaian" and the only matches that come up are mirrors of Wikipedia or sites using the exact same wording as Wikipedia, hence my suspicions that they have cribbed notes from us and simply copied the site verbatim. Hardly reliable sources if they're using Wikipedia as their own source. – PeeJay 13:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have tried to explain to you, the nickname is in widespread us in certain parts of the UK. Whether you have heard of this or not doesn't mean it's not true. Plus, there is a credible citation. Quite why you are getting yourself so worked up about this matter is beyond me and I don't think it fair, nor respectful to swear aggressively at other users. If it's this important to you, delete it and I won't re-instate it. I also don't think this board is the place to attempt to resolve such a ridiculously petty issue.--Endofcity (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A UKian writes: Which parts of the UK?[which?] Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've claimed the name is in widespread use, but you haven't provided any evidence to back that up, other than your word. The citation is not credible for the reasons I explained above. If you say you won't reinstate the info, that's good enough for me, but the evidence to date has been less than compelling that you will accept anything other than a spurious nickname being included in this article. I totally agree that such petty disputes shouldn't get to this page, but when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and your only edits to that article before today have been to include this nonsense nickname, you rather force my hand. – PeeJay 14:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every time some stupid controversy like so-and-so's nickname wastes the community's time, it hastens the day that we simply drop all coverage of football personalities (other than Pelé, of course). So keep it up. EEng 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure how that helps the discussion, User:EEng, but thank you for your input. – PeeJay 14:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm playing the long game. EEng 05:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hoof it and hope? Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't comment here on the content issue, but reverting back and forth on this isn't productive. Endofcity, the content has been challenged, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are reliable sources that support this assertion. Please discuss this with other interested parties on the article talk page, and gain consensus before reinstating the content. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive IP/account

    194.56.199.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has left a charming but illiterate message for me at Commons. FDW777 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the edit summary of blocking people who were putting truth out there, he didnt like it so decided to block me and the editing (constant changes of Derry to Londonderry) this IP would appear to be Calebemerson2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked that IP as well. They've been on my list for a bit due to their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) 194.56.199.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 2 weeks. I've also lengthened Calebmerson2's block. The changes of Derry to LondonDerry look like they might be automated. For the attack on Commons you'll have to report to admins on Commons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your speedy action. FDW777 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User JPS1965

    WP:SPA account, edit-warring to include an unreferenced year of birth in Lola Astanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No edits other than to this article. The use of edit summaries suggests that others' edit summaries have been noticed, if not the warnings on the editors talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adder of exact dates

    A few days after the end of a week-long block, User:95.175.85.38 has resumed the behavior that led to the block. It isn't explicitly vandalism, but it's a matter of adding exact dates to articles where previously only a year, or a month and year, had been given, without supplying a source to support each date. This is after another editor had challenged some of the dates. When this user supplied a couple of sources, neither supported the claim. The user was asked, therefore, to supply sources for any dates added, and was directed to the instructions for doing so multiple times. Yet, at User talk:95.175.85.38, the user continues to ask "How do I do this?" as though ample direct instructions hadn't already been given. Another block? I wasn't sure this would count as vandalism so I'm asking here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I find the rapid-fire addition of these dates suspicious. It's as though the user is either making them up, or else has the source material under their nose, yet still has not managed to cite it after numerous requests to do so. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has also used 95.175.71.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same unreferenced edits and warnings. Perhaps a rangeblock is in order, as the person is taking no notice of advice and warnings. David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality

    Hello ANI,

    On the following page, French Revolution, a user has been altering very sensitive information in the article, removing references, and rewording statements without any synthesis having been achieved on the talk page. The user – Robinvp11 – makes edits of his own accord despite at least three editors in the discussion being out of agreement with him and no consensus having been reached. He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem (or simply does not respond at all) and does not seek input from other involved editors.

    The neutrality of the article has now come into question, and a tag displaying such may need to be added. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Please be aware in the future that users in question must be notified on their talk page as per the policies noted at the top of this page. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than happy for the ANI to review the entire thread, which began when the individual above (a new editor) unilaterally changed the Lead of a key article to reflect an extremely contentious minority perspective and the page curator asked for support. I believe you'll find exactly the opposite; my apologies in advance and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point out that posting in the discussion is normally interpreted as seeking input from others. I also don't see a need for a NPOV tag. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To correct an above misstatement, the page was not "unilaterally changed", nor did the "page curator" ask for support. The individual who raised the discussion had no connection to the page nor had any knowledge of the topic. User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers, without even providing a response to the user's lengthy post on the Talk page. Further, user Robinvp11 has removed information and primary source material that was not even under discussion; only two specific statements were being contested. The page should be reverted back to last edit by Gwillhickers, which is last point at which consensus was reached.
    Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @021120x: User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers. Emphasis in original. Do you have any WP:DIFFs? I can't find Gwillhickers ever editing the article in the past few years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran a search through User Contribution Search and Gwillhickers has never edited the article proper (just the talk page on September 11 and 14), so you'll have to clarify what you mean by "consensus lede". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Tenryuu 🐲, I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. That lede summarization reflected what had been discussed on the page and was a synthesis of the contributions; subsequent edits have been done of the editor's own accord and have entirely changed the meaning of the lede paragraph – along with removing material that was not being contested. 021120x (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time in six years I've been involved in one of these, so I'm not sure how this works. Since an ANI escalation is relatively rare, I'd like to make a couple of points.
    (1) The edit history for 'French Revolution' is clear; it shows (a) Gwillhickers has never been involved in editing the article. (b) the changes were inserted by User 021120x on 28th May, and (c) I am not the first person to object; they were removed on 24 June, a change later reversed by User 021120x on 25th on the grounds of Vandalism.
    (2) On User talk:021120x there is a lengthy explanation by User:Acebulf as to their concerns re the edits made to the Lead, and that "you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact."
    (3) While I'm happy to assume Good Intent, the explanation provided above at 17:07 is not an accurate summary of the discussion on the Talkpage;
    (4) If you look at the article on American exceptionalism, User 021120x has reversed edits because they represent "a critique of the US created and propagated by European scholars". The same person who persistently denies the validity of European views on the US is now attempting to insert a perspective on the French Revolution which is a minority view even among American historians, and accusing me of 'lack of neutrality.' Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. I assume you're referring to this diff?
    He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem [...] The only places that I could potentially construe as condescension are
    • For the third time [...]
    • I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same, and
    • maybe read them yourself?,
    though they seem to be born from frustration of a point that's going nowhere.
    As a casual observer, I don't really see any blatant instances of incivility or personal attacks (ad hominem). Is there heated disagreement? Yes, but in my opinion it hasn't escalated to requiring administrator attention. In fact, this problem seems to be a better fit over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as the majority of the problem appears to be coming from source interpretation and the application of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Robinvp11 and 021120x to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @021120x: That would make it a content dispute, not a behavioural one. Please provide WP:DIFFs of Robinvp11's comments that you find to be uncivil or making personal attacks, as I'm just shooting in the dark and playing the guessing game as to what was considered behaviourally inappropriate.
    He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Emphasis in original. Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. I don't see any discretionary sanctions being imposed on editing this area of Wikipedia (and scouring your talk pages doesn't turn anything up), nor are there page notices that appear when opening the editor window like COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenryuu: Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. The editor's rationale was that the removals and alterations were following the discussion on the talk page, which they largely were not.
    Examples of uncivil tone, ad hominem, condescension:
    • For the third time...
    • I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided
    And nearly the entire post as signed on October 9, which begins with, "I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same." is littered with vitriol and ad hominem.
    Additionally, the only reason Acebulf has become involved is because he has been stalking my contributions across multiple unrelated topics and pages, going against Wikipedia's policy of Hounding.
    There was a further contribution from another editor on October 11, 2020 which now presents a more balanced viewpoint, and it seems that the leading paragraph has been adjusted to reflect this. A discussion will be opened on the dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested. 021120x (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @021120x: As I've said before, please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone or just provide context in general: it makes it a lot easier to follow when things have happened and who did what. If Robinvp11 wants to explain their rationale for making that edit they're more than welcome to do so, but so far I don't believe anyone mentioned here needs to be sanctioned or blocked. Please take this to the DRN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment from involved editor. The editor that brought this thread has made controversial edits and refused to address them with anything substantive. As such, the consensus brought forth from the RFC is that they should be removed. Perhaps requesting administrative closure on the RFC would solve this entire situation. Acebulf (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Acebulf, it appears that the RFC was opened on September 6 and closed on October 6, but looking at what's on the talk page, I'm not sure anyone can assume that the RFC consensus is that they should be removed; rather, it doesn't seem there is a consensus, which is when I believe WP:STATUSQUO would come into effect. In this case, I think that would still have the same result as removing those claims.
      That being said, a formal close would probably help alleviate the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LordLiberty

    User:LordLiberty blocked indefinitely by Admin Voice of Clam Jerm (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

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

    Could some admin please take care of this posting at my talk page which is a spillover from Commons, see here. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Personal attack removed) LordLiberty (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack/harassment threat removed per WP:CIVILITY. Historical record at [202]. Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: GeneralNotability has temporarily blocked the user in question for 31 hours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now blocked indef with talk page access removed following abuse in unblock request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Threats and dubious decision by Ymblanter

    Although Ymblanter arbitrates articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, he/she has repeatedly made obvious pro-Azerbaijani decisions. The latest dubious one was when he renamed and protected [203] [204] the new name of the village used by president Aliyev in Twitter, three days before it was officially renamed by the Azerbaijani parliament. After I pointed this out to him, he twice tried to threaten me [205] [206], calling me "Dear user with 68 edits" and claiming I'm uncivil. Vaan23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boomerang for this personal attack, which as far as I can tell, is the only attempt Vaan23 made to discuss this before coming to ANI. Lev!vich 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vaan23, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to be able to make any meaningful comment on whether or not this is a case of the wrong version or not; it also doesn't really matter. As Ymblanter has pointed out, the venue to litigate that is WP:RM. The point of move protection is to prevent move warring and have people talk it out, not to enforce the protecting sysop's opinion. I do however agree with Lev!vich that your comment did constitute a personal attack; while references to edit counts might not be the nicest thing to say, accusing people of acting in bad faith to promote a dictator's interests is far worse. I recommend you retract that statement. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaan23, I don't know which of Ymblanter's edits you consider biased or unjustified; if you want to have a discussion about bias, you'll have to provide diffs supporting your argument. Again: I recommend you retract your statement and apologise. Whether you agree with the actions Ymblanter has taken or not, accusing him of being in the pocket of a dictator is not acceptable – and it is definitely not conducive to actually having a constructive conversation about your grievances. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I indeed seem to be the administrator who has recently been most involved with arbitration enforcement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. As you may know, a few days ago a war resumed over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, with a lot of disinformation from both sides of the conflict, and this resulted in a lot of partisan editing on Wikipedia. None of the sides likes what I am doing, and I was repeatedly accused in being pro-Armenian, anti-Armenian, pro-Azeri, and anti-Azeri editor. I will be by the way really delighted if some other administrators show any interest in the topic, and I then have more time for other things, which I find, to be honest, more interesting. Anyway, after I semi-protected Suqovuşan, Tartar for 6 months as arbitration enforcement due to the extensive disruption and move-protected it at the WP:Wrong version after I have seen repeated moves of the article, it happened to stay at the Azeri name, which made Armenian users particularly unhappy. As a result, Vaan 23, a relatively new user, accused me and Solavirum, whom I do not know, in "distorting the facts" [207]. Well, I am obviously aware of the fact that as administrator I am subject to a greater number of personal attacks then I would like to, and that my actions are supposed to be scrutinized, and in most cases I just let the accusations go. However, distorting facts is not an aspersion I will let stand on Wikipedia. I suggested that Vaan23 apologized, and Solavirum left a message at their talk page warning about personal attacks. Vaan23 ignored both messages and continued editing. When I realized this, I made clear to them that they need to apologize and strike down the aspersion, otherwise I would take them to ANI. Apparently, they decided that the best strategy is not to apologize, but to go to ANI and to double down repeating the aspersion and portraying me as a pro-Azeri editor. I am afraid at this point we need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vaan23:, whereas this is a step in a good direction,. it is not really acceptable since I was responding on your old statement, not on the new one. You should have crossed out the old statement and add the new one. For the record, I obviously do not consider my edits biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Vaan23, please be calm and patient during discussions. Anyways, as I've been tagged here, and kinda a part of this issue, why not give my opinion about it. Vaan23 called Ymblanter (and for some reason, me) of being 'ahead of a dictator and distorting facts', which violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and I left a message informing Vaan23 here. And this application is just WP:BUNGEE. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • .
    • Ymblanter earned himself quite a notoriety by pushing his anti-Ukrainian as well as anti-LGBQT views in his edits and reverts on List of people from Ukraine. See, for instance, just a small sample of his edits and reverts [208] and [209]. In the first of those, Ymblanter deletes the LGBQT section in List of people from Ukraine, while simultaneously claiming that the editor who added this section is blocked from Wikipedia for calling Ymblanter a homophobe. As Ymblanter puts it, "for unfounded accusations in homophoby". No less. In the second edit, Ymblanter likely sets the Wikipedia record for the most succinct justification of a revert, by entering just "wtf?" for an explanation. Should the guy be given some sort of uncivility medal, perhaps, as soon as possible?
    • Ymblanter also launched quite a few of personal attacks on distinguished Ukrainian editor User:Mzajac and mass-reverted the edits of this editor on Ukrainian spelling of the name of Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, while threatening the editor with bans - see for instance [[210]] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C: Asking an editor to stop their disruptive edits is not a personal attack. Neither is threatening to seek consensus for a topic ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Mzajac is obsessively trying to rename any mention of the Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'", despite opposition by other editors in an ongoing discussion. Ymblanter was justified in reverting the article to its previous state. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No he was not justified in reverting that spelling change in a non-historical article on a Ukrainian subject, which is not being discussed. It’s another example of editors who refuse to accept the consensus RM of Kyiv, staking out “historical articles” as their fighting retreat, and then counterattacking anywhere and everywhere they think they can. Now they’ve enabled each other to revert, disparage (“obsessively”? Sour grapes, Dimadick!), and claim everything is being discussed to put a chill on progress. If you have specific edits of mine you have a problem with, list them at an ANI, and justify your objection with specific guidelines and facts. In the meantime stop slagging me in public and disrupting my editing. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C If you see Ymblanter continue to conduct personal attack among other editors, I suggested you to report the administrator to AIV because vandalism from administrators and see what consensus to be. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks to be a content dispute, with plenty of edit warring from both sides. I also can't see much evidence of Ymblanter's wrongdoing here; indeed, those who are bringing grievances here are WP:BOOMERANGing themselves.
      • [211]: Addressing a message to someone this way is not a PA. Sure, as mentioned above, not the nicest way to word things, but not a personal attack nevertheless.
      • [212]: Don't see how this is a PA either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had an issue with Ymblanter negatively labelling a recognizable group, and specifically me. It was only in a single comment, but I asked him to remove it, and he did so grudgingly, making it clear that he did not see anything was wrong with it. I blame this on a permissive environment for such offensive remarks in talk:Kyiv and related articles over the previous months and years, despite their being subject to discretionary sanctions in topics related to Eastern Europe.
      • The full comment, with my emphasis: (ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.-- This was two weeks after the community demonstrated consensus to rename Kyiv.
      • Our discussion on his talk
      • His initial token strike and comment while reinforcing his intent.
      • final strike.
      This is not about edits or article naming, it is about labelling individuals and groups, creating and reinforcing negative national or other stereotypes, and thereby letting others infer the community’s permission to indulge in and escalate such language. I have seen many other negative and indefensible comments by other editors about “Ukrainian governmental interference in the process,” “Ukrainian nationalists,” “Ukrainian trolls,” “the torrent of nationalistic fervor,” “how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes,” a “Ukranian 'invasion',” and so on. I don’t see much point in a specific sanction over this. Some others have made worse comments, repeatedly, and shrugged off any criticism. But I have started to recognize a pattern of tacit reinforcement, and decided enough is enough, now. It would be nice to get some expression from the community that this toxic rhetoric is no longer welcome. —Michael Z.
      • Based on what I saw in the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv - many editors indeed are routinely labelling a recognizable group of editors, who edit anything tangentially related to Ukraine, with derogatory language described above by Mzajac to belittle them and/or silence them. Recent case in point - editor felt it was okay to say that "English Wikipedia allowing "certain" editors to make Kiev->Kyiv changes on Wikipedia" is akin to "European powers allowing Germany annexing of Czechoslovakia" - I do not have a problem with an editor who wrote this and I even suspect maybe that they did not realize the gravity of the words they wrote (I even told them myself that, frankly, it is probably best to take this whole "Ukrainian nationalists editors invasion" thing as humorous hoax)), but regardless of someone's possible good intentions when writing such things, these repeated inflammatory comments from a large number of editors against a recognizable group of editors who make edits on Ukrainian topics do not make this group feel welcome on English Wikipedia. In terms of how to respond to this: again based the discussion from the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv, it seems that the majory of the community does not care about this, with only two admins taking an active approach on this in that discussion: Mzajac made comments on Talk:Kyiv that he thinks such anti-Ukrainian rhetoric being used routinely and nonchalantly is toxic to English Wikipedia, while Ymblanter actively reinforces this kind of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. I do not know what can the community do about this (and if it is even possible to find a workable solution to this), but this is probably not good for the community if this continues any longer.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ymblanter: You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this is Piznajko who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Well, now in the above topic we got aspersions cast against me by three users: One user is relatively new, one is an LTA, and one is an administrator. I do not consider any of the accusations valid and any of the aspersions justified (though I am sure diffs can be found and carefully presented showing that in some episodes I could demonstrate a better behavior). I am not quite sure what the community expects of me now. Ideally, I would do nothing, but last time I have chosen to do nothing in a similar situation the consequence was that a significant fraction of the users believed the aspersions. I would welcome advise from users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter, I didn’t think I was casting any “aspersions.” I accused you point blank of insulting me and any editors from a national group you decided to associate with me as the next best thing to nazis and fascists, in a public forum, and refused to admit anything wrong with that. Sorry if I was too polite for this to be clear. —Michael Z. 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. May I ask if you’re saying I should happily accept the label “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist” without looking up what that means? I apologize for that to everyone that I’ve wronged by it.
    Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits? —Michael Z. 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @TheDragonFire300: this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, @RogueRickC137:. Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack". My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists could be a reference to past disruption by said ultra-nationalists. Or a personal attack against those in the dispute. Then again, this is an uninvolved editor's opinion, so it could be read differently by those in the dispute. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was not clear the first time. I read your comment as a sarcastic challenge.
    Ymblanter’s comment labelled me and an unspecific group of editors POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists. Apparently the “POV” is that the consensus name Kyiv is used in articles where it is not challenged. The comment was part of a long exchange that Ymblanter entered with this comment, referring to an edit that I had made, they reverted, and we discussed.
    When I look up ultranationalism, which I linked above, I see that this is a political view. Having not discussed either my nationality nor my politics with Ymblanter, I assume Ymblanter is applying the label to me and to Ukrainian editors strictly for its negative associations, and using a negative stereotype that is found in hateful anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. That article’s second and third sentences say “When combined with the notion of national rebirth, ultranationalism is a key foundation of fascism. Some ultranationalist organisations have been designated as terrorist movements by certain nation states.” Since Ymblanter brought editors’ politics and nationality into it, I would suggest that they have actually revealed something about their own views on politics and nationality in the offending comment, and offer them the opportunity to clarify those views. —Michael Z. 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but may be you should assume less and actually read and listen more.
    I have explained my views at least several times, but you just dis not listen.
    Let me try again and let me be very clear.
    We had a RM which was concluded as move Kiev to Kyiv. I did not participate in this discussion and in fact had the page unwatched.
    You have understood the conclusion that it meant that (almost) every instance of Kiev must be replaced with Kyiv, with the possible exception of Chicken Kiev. You indeed started to move everything. In particular, you started to replace Kiev and Kievan Rus' in historical contexts, i.e. applied to the entities at the time the term "Kyiv" does not exist. Other users disagreed with you. I reverted on a couple of occasions (and I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions I have not reverted).
    I opened the topic at ANI. You never reverted me back, but continued to make changes to other similar instances.
    We also had influx of editors whose only contribution was to massively replace Kiev with Kyiv. One of them moved Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv, another one was doing replacements in the articles on Kiev Governorate.
    JzG has opened an RfC at Talk:Kyiv concerning the historic usage, You actively participated in that RfC and badgered every single support, bringing all kind of arguments, to the point that people got tired and stopped replying to you because they thought it is useless.
    Now, during this RfC you continued to replace Kiev with Kyiv in historical contexts, even though you were perfectly aware of the RfC ongoing and that it does not have a clear cut consensus for this replacement. I suggested one that you stop, I suggested another time that you stop. Other users suggested that you stop. You have not stopped.
    You have seen the argument that the overwhelming majority of sources currently use Kievan Rus' (or Rus) but ignored it, continuing to insist that Kyivan Rus' is the only proper form since Kiev was moved to Kyiv.
    As a result, we have I do not know how many - hundreds? thousands? instances of Kyiv in the articles which are doubtful, and even before the RfC has been concluded. This is exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like to see on Wikipedia. I have written this. Now, you have thoroughly ignored everything I was saying before that, and instead said something that there is a group of people who is not ready to accept that Kiev is now Kyiv and so on. Now, you suddenly assumed that I wanted to say you are a Nazi.
    But I said what I wanted to say, and not even necessarily anything about you. I apologize if you have understood in this way, this was not my intention.
    You came to my talk page and proposed me a deal - I strike this reply, and you stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv for a month. This did not make sens to me - either replacing Kiev with Kyiv is correct, and then you should not stop it, or it is not correct, and then you should stop it forever, or at least until the consensus changes. I first said no. Then I had another thought and removed my comment.
    Shortly before this, another user told me that I looked like an active promoter of Kiev. That was a clear sign to me that I should stop. I still think that what is going on is massive disruption, but I decided that if I am the only person who cares, I will let it go. If many users share this feeling, they will find some way to stop the disruption. I probably should have stopped earlier.
    And I did. And I have not written anything about Kiev/Kyiv for more than a week, except for one message at AN, which was merely to support another user.
    And now you came to the ANI topic which was not even about Kiev and hijacked it. I tried to make a subsection, and you hijacked it again. I am not sure what I should do. Last time I had such a pressure was from Fram, and we all know what the final result was.
    And, to finish this wall of text, my motivation is not to impose pro-Russian views, not to label you a Nazi, and not even to keep Kievan Rus'. My motivation was to try to enforce WP:CONSENSUS. I failed miserably, and nothing good came out of it. I am sick of all this bullshit to be honest. However, I maintain that you do not have a slightest idea about my political views, and you will never be able to derive my political views just looking on my edits. It is very convenient to label everyone who disagrees with you (and dozens of users disagreed with you) but this is not how Wikipedia works.
    I do not intend to resume this Kiev/Kyiv debate in any context, but unfortunately per WP:ADMINACCT I had to write this explanation - which I have provided to you at previous occasions, at no avail.
    Now could we finally stop this please? I am not editing in the topic area and I do not intend to edit in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and Forum-shopping by Buidhe

    I will state up front, this is not me looking for an alternative resolution to the ongoing content dispute. This is instead narrowly focused on Buidhe's persistent low-grade disruptive editing and their WP:FORUMSHOPping. And I fully expect my conduct to be reviewed as well, as is the norm.

    A while back, Buidhe and I began a content dispute and near-edit-war over a paragraph lacking sources at Internment. Buidhe removed it, I reinstated it, they removed it again, I reinstated it with sources, they removed it again, etc.

    We went to the Talk page to discuss, which went nowhere. This included Buidhe repeatedly changing indenting style after being asked not to, reversing the wording of a source to claim it says the opposite. They also refused to reinstate the longstanding article text while under discussion, so after a couple days I reverted to the unsourced version from before the dispute, in the interest of fairness. All of this is super-low-level stuff that, individually, does not warrant being here.

    When we went to DRN, where our dispute is currently open. The moderator (pinging Robert_McClenon) found both suggested versions of the paragraph in question to be factual. Despite this, Buidhe has repeatedly stated the sourced original version failed verifiability: [here], [here] (in referencing "content policies" and describing their own interpretation sources), and [here]. (ADDENDUM: the repeated the claim about lacking facts and verifiability in their RFC !vote, [here].)

    While this DRN case is open and ongoing, Buidhe has now engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPping, by starting an RFC at the talk page. In opening the RFC, they didn't use the sourced version of the article to be replaced, as it existed before they removed it during the near-edit war (remember, I reinstated the pre-dispute version for fairness to the process), or as I had provided at the ongoing DRN case. When I tried to update the RFC to reflect the sourced version, they reverted it and part of my talk page comment, claiming the RFC shouldn't be adjusted only hours into it because a couple others had participated. Note however, they themselves adjusted the RFC in response to votes that had already occurred.

    Finally, they removed a part of my !vote, claiming it was "discussion", despite it being my own addendum to my own vote and not in response to any other editors.

    This has been a long process of slowly-disruptive editing, culminating in forum-shopping and direct edits to talk page comments (in addition to removing parts of a !vote), and so regrettably, at Buidhe's insistence, I have decided to come here. I welcome a thorough look at my own conduct in this matter, because what I want is for a fair process to play out without undue interference.

    --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I am disappointed in Buidhe. I have not known them to be this tedious, messing with indent style and erasing other editor's comments. I agree that the behavior is maddening and disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the DRN case as failed. The content dispute will be resolved by the RFC after 30 days if there is no disruption of the RFC. I haven't looked into the complaint about disruption of the RFC. A Request for Comments always takes precedence over any other form of content resolution, and any editor has the right to start an RFC at any time. It is rude to a DRN moderator to start an RFC without first civilly withdrawing from moderated dispute resolution, but that comes with the territory of being a moderator, and any editor has the right to start an RFC. Any editor also has the right to report the conduct of another editor here. Survivors can resume discussion on the article talk page, as long as they respect RFC procedures and the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not accurate that I removed part of their vote or edited their comments. RfC survey sections are not for extended discussion, so I moved that to the discussion section.
    I did not change the indentation of any other user's comments: Pinchme123 changed the indentation of my comments because they did not like it.[213] (and several other cases)
    I am sure that any of you would be very frustrated if another user repeatedly insisted that their preferred version of content be used, even after it was pointed out that it failed verification and was inconsistent with what is stated in reliable sources.
    Substantial edits to RfC questions should not be made when an RfC is underway and multiple users had already !voted. I thought that was fairly obvious?
    Perhaps Pinchme123 is just upset that other users don't support their version at the RfC. (t · c) buidhe 02:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we're here perhaps admins care to examine Pinchme123's WP:OWN attitude at this article, where they recently blanket-reverted the removal of content for failed verification/unsourced reasons as they considered that to be "suspect reasoning". (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked every edit:
    • This edit was with the edit comment, "rm non-rs sources, unsourced claims, chronological order;" The supposed non-RS source was The Guardian, listed at WP:RSP as an unambiguous RS and the supposed unsourced claims was the description, "German concentration camps before and during World War II," leading to a WP page about concentration camps in Nazi Germany from before and during WWII. (ADDENDUM) And the moved entry was already in its proper chronological order location, since the list is sorted by date of closure/ending first, then opening/beginning second.
    • This edit was done with an arbitrary recentism cutoff of 20 years for its justification. Perhaps this definition could be established before being used as justification.
    • This edit claimed more "failed verification" and was a removal of sourced entries. Both entries contained multiple RS, all of which supported their inclusion on a page for concentration/internment camps. One of these was also an entry where someone else reverted Buidhe for inappropriately claiming a source didn't support one of the claims, when that source did. This is my mistake and I apologize. Buidhe's edits are starting to blur together.
    Hardly see how any of this is evidence of ownership. I do however believe saying "other users don't support their version at the RfC" is to imply retaliation and is an aspersion without evidence.
    --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion pieces in whatever newspaper are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion.
    The unsourced claim was actually "US Civil War" on the list of internment camps.
    The sources need to say that it was a concentration or internment camp, otherwise they fail verification.
    The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the supposed non-RS source, a news item from The Guardian: "Learning from the Germans: how we might atone for America's evils." This article is clearly filed under The Guardian's news section and not their opinion section. I am placing it here for all to see, rather than going around once again about inaccurately-described sources.

    I see no good reason to leave "U.S. Civil War" on the list, but I hardly see my single innocent mistake in thinking Buidhe's edit summary also applied to their otherwise-unexplained change to the "German concentration camps" entry as evidence of WP:OWN. I'll leave it to another editor to properly tag "U.S. Civil War" for citation needed, or remove it outright.

    The "entire cause" of this content dispute is that editors are not given any opportunity to provide existing sourcing to challenged edits. Frequent claims that content "fails verification" are abound, yet I have yet to see Buidhe use either the "Fails Verification" or "Citation Needed" tags. Given their disruptive talk page editing, that their actions insulted the moderator at DRN who noted above how rude this action was, and their continued removal of strongly-sourced content and Reliable Sources, I think their conduct deserves a second look.

    --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1) It is obviously a book review, not a news article. Book reviews give the author's opinion of the book, therefore they should be considered opinion pieces.
    2) I will try to quit this pointless thread, but it is simply completely false that I "insulted the moderator at DRN". I apologize to Robert if he thinks that it is "rude and insulting" to open an RfC when DR is not working, but it is not accurate that I insulted him.
    3) The DRN moderator, quite contrary to claims, never said that it is wrong to check sources and state if they do not support the content. That is what "failed verification" means. There is no problem with raising such issues regardless of whether cleanup tags on the article are used. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Exeedingly long block + false accusations

    Much as this is surreally entertaining, it is in the end nothing to do with ENWP. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is on the Swedish Wikipedia, Ternarius and EstrellaSuecia blocks me for off-topic chat on userpages. I'm new and didn't understand that.

    Then i wrote one bad thing on Ternarius user page about their arttitude, i know it wasn't nice but (s)he provoked me.

    As punishment, they not only blocked me for a while (which would be ok i guess) but also reverted by constructive and helpful edits on other articles.

    For example here: https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fria_Tider&diff=48338133&oldid=48338132 And here: https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%B6rhud&diff=48338269&oldid=48338165

    I hope we will come to a resolution.

    Regards

    BertNorman

    BertNorman (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello BertNorman, as this is an issue on the Swedish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no rights to make any admin changes there. You will need to take the matter up there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information: BertNorman admited to being intoxicated during the affair, which was obvious from his many edits. The "constructive and helpful edit" removed from the latter of his examples was an instruction how to clean your forskin(!). / Ternarius (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the Swedish Wikipedia has rules similar to WP:NOTHOW the removals were clearly justified.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See sv:Wikipedia:Vad Wikipedia inte är. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, i didn't know about that rule about having too much information, i also saw the info i was adding was in a sub-article too, i didn't notice thta and apologize. The thing about the Swedish right wing/far-right tabloid and they being pro-lockdown was however a constructive and helpful edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertNorman (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry i don't know how to make proper replies here

    BertNorman (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yeah? You changed the word "Estonian" to "Ethnical" and slipped it into a wikilink. Surely that was not a mistake.
    I really didn't want to respond to this at all, since I believe this user is just trolling and I'm pretty sure I'm just feeding the troll here. However, as a new admin, I do feel the need to explain my perspective.
    So the backstory here is two nights ago, I blocked an IP-vandal, and after that the same person kept coming back with new IP-adresses (open proxies) to harass me, Ternarius and others. One night later, another IP-adress (open proxy) from the same Swedish VPN-service (OVPN, whois 1, 2, 3, 4) asks Ternarius a vulgar question about gender on Ternarius's discussion. I blocked the IP and reported the proxy on Meta. Then comes User:BertNorman, whos first edit on Wikipedia is a comment on my discussion page, asking "None of your rules prevents one from asking questions about gender, age etc on their discussion page?".
    Now this is all a little too conventient in my opinion, and very much in line with what a troll would do. And if that proof wasn't enough, Bert Norman was also vandalizing (Estonian -> Ethnical, the childish nonsense about cleaning foreskin) and the mean comment to Ternarius was just the icing on the cake.
    So there you have it, hopefully that clears this up. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was drunk, i thought the article meant ethnical as in ethnical nationalist. You know the Swedish word "etniskt" kan mean like "etnisk nationalist".

    I am currently in a location with censored internet (pretty lightly but still). I actually got into the idea with creating an account because my grandchild called me the other day and told me he was planning to try his hand out and look for spelling errors on Wikipedia and just try it out generally. But then got banned for asking about gender (he's autistic) and had a tantrum and said some bad things. I don't wanna concern myself with him in that case, i think he maybe is a bit immature, so i don't wanna concern myself with your decision to ban him.

    Regarding that VPN service, my son recommended it and even let me use his account. He has his whole family behind a VPN router to protect their privacy (especially of the their kids). He is an IT guy and really good with computers.
    But i can absolutely pay for my own VPN account if you mixed me up with his family due to us sharing VPN accounts. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
    Regarding my behavior a night ago, well i understand if the stuff i said on talk pages makes you wanna block me for a while. I understand that.
    I don't however understand the reason behind permanent block with the accusation i am just here to destroy the site. That is simply not true

    Kind regards Bert Norman BertNorman (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    My formatting was really messed up, fixing it and trying again.

    BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying yet again, hope the formatting this time or i will just let it be i guess.

    BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on your contributions at time of block one would assume you were here to destroy. Your story really does not sound that convincing to me but in any case:
    The account you are using now is permanently blocked and will stay blocked. However you can register a new username after a certain time has passed. I'm not sure on the exact timeframe, but I think it's just a couple of days. If you do want to contribute with serious edits to Wikipedia you are free to register a new account when that time has passed. However, you can not use a VPN service. No open proxies is a Wikimedia policy and applies to every Wikipedia edition. VPN-services use open proxies, and therefore they are not allowed.
    This is the last thing I will say in this matter, I will not answer you again. Good luck. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was tempted to just close this whole thing since I don't understand what any of it has to do with the English Wikipedia. However I felt I should correct a misleading claim in this latest comment. There is no Wikimedia policy forbidding the use of open proxies. Instead, because they are vulnerable to abuse, they will be blocked. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference does matter. Editing from an open proxy is not automatically a violation of some Wikimedia policy. The proxy is likely to be blocked once it is identified, but the editor hasn't done anything wrong just by using it. They've only done something wrong if there is something wrong with their edit. For example, if it's a violation of some other policy or guideline, such as policies against editing when you as an editor have been blocked or banned (block circumvention or sockpuppetry). Individual projects may have a stronger policy than the Wikimedia one, so you may need to consider that separately. In addition it also means, editors with an account who have good reason to need to edit from a VPN can do so. They need to request IP block exemption providing an adequate reason why it's needed and convince who they ask that they won't abuse it. This can generally be done locally or globally, although I have no idea the Swedish Wikipedia policy on this. All this is explained on the page linked above. If you've already abused open proxies such as to continually harass someone, you're not going to be granted an exemption; but that's different from whether it's possible in a different case. BTW, as an example why local policy matters, and why this shouldn't really be discussed on the English Wikipedia, here on the English Wikipedia, if your account has been blocked it's often better than ask for an unblock rather than just create a new account, even if your previous edits were all unconstructive. Especially if it's only 2 days later. There are cases like where your account was blocked for a username violation where it's different, but generally creating a new account when your previous one was blocked is more likely to get you into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just thinking we don't have enough complaining about blocks here and like magic, Swedish Wikipedia fills the void. Levivich, I'm thinking this might be a good thread for the ANI Hall of Fame: a complaint about a block on Swedish Wikipedia that was the result of intoxicated editing about instructions on how to clean your foreskin.
      Hopefully someone closes this before I get into trouble.   // Timothy :: talk  05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, um, I'm sorry, it's just... Swedish foreskin cleaning is above my paygrade. I don't have enough training hours logged yet to get the necessary clearances for that level of humor. I'll have to call in my supervisor for this one. Lev!vich 05:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adolf Erik Nor­den­skiöld, the Swede who first circum­navigated Eurasia
    You pinged me out of bed for this? Levivich, you disappoint me. You can drag the tone of the conversation down several notches using the unfortunate conjunction of the phrases cleaning foreskin and icing on the cake alone. Now get to work or you're not going to like your next quarterly review, I can tell you that. I'm tired of holding your hand. Plus I don't know where it's been. EEng 07:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that depends. Which hand? Lev!vich 07:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There are some doors man was never meant to open. EEng 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Aroniel2

    Disruptive POV pushing across Gavin McInnes (Special:Diff/982747592) and Proud Boys (Special:Diff/982754491). Was previously blocked indefinitely on 12 January 2018 for POV pushing racist perspectives and personal opinions of Catholicism, and was unblocked on 9 July 2020 after claiming they didn't mean to POV push. They've been warned four times by different editors just in the past 24h, but insist on adding "by left wing activists" to any mention of neo-fascism etc because "that will protect your Credibility, Neutrality". Also, they continue to mention that they're important: "Take it from me, described by SES as one of the best ever DIA Strategic level intelligence analyst of the Agency" - which harks back to their original appeal in 2018 where they also said they would use sock puppet IPs to circumvent the block. Feels like Aroniel2 is WP:NOTHERE to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidently, Aroniel is WP:NOTHERE to contribute properly -- they seem to have a very narrow focus on righting (what they think are) great wrongs. They have been repeatedly warned about POV-editing culminating in an indef block. Despite being unblocked, they have chosen to ignore further warnings and carry on pov-pushing. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Pinging @Swarm: as they were the admin who indef blocked the editor in question, and unblocked them thereafter. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: Just a heads up, I have been dealing with this user for years. After I blocked them, they started emailing me and never stopped, and at this point they semi-regularly send me random communications highlighting articles they write or media appearances they make. I don't know if it's intended as harassment or what but it's been going on for years. Somewhere along the way they ironed out some type of plausible deniability rationale that I couldn't really argue with, and that combined with the standard offer and a dose of good faith in their willingness to return using their original account, rather than by socking, which they had previously stated was their intent, I decided to unblock with a hope that they would not immediately go directly to proving me wrong. Good grief, I look like a chump right now for this. Anyway, going forward, keep in mind that this user may simply attack you as some sort of nobody living in their parents' basement, or a left wing activist, but they may also again shift to some sort of gaslighting, plausible deniability defense, they may attempt to intimidate you by touting their status as an employee of a certain organization (which is true), or as some sort of respected person who is at times consulted by the media (which is also true). If this user inappropriately emails you in any manifestation, know that there is a longstanding track record of this, be careful about taking the bait and giving this user your email address via a reply, and consider revoking email access or replying on wiki to avoid disclosing your email to them, and to all users, be on the lookout for sockpuppetry. Sorry for the disruption my unblock resulted in. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, my parents live in my basement. Don't feel bad about assuming good faith, Swarm. I haven't heard from the user by mail, but they have written, not very constructively, on their page. Nothing to revoke tpa over, though. I have a question: did you ask for the e-mailing to stop, and did it still continue? Was it so aggravating that I should perhaps revoke wikimail right away, in your opinion? Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Continued disruption by user:Onetwothreeip and user:Guy Macon

    This is a continuation of an above discussion that was closed out of an abundance of good faith that the behavior would cease. It has not.

    Onetwothreeip continues disruptive editing after mulitple ANI discussions
    Onetwothreeip continues tendentiously proposing change in multiple talk sections, claims false consensus, editwars accordingly
    Onetwothreeip's proposed change has been repeatedly rejected
    Onetwothreeip's behavior problems are not limited to one article
    • Extensive discussion of Onetwothreeip's long history of controversial and disruptive edits entirely predating their interactions on this article.
    Guy Macon is reverting all constructive edits to the article (even wikimarkup fixes), effectively imposing a de facto full protect.

    The December 2019 ANI discussion about Onetwothreeip involved disruptive edits to the article Donald Trump, while the subsequent ANI discussions have involved disruptive edits to the article White House COVID-19 outbreak. Perhaps a topic ban from Trump-related would resolve the on-going behavior problem? Feoffer (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I stepped in when I saw these two edit warring. As far as I can tell nobody has evaluated the changes they are edit warring about for quality, so the "consensus" is 1:1. I simply don't see anyone supporting or opposing either side here. So, were Onetwothreeip's changes an improvement? I say yes, but that's an opinion about article content and ANI only deals with user behavior.
    To address the edit warring I did two things.
    First, I restored the last version before the edit war[214] this is a standard and non-controversial way of dealing with edit wars. See WP:STATUSQUO.
    Edit summary was "Restored 02:11, 11 October 2020 version (last version before the edit war) If I see either of you edit warring again we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI Take it to talk and seek consensus instead of repeatedly editing and reverting."
    Second, based up my personal judgement only, I did my best to roll back in the header reorg while leaving out any content change.[215]
    Edit summary was "WP:BOLDLY restoring Onetwothreeip's header reorganization because I think it was an improvement. If anyone other than Feoffer thinks that the changes weren't an improvement, feel free to revert and we can talk about it on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip, please leave it alone even if Feoffer reverts again. Let other editors deal with this."
    I have no opinion about any past behavior by either party. I only looked at the current edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shortly after the above, where I warned both parties to stop edit warring, Feoffer made twelve rapid edits,[216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228] with summaries like "restore changes believed to be completely uncontroversial". So I asked Onetwothreeip.[229] They do not agree and think "most of their edits to have serious WP:POV issues". This puts Onetwothreeip in a bad position. If they revert what they see as edits with POV problems they are ignoring my warning about edit warring. If they don't, then Feoffer has gamed the system and is completely ignoring my warning to "Take it to talk and seek consensus instead of repeatedly editing and reverting." As I see it, Onetwothreeip is following my advice to step back and avoid making edits that Feoffer is likely to object to, but Feoffer is unwilling to take it to talk and avoid making edits that Onetwothreeip is likely to object to.
    Again, I must emphasize that I am only commenting on the edit warring that I rolled back and the refusal to take the content dispute to talk. I have no opinion on any accusations of other misbehavior, because I haven't looked at the evidence myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would push back against the idea that this is a straightforward two-party edit-war. Onetwothreeip has made many, many controversial edits, some wholesale deletions of sourced text. Before coming to this article, Onetwothreeip had already garnered quite a long history of complaints about their "bull in a china shop" editing style.
    And yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so it's only natural that we'd like to have a few bulls in our china shop -- but if we're going to do that, we have to extend that same latitude to the china shopkeepers to deal with unruly bulls :) . Feoffer (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By "many, many controversial edits", you mean edits that you disagree with. "Wholesale deletions of sourced text" means recently added bold content which I removed, asserting that the content did not belong in the article or was not sufficiently neutral.
    The simple matter of this dispute is that you organised the article in a certain way (with no particular talk page consensus), I made some reorganisations from that, and you reverted my changes. I took it to the talk page where I found there to be consensus and lack of opposition for at least some of the changes I proposed. I declared on the talk page that I found this to be the case, waited some time for any opposition to come forward (including yourself), and made some of the changes for which I found there was consensus/no opposition for. Meanwhile you were involved in edit warring other changes with at least one other editor. I mostly preferred the other party's edits, so that was sufficient drama for you to bring this here.
    It's quite clear that you feel that removing content is much more serious than adding content, and particularly disruptive when it's your content being removed, even when it's content that was added boldly. Ever since you reverted my edits on the second day as I have now described, I realised that pursuing this myself would only result in you reverting any other changes I make, so I decided to leave it up to any other editors to decide which of my edits if any to action into the article, and that is what I intend for the time being. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't withdraw the previous ANI report, it was just closed shortly after you created it. Any content I ever removed was recently added bold content, so let's not mislead people on that point. I'm pretty sure my first edits were changes to the table, but that's not relevant. I had merged some sections, not simply "removing section headings", and you had not notified me (nor had anyone else) of opposition to that until that ANI report. They seem to be restored in a way that intentionally didn't provide me with any notifications, but that's an old issue at this point.
    This report is obviously in retaliation to my appeal to Feoffer to cease their edit warring and violation of 1RR here, and Guy Macon (talk · contribs)'s intervention here, which effectively overruled some of Feoffer's edits. That discussion showed that while there were some editors who opposed changing section headings to more neutral ones as I proposed, Feoffer was the only one opposing the reduction of the amount of sections overall. I decided to carry out a fairly minimalist version of that, but Feoffer reverted this. It can be clearly shown that I asserted not wanting to revert their revert.
    Feoffer has shown very concerning WP:OWN behaviour throughout the life of this article, often claiming without evidence or referring to anything that there is widespread disagreement of what they disagree with, or widespread agreement of what they agree with. This has included alluding to other discussions, but also claiming that as the article has a few thousand edits, this constitutes a "review process" which validates their additions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortly after Guy Macon's comments here, Feoffer removed this comment of theirs praising Guy Macon, and changed the heading to include Guy Macon, when originally it was just me they were accusing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit:[230] Feoffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added me to this ANI report without the required notification on my talk page.

    I am really having trouble understanding why Feoffer refuses to go to the article talk page, propose a change, and talk it over with the other editors. This business of refusing to WP:TALKDONTREVERT needs to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he started taking it to talk. He did it with edit requests instead of just talking, but oh well. At least he is finally talking.
    I just responded to two of the edit requests, and they speak to the claim that his edits are completely uncontroversial and unopposed.
    The first one I answered is is here: Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak#Edit request: Fix wikimarkup in table
    Completely uncontroversial, so I fixed it.
    The second one I answered is is here: Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak#Edit request: Oct 10 event
    Extremely bad edit. The claim doesn't even come close to matching the source. There are plenty of legitimate things that Trump has done to criticise without making stuff up. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven Nine edit requests have been made on talk, only one has been objected to. This backlog represents an an on-going disruption to our project, likely to prove some political point. Feoffer (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You failing to immediately get your way is not "on-going disruption to our project." The reason I stopped at the second request is your reaction after I identified your "uncontroversial" edit as being extremely controversial and low quality. Low quality to the point of being factually incorrect. To be specific, you started with a source that says "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." and used it to support the claim "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" That's the exact opposite of what the only medical expert cited said. I see no point in responding to any further edit requests only to get another WP:IDHT response. Fortunately, other editors with more patience than I have are responding to your edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feoffer, I'm not exactly impressed with your edits and behavior on the article. At first glance, it seems your editing is what is causing disruption, including a flood of edit requests and a combative behavior. We aren't a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia, meaning it is better to have less information that is correct, rather than rush "to press" with whatever we have. I haven't looked at all of it, but what I've seen so far, and what sticks out the most, is a bludgeoning by you. This doesn't mean there isn't blame to go around, I just haven't gotten to that, so I don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I've tried my best to add only constructive edits and never to reinstate changes I knew to be opposed by multiple users. I'm taken aback by your impression that the edit requests were "combative" -- I sincerely believed proposing those changes on talk was bending over backwards in support of civility. Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to comment on this aspect, many of the removals by Onetwothreeip are things that are speculative elements from the media, which for us would be against NOT#CRYSTAL and weakly violating BLP, but not to the point they would be edit warring exceptions. There's no reason to run with media speculation in our current event articles at all. --Masem (t) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem (talk · contribs) I wouldn't claim to have any edit warring exceptions. After initial reverts by Feoffer I made smaller edits based on talk page discussions, but then those were reverted too so it became obvious to me that this was going nowhere and stopped making edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose boomerang

    IMO Foeffer has gone off the rails at the article White House COVID-19 outbreak, and deserves at least at topic ban if not a block. Guy Macon said no to one of his unjustified edit requests, and Foeffer proceeded into a prolonged argument, capped with this insulting and over-the-top reply. I am involved at that article (although not in the current dustup) so this is just a suggestion; I request others to evaluate the situation and take action. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At all points, I have attempted to be constructive, to not reinstate changes I knew to be controversial among multiple users, and to be a pinnacle of civility.
    In contrast, Guy shown me rank incivility. He said my edits suck. He said I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia]. After he was repeatedly warned for incivility to me, he just repeatedly deleted the warnings, editwarring repeatedly to remove their warnings. In response his insults, I merely cited Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. I was shown incivility and I turned the other cheek, responding by merely quoting an established essay -- if that's incivil, the Mastodons essay needs to be removed so others don't make the same mistake. Feoffer (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for saying that your edits suck. Let me rephrase: your edits contain factual errors such as calling a single CNN political reporter "medical experts" and ignoring the citation where an actual medical expert says the exact opposite of your claim. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have added that after Feoffer posted a dozen or so of his proposed edits as edit requests, he has argued vigorously, and repeatedly, with anyone who disagrees with the proposed edit. He has also claimed that consensus should have been required to remove the edits, rather than the normal understanding that if an edit is challenged, consensus is required to restore it. Example: BRD means you can undo new changes, not that you can show up to existing articles and delete anything you find objectionable and demand consensus to return to status quo. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, you'll just keeping being a bull in a china shop. BTW it looks to me as if all the edits he is talking about were added to the article by him within the past week - most within the past 24 hours. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dig deeper into the discussion -- we're talking about material ("amid secrecy") that was not added by me and far predated One's involvement, not stuff I just added. Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban or partial block of Feoffer from the article and talk page I just answered the remaining, inappropriate use of the edit request template. I'm often not a fan of a lot of stuff Guy Macon does, and I have not looked into what they did here. But whatever Guy Macon has done wrong, it does not excuse Feoffer's completely inappropriate edits. If Feoffer feels their proposed changes need more discussion, they are free to open talk page discussions and seek consensus. Once there is consensus, they or anyone else who is able to make the changes should do so. They should not only use the edit request template if no one there is able to make the chance since it's intended for changes an editor cannot make for technical reasons where there is existing consensus or they expect no objection. If they open a discussion because they fear there may be objection, then clearly this doesn't apply, and there's also no reason to make an edit request when they can make the change themselves anyway. In other words, either open a talk page discussion to seek consensus, or make an edit request, don't try and do both. Feoffer is an experienced editor so they must know this and so their WP:POINTY response is inexcusable whatever Guy Macon has allegedly done wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Macon decreed I would not edit the article anymore, even boldly. I attempted to comply, and sincerely am surprised that anyone found my edit requests unwelcome. I have respectfully switched to self-reverting over being bold. If my edits are suboptimal, I will note Guy has been quite rude to me, openly mocking me and saying i shouldn't be on wikipeida, edit warring with me on talk, removing my rfc, posting memes to ridicule others, and otherwise interfering with the usual channels for seeking assistance. This behavior has been utterly unprecedented in my editing experience and I admit to being at a loss as to how to solicit more eyes to the content dispute while being openly abused by a vested contributor. Feoffer (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More claims that are factually untrue. Refactoring something that is falsely called an RfC but is actually a talk page comment without any of the usual RfC formatting -- without altering the actual content - is not "removing". Giving an editor who is having trouble understanding wikipedia good advice is not "mocking". Telling someone that they missed a joke is not "ridicule". And Feoffer has been the exact opposite of "respectful". I am being subjected to a fair amount of abuse here, and all because I insisted that the claim must be supported by the source, and that the claim should not say the exact opposite of the source. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On the underlying dispute

    I propose:

    This is a politically charged article with three weeks left to probably the most contentious US election in living memory. Disruption is inevitable and full protection with edits via {{editprotected}} may be a better solution. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this has a deadline, then I would agree with it. Say, 6 months tops. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any need for any restrictions related to the current election being needed after the end of January. Right now, we are seeing an extreme amount of disruption. So either Consensus required restriction or full protection would seem to be needed.
    Oh, for those simpler, more civil days when US politicians went out in the woods and shot at each other with pistols... We could have had President Gabbard. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Guy Macon

    There is already a section open above covering this broad area, dispute, and group of users. Another one does not seem productive. Without any direct judgement on any user's behaviour here, two simultaneous threads makes it less likely to actually solve the issue, and respondents in this one do not seem to consider this particular instance to be sanctionable. ~ mazca talk 11:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was previously able to have a civil discussion with Guy Macon (hereafter referred to with the singular they/them) on the article on the White House COVID-19 outbreak. Then this morning, after they were involved in a dispute with a 3rd editor (Feoffer), I spoke with Feoffer about the situation of Feoffer posting multiple edit requests on the article talk page because Guy Macon told Feoffer to "ask first" before making any edits. The additions to the talk page seemed to take attention away from more-productive content discussions, so I referred to this situation between Feoffer and Guy Macon as "silly". Guy Macon replied to my comment with a link to an external attack for the purpose of attacking me.

    This response was surprising. Because such personal attacks, if continued, could eventually result in a block, I posted the appropriate 1st-level warning template on Guy Macon's talk page. I take care when using warning templates, normally avoiding them, and I was careful to match the heading with the tone of the template and to end it politely. I also noted on the article talk page that it was their second instance of incivility that I'm aware of. (I had previously warned them with a personal message reminding them about civility after they said that one of Feoffer's edit proposals "completely sucked". They responded to my reminder by saying that their comment was "accurate".) They replied to my warning message on their talk page by using my "this is silly" comment in order to justify explicitly attacking me again, their third instance of incivility. In trying to understand their change in behavior, I think their dispute with Feoffer might have led to a misunderstanding of the meaning of my comment, causing them to attack me as well.

    I then added the standard 2nd-level warning message to Guy Macon's talk page. They replied on my talk page saying, "Please don't post to my talk page and please don't ping me. Feel free to report me to ANI". I then noticed that they deleted my comments from the article talk page, arguing that incivility cannot be pointed out at all in talk pages and that any incivility must be reported directly up to ANI. I think that starting with a short personal reminder and then a longer warning on the article talk page was proper. I consider posting here to be a last resort. I also think my comments were improperly deleted and should be reinstated. Because of everything described, I am posting here in ANI, but the warning message for posting to ANI says I must notify them on their user talk page. In light of this requirement and WP:UP#OWN and WP:NOBAN, I will add the standard notification to their talk page but will refrain from any comments of my own. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The sum total of my "personal attack" consisted of this:
    Whoosh!
    I apologize for saying that KinkyLipids failed to get the joke. I did not think "you failed to get the joke" was a personal attack, but if KinkyLipids thinks it was, then I will accept that and never say that to them again. I had already decided to no longer interact with KinkyLipids in any way, and would appreciate being treated the same way.
    I would also point out that it is a False dilemma to claim that the only possible places to complain about user behavior are ANI and a busy article talk page. A third alternative exists; complaining about their behavior on their user talk page. As it says at the top of Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White House COVID-19 outbreak article" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained above, Guy Macon made multiple personal attacks, and I did go to their user talk page before coming here to ANI, after which they deleted my comments on their talk page and told me to go to ANI instead. Then they said on my talk page that is was "highly inappropriate" for me to have done what they are now suggesting I should have done. They then told me that they have no interest in interacting with me, while also suggesting that I should report them to ANI, and then they interacted with my comments on the article talk page by deleting them. It was unacceptable to quote me out of context to give the impression that I said something I didn't say, and it is unacceptable now that they are lying about what happened.
    I found another edit in which Guy Macon suggested that Feoffer has "trouble understanding". This is in violation of WP:CIVIL: "avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with". It also violated WP:AVOIDYOU: "arguments should not be personalized". In another edit, Guy Macon says that if Feoffer "can't grasp a simple concept", then Feoffer "shouldn't be editing Wikipedia". This is uncivil, aggressive, and snide, in violation of WP:ESDONTS, and it is belittling a fellow editor in violation of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Taken together, each individual comment is part of a larger pattern of uncivil personal attacks. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KinkyLipids after looking at most of the diffs you posted, I didn't see anything sanctionable (which is why I stopped). I think you are being way too sensitive, which is never a good idea on the internet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for reading. I'm sorry it was long. I'm new to ANI and missed the instruction to "be brief" and the separate instruction page saying to frame the issue as a question. Next time, I will do so. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Guy Macon can be abrupt. I do not like him erasing your comment and then being cavalier with a "take it to ANI" statement. I suspect he knows he will have enough help here from regulars. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This precisely. The project simply doesn't if we allow people to repeatedly delete complaints about their own behavior. Feoffer (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Woosh" is a meme that simply means a joke has gone over your head. If you did not understand this, Guy provided a literal link to knowyourmeme, which is literally a site that explains memes for people who don't understand them. It's not an external "attack page". What you should have taken from that comment was the inherent implication that Guy made a joke that went over your head, and by providing the link he was making sure you understood that that was what he was saying. Starting a new thread here, over this, when there is already an open thread about Guy is a bit odd. Every subsequent diff of "incivility" is pretty much just Guy further explaining that he was saying that he made a joke that went over your head. I don't know why you're even wasting our time with this. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I expect no "help from the regulars". I don't know how many times I have said this, but let me say it again: if any administrator or veteran editor wants to go to my talk page and ask me to stop doing something, I will stop immediately and start discussing the issue even if I disagree. Please, don't "help" me unless you see no violation. If I am doing something wrong tell me and I will stop.
    The whole idea of "take it to ANI" is that when somebody is repeatedly and aggressively accusing me of violating Wikipedia's core policies, and doing it on a busy talk page where I just happen to be discussing a content dispute with another editor, there is a high probability that they are doing so in an attempt to give the other person ammunition in their own accusations of wrongdoing, which is exactly what happened in this case. If the accusations are not sincere, they are unlikely to go to ANI with them.
    On the other hand, I may have gone too far and I just don't see it, in which case I want an administrator or veteran editor to ask me to stop (see above).
    Either way, making public accusations of blockable offenses on an article talk page is disruptive to the goal of improving the page.
    As for deleting the comment, I had previously responded with an explanation that I was joking and that we don't actually have licenses that can be revoked. That response was deleted. It isn't fair to allow one person to make accusations but not let the accused reply. Nonetheless, at over 14,000 edits since 2013 Lightburst fits my criteria for a veteran editor and they asked me to stop deleting KinkyLipids comments even if I believe that they disrupt the article talk page, so as per my promise, I will stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't egging Guy Macon on to give "ammunition". I asked Guy Mason to stop, and they replied by repeating what I asked them to stop doing. He later deleted his "explanation" himself.
    The only thing I deleted was their comment about me because it was what the 1st-level warning template required. Thank you. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, I tend to agree that deleting comments was probably inappropriate here--simply for the sake of erring on the side of caution. KinkyLipids, I am not sure how to react to this complaint. It is...insubstantial at very best. I mean this with sincere respect, but perhaps you would be well served to steer clear of the more contentious sections of Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please get Guy under control? He's said I shouldn't be editing here, he's taken to openly mocking me. I post a RFC to get more eyes, he removes it. This is not acceptable behavior, I've behaved entirely civilly. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BumbleBeast57445

    BumbleBeast57445 was blocked for one week for disruptive editing. I revoked TPA after they responded to the block notice with a PA. They are now trolling my talk page at Simple English Wikipedia - could someone with the necessary crosswiki tools take a look? Thanks in advance. GirthSummit (blether) 08:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Link for convenience GirthSummit (blether) 08:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably be more efficient to ask there for a page protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, this is one user - surely blocking the user is more efficient than protecting the page (and presumably then going round whichever Wikis I have talk pages at playing whackamole)? GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also request a block there, the user is not yet eligible for a global lock, and it is probably easy to find a simple admin on simple than a global admin here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since you bring it up, there's no shortage of simple admins right here at enwp. EEng 08:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, fair enough, I probably won't bother unless they persist. I'll leave it for others to decide whether we're happy with this person's block expiring here in six days. GirthSummit (blether) 08:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this new user as anything but a full-blown troll, based on their User page and edit history. I see enough already to call for an global indef, for being WP:NOTHERE. A clear case, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Green Giant: Global lock? Bishonen | tålk 11:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    The user has a userbox saying they are 14 years old. If so, perhaps mentoring would be more appropriate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing, I'd normally be inclined to agree with you, but their responses to messages so far don't give me the impression that they'd be receptive. I tried to reach out to them on their talk after I gave them a 24-hour block for edit warring (which was an attempt to add content that they admitted was fake to an article), but they ignored that; they went back to edit warring and ignoring advice almost immediately after the block expired, then then took to leaving abusive messages - now spreading across different wikis - when they got blocked again. Perhaps they'd respond better to someone who hadn't just blocked them, so if someone wants to step forward to try to mentor them then fine, but I'm not confident that their attitude is compatible with the project at this moment in time. GirthSummit (blether) 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Locked. Once they crossed the line into another wiki, it potentially became a global problem. The tone of their messages in both wikis, including the abuse logs, suggest it is someone who knows what they are doing is unacceptable. One or two angry messages is not lockable but persistent messages of this nature mean they can discuss the issues through stewards OTRS. -Green Giant (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for taking care of it, Green Giant. Cross-wiki abuse is always a problem for us simple admins, per EEng above. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, Green Giant thanks both for handling this so swiftly. I confess to being too simple to want to get my head around the reporting procedures at other wikis! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work, and thanks. Time is our most precious commodity. This is a great example of teamwork to shut down a time-sink. I've reverted enough vandalism over the past decade plus to know the irredeemable types. Cheers to you all! Jusdafax (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncommunicative helper

    I'm requesting a block to get the attention of a good-faith and valuable IP editor who is nevertheless oblivious to their talk pages, and has been consistently breaking WP:STYLEVAR for several years despite numerous warnings.

    The editor using the range 2601:601:E03:EBC0::/64 has for the past three years or so been making good-faith edits of mostly small corrections and cleanup across a wide range of articles, most of which are helpful. However, a large proportion of their edits have been to arbitrarily change "US" to "U.S.", sometimes inconsistently within an article, with the edit summary "Punctuation", e.g.: [231]. Per MOS:US, this is an optional style, and per WP:STYLEVAR should not be arbitrarily changed or enforced in a bot-like fashion, which it seems they are doing. There have been a few other small problems with their edits, but it's been impossible to communicate with them.

    I've tried to contact them over the past months, and left now five warnings about it, the latest at User talk:2601:601:E03:EBC0:8818:6CA0:412B:95F3. Unfortunately Wikipedia's talk page system is really unsuited to IP users whose address changes every time they edit. On the other hand, the editor has been stable within the /64 range, and it's clear that it's been the same person exclusively using that range, for the past several years. I'd like to ask for a block on the range in order to try to get their attention and establish communication (and encourage them to get an account). Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • If we're going down that route, and since they're generally helpful, a partial block on article space only would be better, with a block reason pointing them towards this discussion (which they could then reply to). Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a good idea... it should be clear that they are very welcome to edit here, there are just some minor problems to point out and it's mainly a technical problem that makes it hard to communicate, not really their fault. I wish there was a better system. --IamNotU (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their IP doesn't change every edit, e.g. it lasted nearly 2 days here [232] [233]. Of course you still have to catch them before it changes. Maybe more importantly, a large number of their edits seems to be from the mobile website. Therefore even if you did catch them, they are still unlikely to realise they have messages. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

    Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

    Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

    At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

    The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

    Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

    These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

    These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

    Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [234] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Good news![citation needed] SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

    Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

    We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
    (from WP:NSEASONS)
    For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
    Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

    The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

    From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

    • Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
    • Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
    • Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

    From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

    • Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
    • Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
    • Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
    • Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
    • Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
    • Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

    From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

    • Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

    From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

    • Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
    • Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
    • Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
    • Additional canvassing (diff)

    This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 57 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

    This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

    Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

    There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
    Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.
    • Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.
    • Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

    In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sock trying to game ECP status

    I starting seeing edits from Rabbithat43 on various Indian actor articles, using the IABot to archive sources. Their first 10 edits were to random articles, and they started this run of IABot edits. The account was created on September 30, so wouldn't be able to get ECP today, but there's no doubt they are trying to game the system. This is similar to recent socks of PunjabCinema07 who did the same trick - Sunny719, also on Indian film actor articles. I don't know if this is PC07, but it's definitely an account to watch for suspicious activity. Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: I suspect the same. Was going to open an SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fylindfotberserk, yeah, I thought about that as well. I thought I'd WP:AGF about the sock, but the obvious gaming of ECP continues, they're just over 200 edits at this point, nearly all with IABot. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire: Wouldn't stop it seems. Now at 280 edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now at 370+ edits. They have been blowing up my watchlist all day, which usually reserved just for Fylindfotberserk. :) S0091 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    S0091, 480 now, and nary a word from an admin here. We may find out from whom this is the latest sock. Ravensfire (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to admire their dedication, having been at this for 12 hours now. And this report has been ignored by admins for over 5 hours. Even a simple "Ignore them, no harm, no foul" would have at least told us it's been seen and blown off. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ECP is hard to game. I'm personally inclined to ignore it, and be in position to block as soon as they start doing shifty things on ECP articles at the end of the month. If this user is trying to game extended-confirmed, I'd much rather waste a month of their time as long as the gaming edits aren't harmful in and of themselves. ~ mazca talk 10:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks incredibly suspicious. They made exactly 10 edits on October 1 like 'neighboring' to 'neighbouring' (claiming to be fixing typos, but really violating ENGVAR), appearing to try to game autoconfirmed. Then this. It would be too much to assume they want to say something about Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, but they're clearly up to something. Fortunately, they won't get ECP until the end of the month. With 14 straight hours of this, we may have an unauthorized bot used here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    S0091, 860 now. Really annoying considering a good amount of these articles show up in my huge watchlist. All these in the last 24 hours, definitely a bot - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to sieve out the archives of the live urls in articles from the dead ones in the articles, but it is getting extremely tedious. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All suspicious aspects aside (and I agree it's kinda suspicious) these edits do appear to be broadly helpful, even if they're clogging your watchlist (and I do see you do a lot of good work in these heavily-socked topic areas, it's appreciated.). The edits are slow enough that it doesn't look like unauthorised automated edits, although doing it for this long does feel unhealthy. ~ mazca talk 10:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's who I think it is (PC07), it's a PR firm that's been trying to white-wash a specific article for a while. While boring, if you're getting paid to pull up either a List of ... article or certain category and click the "Fix dead links" link over and over, hey, just put something up in a different browser window. Most of these edits didn't find any dead links, so the value is questionable. No worries, obviously the advice it to just ignore this. We'll see the disruption in 17-18 days from this account. Sigh. Not even a formal warning given to them over this.. Why do I bother? Ravensfire (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the first hour when the rate was somewhat slower: from midday yesterday, they were 'editing' at a more or less constant rate of 47.2+ articles per hour for over 18 straight hours (yes: over eighteen hours), stopping at around 6:30 this morning. They have clearly stopped once the required 500 edits for ECP status was exceeded (though weren't actually watching at what point this happened). There is no way that anyone can believe that this is anything other than an unauthorised bot at work which was not programmed to stop at the 500th edit. After all: the account owner presumably has to eat, sleep and go to the bathroom within the time frame, but a bot has no such requirements. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just had a closer look at the 'edits'. They are in two tranches each of which is immediately consecutive (does not interrupt the 47.2+/hour rhythm at all). For both tranches, the edited articles are in exact alphabetical order meaning that an article list has been used to feed the bot. The first tranche runs from A-Z, the second from A-M. The second tranche is larger than the first. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Over exhaustive and indecent behaviour

    It is profoundly noticed that user Drat8sub is tryin' build a profound supremacy o'vr certain articles and blatantly reverting the sourced edits. Furthermore, I respect him due to his experience more than me but I've gone through the policies and regulation stipulated by wikipedia. He reverted many-a-edits of mine I'd like to show one for instance [link] I cited the name used by player himself and the articles are connotin' [235] and [236] but he valiantly disregard'd it. I've also cited the name used the articles. This made me and other user decently involved feel indecent. Furthermore, he tries to threat me to block as a friend of him is admin and also use loathesome tone. He is unabash'd when I requested to be usin' a decent tone. He's like makin' satire of the decent and open Wiki policies. Please look out in this envious and devious behaviour and establish measures 'gainst him.

    Regards

    SHISHIR DUA 14:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • To the admins, every single line written above is bogus and blatant lie and there is no truth exist whatsoever. These are serious accusation made by the user who themselves abusing editing privileges and this one is nothing but an attempt to harass. One must ask the user if they understand, profound supremecy over article, blatantly reverting and ask why went on to accuse me of having a friend who is an admin. Wow ! I mean you just put axe on your own feet with that line. Only thing that I want to tell now is, if one goes through their talk page history, their contributions and most importantly block log one can understand how much they are following guidelines, understand guidelines and even care about them, most importantly core content policies like VER/RS/CITE or in some cases MOS and article creation. Even after that if the admin needs any further explanation from me about the user's activities I would love to respond in details. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As anticipat'd indecencies and unprecedented lies. Needs proper restrictions. SHISHIR DUA 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the edit complained about, Drat8sub reverted SHISHIR DUA's {{flagicon|GNB}} [[Esmaël Gonçalves|Isma]] back to the correct {{flagicon|GNB}} {{sortname|Esmaël|Gonçalves}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang proposal for SHISHIR DUA. He has removed 3 warnings given to him by Drat8sub for repeatedly re-adding information from an unreliable source, even after being pinged to a talk page message to stop doing so. I don't see any evidence of SHISHIR DUA asking Drat8sub to change his tone, nor do I see any instance where Drat8sub could be making the OP feel 'indecent' or using a 'loathsome tone', let alone threatening to block him. This is purely an content disupte with IDHT on SHISHIR DUA's part, and the continuation of a pattern of behavior which has resulted in numerous blocks for repeatedly adding unsourced content, competence concerns, and just general disruptive editing.
    Also, SHISHIR DUA, please try to write words fully - your use of apostrophes has made this much harder to read. Giraffer munch 17:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye-aye, cap'n! M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favour of a boomerang. People considering this may want to have a look at some of the things mentioned in this thread. I highly recommend reading Usernamekiran's comment there in full, but to summarise, there are concerns about
    That, combined with the behaviour that led to the blocks mentioned above, including a fairly recent one by Bishonen makes me believe that an examination of SHISHIR DUA's conduct is more warranted than a discussion of Drat8sub's actions. (Full disclosure: Giraffer mentioned his boomerang proposal to me off-wiki. He did not ask me to participate in this thread.) — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: the two previous ANI threads about SHISHIR DUA (1, 2) may also be noteworthy. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) This users' contributions seriously make my brain melt. I can't tell if they are just young or what, but competence is very clearly an issue either way. The insistence on using a southern drawl while typing, the extremely inappropriate edits to other users' talk pages, the bizarre hat-collecting and complete lack of self-awareness... it's like WP:NOTHERE was written for them. I spent about 20 minutes going through their contributions and I'd like my 20 minutes back. MrAureliusRTalk! 04:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did mention the thread to Blablubbs, but in no way did I ask him to participate, apologies for not mentioning that sooner. Thanks. Giraffer munch 18:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • I havent followed SHISHIR DUA's edits in a while. But from what I had gathered till then, I would have suggested a topic ban from WP:PERM, and chit-chat type of conversation with any editor. First I was not sure if they have English competency issue, or they intentionally provide false information: once on enwiki, in request a for rollback, Shishir Dua stated they have rollback on two other projects. It was false. But the requester above Shishir Dua had said the same, and they had rollback on two other projects. I cant be sure if Shishir Dua intentionally lied about it, or copied the request without much consideration. Also, there are many comments where their wording (synonym words) is a little off, giving me very strong doubt that they use some sort of thesaurus software. But later I realised I cant assume much goodfaith here, as they often mis-present things, tell one side of the story (like this original post/complaint), and exaggerate things. Although a lot of their contributions are helpful to enwiki, a lot others are not. I strongly suggest them to get a mentor. @MrAureliusR and M Imtiaz: you aint gonna get those twenty minutes back matey. You wantchu know what me think bout it? Say "aargh", and fuggedaboutit. Seriously speaking: I had tried to tell them about their vocabulary, but they never responded. Once they responded on meta a few weeks later, and said I should consult a dictionary. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Think it's time for an indefinite WP:CIR block. Taken as a whole, I don't see a lot to encourage optimism about OP. (and I always type with a Southron accent. Y'all are just tone-deaf). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In the April ANI thread linked above, @QEDK: recommended an indefinite block on the next occsion. This was followed by Bishonen's block in September with a recommendation that the next block should be indefinite. I will therefor do so. As always, any admin can adjust or unblock if they feel warranted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible ongoing password hacking from 72.23.83.54

    I got an email yesterday from a user who is involved in an SPI that a password reset attempt on their account was made from 72.23.83.54. Didn't think much of it until I saw today at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody that the same IP tried that on EEMIV as well. Just a heads up. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We do have LTAs (or may be this is just the same LTA) requesting the password reset just to annoy us. A couple of years ago, I got several hundred requests in one day, which clogged my echo notifications and for some period made them useless. However, if your password is secure (ideally, you are using TFA and a strong password), annoying you will be the only result of this exercise. If it is not secure enough, please make it secure irrespectively of the reset attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, It wasn't my account; I was just sent email by the person whose account it was, seeking advice/assistance. I've alerted them to this thread off-line, but I'll leave it up to them whether they want to identify themselves.
    I'm wondering, though, would blocking the IP prevent them from trying additional reset attempts? I'm guessing not. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone at #wikimedia-tech mentioned that a block with also email blocked would stop it a the abuser level. Someone else recommended enabling Enhanced Password Reset (meta:Community Tech/Password Reset Update) to protect oneself at the victim level (see mw:Help:Reset password#I’m getting password reset emails that I didn’t request. How do I prevent this from happening?). DMacks (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MarcoAntonio007. disruptive editing

    User has been warned about five times for disruptive editing [237][238][239][240][241], once by bots, 4x by other users. It looks like intervention is required. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them for two days and will give him a partial ban from certain pages they disrupt when that block expires. I'm not hopeful they will become a productive editor but let's see what effect a block will have on them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Iamveryshy22

    This user has repeatedly vandalised articles including Siad Barre and has been abusive towards editors in their edit summaries e.g. "bro, why is wikipedia a mouthpiece for JSL revisionism, fucking hell, stop shaming Somalia and her heroes, you Mengistu Communist bastards"

    Additionally, on the Template:Military ranks by country page whereby their edit summary was "Somalilands one isnt even a rank table also its not real you isaaq tribalists, astaghfirullah, stop this grave worship of Sheikh Isaaq and the British Empire". This sort of behaviour coupled with accusations of "propaganda and historical revisionism" on their edits on the Somali Democratic Republic does not assume good faith nor is it constructive. Please look into this and take the appropriate course of action. Jacob300 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note this edit where they deleted the entire section on Mohammad Ali Samatar's involvement with the Isaaq Genocide with the edit summary "Fixed" and This edit where they used the arrest and release of a pro-unification activist to add a seemingly WP:OR paragraph seeming to attack the Isaaq. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given User:Iamveryshy22 a sharp warning for tendentious editing and bad behavior. Feel free to let me know if they persist, in case I lose sight of it. Bishonen | tålk 14:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    User: 76.85.70.60

    This user has harassed me and another user, vandalized and broke 3RR. Needs a block of at least 72 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. bibliomaniac15 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In case you losers didn't realize, I have virtually unlimited IPs where that one came from. Check the history of Quarantine and Freedom of movement. Losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.134.62 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting us know! We'll be on the lookout. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)
    Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Skylark8973

    Skylark8973 has been indefinitely blocked by Acroterion for personal attacks and harassment. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    After reviewing their editing history and attitude toward other editors, I've blocked Skylark8973 indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wide rangeblock request in Campo Grande, Brazil

    For years now, someone in Campo Grande, Brazil, has been disruptive in articles relating to heavy metal and hard rock music, Japanese anime, and professional fights. I keep running into this person in music articles where they routinely change genres to whatever seems right to them, not caring about what the references say. For instance, the person removed the heavy metal genre from an album that AllMusic described as "epic classic metal". The disruption has come from a variety of IPs, but for a few years now the biggest problem is Special:Contributions/2804:7F3:4980:48:0:0:0:0/36 – a very large range. It looks to me like the whole range is this one person, so no collateral damage from a block. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The way Vivo works, customers often bounce around on several /48s without much collateral damage. In that wide IP range, there are really only three IP ranges used:
    I'll block the top and bottom ones. If 2804:7F3:4980::/48 becomes active again, it can be blocked, too. Some of the edits on that /36 look familiar, but a lot of the genre warriors in heavy metal albums and horror films look interchangeable when you're not familiar with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ecotrustcanada editing article Ecotrust Canada

    Wearing the conflict of interest on your sleeve does not make it excusable. 1Veertje (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you should post it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have thought it highly likely that the user, having only relatively recently resumed editing Wikipedia after a break since 2008, is entirely unaware of current COI policy. Why the rush to bring it here, rather than discussing it with them? 2A00:23C7:B701:A101:47C:AB36:2E33:C1B6 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The username should probably be considered grandfathered, as the username policy when the account was created in 2008 was "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended." It's still a COI, though. They could be asked to voluntarily change their name. I'm wondering if shared use is a possibility, though, until recently they had not edited since 2008. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I came to the same thoughts on the possibility of it being shared independently and so have explicitly asked them whether they are the same editor, and asked them to register a new account if they aren't. Note that the editor edited in May and June and hasn't edited since then. So there's a reasonable chance there will be no response for a long time. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darknessitselfflames, 103.75.162.18 and Sunset Shimmer

    Last month, this IP started removing sourced content from List of bisexual characters in animation and List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2015–2019 (here and here), specifically related to the character Sunset Shimmer, as well as some vandalism, as seen here. They were warned and eventually blocked. Now they've registered an account and are doing much the same: [242] and [243]. After reviewing the video (and the twitter post again), I came to the conclusion that the information in the page is correct and left a warning at their talk page, assuming they'd decide to discuss the issue. Unfortunately they've resorted to personal attacks.

    Since I'm not sure how to best deal with them (and whether or not I'm correct in my assessment of the information), I've brought this here. Isabelle 🔔 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NO WAY IT WAS ATTACK WE JUST DONT WANT WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE SOMETHING FALSE PLEASE CHECK THE LINK AND THE VIDEO AGAIN ANYONE WITH HALF BRAIN WILL UNDERSTAND . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknessitselfflames (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remain WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Spiderone 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NO YOU HAVE NOT CHECKED CHECK THIS LINK AND THE VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CERhCMF9uzU&t=2356s please look into the video at just 38:00( at 38:00 you will ) of this hour long video she says herself(DIRECTOR KHADELY) and the twitter link again https://twitter.com/isitlunchyet_t/status/1176924351469195265 you will find the answer ISSABLE admitting youself wrong correcting yourself you do not lose anything ISSABLE but you gain more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknessitselfflames (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Darknessitselfflames has been blocked for 31 hours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darknessitselfflames: Please dont capizalise every character. Its considered shouting and will cause most editors not even bothering to read your post. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darnessitselflames: The video you linked includes the quote from K Hadley, "Sure, Sunset is bi. I get it." The tweet you linked to was a reply to this tweet from Twitter user "IsItLunchYet_t" (who identifies as, but is not verified as the director of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls) in which she states clearly "FYI, Sunset is bi." I'm not sure how you take these links as a refutation of this information. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is consensus for a block. In view of the clean block record so far, I have given three months, and advise User:Destroyeraa to return here if he needs to seek consensus for something more permanent. Deb (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sportsfanrob and his disruptive editing.

    Sportsfanrob has been warned many many times this year for disruptive editing, especially to articles relating to U.K. Sports teams and things related. In addition, Sportsfanrob has added unsourced, not useful, and plain disruptive edits to several Wikipedia pages. When warned, the user commonly says Goodbye Everyone who tells me to stop Good Riddance I will log out, then returns after several days and continues making disruptive edits. Some of this user's talk page comments have also been rather rude, including this one: I thought they will all be glad to see the back of me because I've been a bad editor. I will learn from my mistakes, but who will teach me? I may as well give up editing and stay logged out for good! GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE!. Pinging The Rambling Man and Lee Vilenski - both have done with this user before. Previously, this user has used an IP address to continue disruptive editing, 82.20.190.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user has a history of adding unsourced edits to Wikipedia, and this needs to stop. Thank you.~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Definitely a case of WP:CIR here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been very close to slapping a block on this user for a while, for various issues, but always deemed them to be not quite big enough to warrant a block. Looking back through the history, the user shows a ridiculous amount of flouncing and should be CIR blocked for not changing behaviour when told it is wrong. I don't think the few small good edits outweigh the large amount of poor edits and lack of ability to work as a part of the community. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A block is definitely in order. Shall I do it? Deb (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block. Wikipedia shouldn't be his playground. WP:CIR. JMHamo (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated addition of unsourced genres

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

    Despite a multitude of warnings, including several final ones, a previous block for this very reason and a personal plea from myself quite recently (if you are prepared to scroll past the almost countless speedy deletion nominations on their talk page), LisburnThePriest continues to add unsourced info to articles and refuses to communicate with concerned editors such as myself. Examples of these edits can be seen here, here, here and here. These edits, it should be noted, were after my recent personal plea. I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look please. Robvanvee 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero talk page posts and nearly 2 years since their last (of three in total) user talk page post. It seems they aren't big on communication. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or following V. Robvanvee 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked this editor. They can be unblocked if they agree to stop adding unreferenced content such as genres. They must also agree to communicate with other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=983187059"