Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Before posting:
- Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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 [1] 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]

I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 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]

I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 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]

Bad news!

Oh wait, there are more.

Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

This is from the PAST MONTH:

... and there were more before that.

These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!

Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this notice has served its purpose now, as to be fair there has been a sea-change in @Spiderone:'s attitude and behaviour. He's recognised that the WP:FOOTY shibboleth of "fully professional leagues" should be ignored altogether when dealing with female players. In another startling 180° turn, the other day he even voted !keep in an AfD for a female soccer player of pretty dubious notability. So this ANI report has undoubtedly served its purpose, although it's a shame it had to get to this stage for Spiderone to see the error of his ways. Especially when plenty of us tried to discuss it with him informally first. Still, I'm sure in future he will be more receptive to other editor's concerns and use this experience to improve as an editor going forward. Disappointingly @Fenix down: has gone the other way and 'doubled down', claiming that legitimate concerns over him closing discussions early, !supervoting and/or being openly not neutral are all "unfounded". And while there are still open questions over the WP:GANG antics of a handful of other WP:Football editors, they are probably disussions for another day. There doesn't seem much sense in dragging this (or the artifice below) out any longer. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:58, 24 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]

NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 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 5 7 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. Giant Snowman 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]
- I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [2]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [3] and June 2019 [4]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Le v!v ich 16:06, 19 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. Giant Snowman 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]

Note

From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from ~~Millwall~~ London City Lionesses.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Le v!v ich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban When will Wikipedia leadership start looking at the referenced deletion discussions and the patterns of many of the editors here who are proposing a topic ban aka targeting the same editor and women's football articles in general? I'm not sure what the obsession is about - it's rather comical, really -- but indeed an old and quickly decaying pattern on an equally aging platform. Surely, there are more productive things to do in life and on Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia's systemic bias against coverage of women's subjects is no better exemplified nor more infamous than in our grossly out-of-balance guidelines on "PrOfEsSiOnAl" football leagues, which as others have said in both more and less colourful terms, are bullshit. Here we have another very small group of editors claiming this bullshit guideline as a justification for erasing every bit of information anyone has ever written here on football teams/leagues/players who are not men, and whining to administrators when anybody notices. Daz's pointed commentaries on this phenomenon are fair comment; you're supposed to be offended when this crap happens. Counter-proposal: the proposers of this topic ban are themselves banned from the subject of women's football. That would both stop the disruption and improve the encyclopedia. And can we please trash that garbage guideline once and for all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and further, WP:FPL is an essay with years of evidence of "ownership" behaviors exhibited by some of these same editors here attempting to silence BBDS again (just look at the edit history). See also WP:BULLY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think in football parlance some of the lads can "dish it out but not take it". They expect to foul with impunity themselves but when faced with a robust challenge in return they roll about on the ground, feigning injury and squealing to the referee! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. It has already been demonstrated that the user originally accused (Spiderone) was not targeting women's football, and that many of the deletion arguments were legitimate, albeit sparse. There is nothing about Bring back Daz Sampson's comments that comprise a "fair comment"; slinging ad hominems while contributing nothing to the discussion (as they have done once again, immediately above my comment), canvassing editors, and continued lack of demonstration of good faith. There are perfectly legitimate ways to debate these issues without stopping to that level. You seriously think a counter-ban is what's necessary here? You have no issues with how Bring back Daz Sampson has behaved? You're not at all concerned that they have a demonstrated history with these issues? Jay eyem (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose boomerang

This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I propose a topic ban. This was done by Number 57. And given how massively disruptive you have been at the AfDs on which you have been commenting, I think it merits attention. And reubtting points made against myself is perfectly legitimate argumentation. Literally the point of AfD is to make arguments on whether or not an article should be kept. Comparing my actions to yours is completely absurd. Your slinging of ad hominems and hostile tone, while frequently contributing nothing to discussion, is not comparable to my rebutting points made in an AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wanted to look through the diffs, you will notice that I did not initially attach this complaint to this discussion; it was added as such later by an uninvolved individual. Claiming that I am trying to "silence [you] and open up a new front in the above content dispute" is completely absurd and continued showing of bad faith. Jay eyem (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff showing my initial post on ANI. Here and here is the uninvolved user incorporating it into this argument. The diffs are clear, that wasn't my doing. And yes, your abusive language and bad faith arguments had gotten to the point where I felt it was necessary to bring it up at ANI, and it appears my concerns are shared. As Number 57 noted, this is not your first time dealing with issues like this. Responding to questions with reasoning is not bludgeoning. Linking individual users to a discussion is the clear definition of vote-stacking, which is covered under WP:CANVASS. You have, and continue to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive editing, and this "boomerang proposal" is another pretty clear example of that. No idea what you are proposing here. If an uninvolved admin would let me know, that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a ~~permanent~~ (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working ~~on my draft and future articles~~ (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just now I see that Eggishorn is not an administrator. I was scared by the comment and misread the small print, as is obvious. Eissink (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ice

sink

Time

sink

Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [5], and this [6], and this [7]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. E Eng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests

Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.

I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.

There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?

Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My advice to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening didn't penetrate, I guess. E Eng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Le v!v ich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Le v!v ich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. E Eng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too impressed. I was pretty sure he'd blow himself up with his suicide vest so I'd get all the Gunga Din credit without the headache of having to actually deal with him in the future, and my crystal ball did not fail me [8]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. E Eng 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Boomerang site ban

It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked. Good god, I'll never get back the time I spent slogging through the above. What a life. It's obvious that Eissink has not lived up to the promises that were the basis for their unblock in May 2019, where they for instance said "I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal."[9] The unblocking admin, Huon, warned them at the time: "Should the previous behaviour recur, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again, and getting unblocked again would be far more difficult". Yup. I have indeffed again, based on Eissink's personalising of disputes, as can be seen in this very ANI discussion as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, which Eissink, according to his own statement above, took part in purely in revenge against The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bish, you beat me to the punch. This was a timesink of the highest kind, and we don't need an editor like this here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban. Thanks to Bish for stopping the immediate disruption. This is now Eissink's second indef on enwiki, plus they're indef'd on nlwiki; seems to meet the criteria for a site ban, and if disruption occurs again on some other project, a cban here will probably make a global lock easier. Le v!v ich 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Update: Eissink has used his talkpage access to abuse his opponent, so I've revoked it. He'll have to use UTRS if he wishes to appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed (but of course I always agree with Bish). Is this still necessary? Indef-blocked with TPA revoked is essentially site-banned, is it not? Does a formal site ban serve any distinction at this point other than officially making him persona non grata? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Le v!v ich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [10]. We've seen this pattern from him over and over and over. It's the way he is. He's harassed and abused people at multiple projects, and meta. No more ~~second~~ ~~third~~ ~~fourth~~ chances. Done. E Eng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I don't think it counts unless you say it in bold. Le v!v ich 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it E Eng 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Support siteban though this editor is now blocked with TPA revoked, I think a siteban is still appropriate. The personal attack they made on their talk page after being blocked and the modification of another users comment as a "joke", when it modified the meaning of said sentence to imply the said user thinks their writing is unintelligible, on top of the other issues / personal attacks they have made, pushes me to support a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Eissink managed to get out of an indef block once before, so let's make it official this time. This comment, which is clueless on multiple levels, was enough to send me over the edge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:
An editor: I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around.

Eissink: Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia.

E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? E Eng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that finger is in a dike please don't have them remove it. We don't want to be responsible for any national catastrophes. E Eng 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC) That's d-i-k-e. No tasteless jokes, please.[reply]

@Drmies and EEng: Someone needs me? Trijnstel_talk 14:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, genie. Can you tell us the background to Eissink's block/ban at nlwp? E Eng 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Nope. That comment shows this isn't someone we want editing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Just in case it wasn't clear. E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban to prevent another admin from unilaterally overturning the block, as unlikely as that may be. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban This user had their second chance and blew it spectacularly. Going out with a parting insult just proves they are WP:NOTHERE and should not be a part of this community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban I'll have to roll with the fellows above. ~ HAL333([11]) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose:

1/ He has been goaded by The banner several times, as I could witness myself on articles I wrote.
2/ He has contributed a lot, with interesting articles created, and has a lot to contribute, as noted by several contributors, and as opposed to "contributors" who only delete.
3/ Above all, would the community risk using different yardsticks when, on the one hand banning Eissink, and on the other hand let The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction? whereas The Banner has, on top of his goading actions which have pushed Eissink beyond his limits, a long history of being blocked himself?
- See The Banner's block log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=The+Banner&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=--
- The Banner has been blocked 12 times (!), among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread)", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion)",...
Emigré55 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that:

The Banner has not been blocked since 2015 (nearly 5 years ago).
They haven't been blocked 12 times. They have been blocked 9 times. The number of times someone has been blocked doesn't necessarily correspond to fault.
Just because we are discussing the ban of one editor doesn't mean we need to sanction the other editor.
Regardless of if someone has contributed constructively doesn't mean we should ignore their personal attacks against multiple editors.
If you believe that The Banner needs to be sanctioned, propose it here. Partly opposing a ban because there isn't a discussion to sanction the other editor seems counterproductive to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested about the goading by The Banner. Can you provide some diffs which show this? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: to answer your last question about the diffs on the goading by The Banner :

Eissink provided very precise examples on how he was chased by The Banner.

He described the process of this hunt by the Banner in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=982999994#Wielding_the_Salmoninae?

And precisely in his contribution to this thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=982974533

In the links he gave, he provided The Banner's first goading edit (who chose to interact with Eissink, not the contrary, while he knew they had a difficult past together), in a discussion The Banner was not part of, where he tried to publicly stigmatise Eissink in a reference to "elsewhere" (being Dutch Wikipedia) — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=974491790&diffmode=source
His very next edit after that, was on Anna van Egmond, so it quite clear that he followed Eissink’s edits and once again thought it wise to interfere with Eissink’s editing — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_van_Egmont&diff=974495041&oldid=974438938&diffmode=source

These are the two main diffs. As Eissink stressed out, it was The Banner following him around that started the unfortunate and lengthy deliberations on Van Egmond and Pourbus.

The edits don't lie: The Banner was chasing Eissink, not the contrary. Basically, revenge from the past, something that he should never have done: he undeniably provoked the conflict that followed.

--Emigré55 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Now outline the provocation that forced Eissink to refer to another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [12]. E Eng 01:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the votes so far. Le v!v ich 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ EEng : I agree that these words are not acceptable. And I think Eissink acknowledged it.

However, my point is not to discuss here his bad words, or that he got carried away, beyond limits, and the fact that he was blocked for that.

My point here is to discuss the fact that in so doing the community would be using different yardsticks: if, on the one hand , the community is banning Eissink, and on the other hand leaves The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction.

Whereas there is a huge discrepancy between the number or times when Eissink was blocked (one time in 2019) and when The Banner was blocked (9 times, as Dreamy Jazz rightly pointed out here above, and 1 times indef.!, among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion",...), and for actions which now repeat ("what's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh") , and not only with Eissink.

The community, in that very case, would have been abused in its judgment. And in my opinion, clearly manipulated by The Banner playing the victim, whereas he was, and is, the hunter who provoked all this.

In my opinion, it would be very unfair to leave The Banner continue as if nothing had happened. A clear permit then given to him to continue his negative only actions, which others suffer too.

@ Drmies,Pawnkingthree,RickinBaltimore,Grandpallama,HandThatFeeds,Dreamy Jazz,Levivich,HAL333 Lepricavark,Joefromrandb,Eggishorn,Bishonen,Huon,Joefromrandb : I appeal to the fairness of the community in that case, so that there is no “premium given” to persistent hunters, such as The Banner, who deserves in my opinion an indef block this time, if not a ban as he has successfully overturned a previous indef block in the past.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11

What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[13][14].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.

The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date

My it's gone quiet. TL;DR perhaps. In summary, then: Three highly experienced core members of a significant WikiProject (WikiProject Aircraft) have come here to complain about a new editor. "His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings.", "this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION.", "The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words." -- none of them my words.

Two admins have responded. Tide rolls has criticised my wording here but not followed up their shallow-skimming opinion on the issue itself. Swarm also failed to do their homework and chose to believe the disruptive editor, for reasons which they remain silent on despite clear in-your-face evidence to the contrary. "I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue" - not my words again, but I share the sentiment wholeheartedly. When I say to you both that Your personal obsessions are devoid of factual nature, you should stop your obstreperous obfuscation, the guy should be let off to avoid offending the profound dignity of the almighty Wiki Gods Tide Rolls and Swarm, whatever their actual names, it seems that fiction is acceptable and fact is not to said Wiki Gods, and [assuming you now censure me for all that] Tide Rolls and Swarm you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself, you will of course be quite happy about that and not regard it as any way insulting, injurious, or contrary to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- because you are not sloppy hypocrites, are you, you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there, and stand by the ~~utter crap~~ words of profound wisdom you wrote straight afterwards. Right?

Hey, can a real admin do something about this, please? Ban me for whatever takes your fancy if it helps you sleep at night, but do something about the guy who came up with all those insults in the first place, that's all I an asking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a good impression of the editor about which you complained. Tiderolls 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a comment I made at the aircraft project I was attacked by Mark Lincoln for not agreeing with him, these have been linked above and I was accused of lying, making things up and being obstreperous whatever that is. I was then called a wiki god for bringing up the word consensus which went against his years of being an expert on the subject. He seems to have a dislike for people not using real names and has made a few digs like "Enjoy writing fiction if you wish to appease MilborneOne what ever his actual name." I was also attacked on the R101 page although I had not edited it since August. I returned from a break from a bereavement as an escape only to harshly attacked for not agreeing with Mark Lincoln. He is clearly not a team player, doesnt understood the consensual way wikipedia works and attacks everybody that disagrees with him. I would suggest he is blocked until he shows signs of being able to contribute in a team environment and show respect to others. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that User:MilborneOne is the very tolerant admin whom I mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was that thing that was repeatedly said about the reported user? Something about beating a dead horse? You've successfully driven the editor off the project, which is unfortunate, and yet you continue to provoke and antagonize them endlessly, then you use their responses to further justify why they should be blocked. It's really not a good look. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with Lincoln's comments, just that if he's quitting the project, move on with your lives and let him leave. There's no preventative angle at that point, thus the complaint is inactionable. Continuing to beat this dead horse, which Lincoln was ironically accused of doing multiple times, and then reporting his provoked responses as more evidence of wrongdoing is patently ridiculous. Go find an article to improve and leave the dude alone. He's clearly not some troll who's only here to antagonize you, he's just an editor who got frustrated with a content dispute and is now so fed up that all he wants to do is quit the project. Continuing to antagonize him is bordering on harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Who is the "you" in your rant? The aggrieved admin MilborneOne, me Steelpillow whom he asked to report the incident here, the others who have contributed here Ahunt, Nimbus227, one or two others who contributed at the time but have stayed away from this discussion, or some combination of all those highly experienced editors? And where is your evidence that I/we/"you"-unspecified "drove him off" ... "the project?" Unlike me, you have neither referred to nor posted a single diff or link. No, you are factually wrong yet again; when half a dozen editors politely explained that his edits were unacceptable, and why, he became abusive before responding to warnings by flouncing off in a huff. Here's] one of the diffs again, posted on an uninvolved editor's talk page claiming he has left Wikipedia entirely - just one example of his coming back over and over to repeat the claim that he is not coming back. He very explicitly states that this is because Wikipedia does not respect WP:THETRUTH as he sees it - in other words he is verifiably WP:NOTHERE, a fact pointed out by one of the many involved editors whom you choose to ignore.

Now for the sting. Was he really insulting? That is key to our argument, so I set up a little experiment. I am confident the other involved editors will confirm that insults are not my style; go back and you can see clearly that I deliberately prodded you and Tide rolls with Mark Lincoln's insults and wild accusations that you claim are not insults, to see how you would react. You did so beautifully. You both felt sufficiently insulted to be suckered into trading like for like. Tide rolls, bless them, even pointed out how well I had spun the impression. Thus your claims, that they are not insulting, are exposed by your own actions for the hypocrisy they are. Your comments here are now very visibly not evidence-based arguments intended to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but mere trading of opinion-based insults and wild accusations, and a desire to shoot the messenger (that's me, remember?). I just wanted to draw that point out for everybody to see. And now, if you don't mind, I will return to my usual polite self.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:

Four editors, all highly experienced, have argued the case against Mark Lincoln.
One admin is in favour of sanctions, two are against.

There is patently no clear consensus yet. Hence I have appealed for more admin voices here.

Your argument is flawed in other ways. Of course Lincoln is gone - for now. He lurked on long enough to contribute to this discussion, before realising that acting the absent editor while it concludes is his best strategy. (Is he still lurking now? If he reappears once this is over, would you change your verdict? I have a feeling we will find out in due course.) You also fail to address several points which other involved editors, including a fellow admin, have all raised.

My actions were designed to draw out the hypocrisy, and hence falsehood, of "I don't find such words insulting" arguments, which your latest reply reinforces nicely, thank you. But yes, I do owe you both an apology for winding you up, I hope that you can appreciate it was in what the majority of contributors here regard as a good cause. I can assure you that no personal hostility is involved and I will not be doing so again.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: Thank you for coming here, at least somebody has responded to my request. But you are wrong about my behaviour, I was very careful not to mislead, I stated explicitly to Swarm & co. that "you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there"; they knew perfectly well I was throwing Lincoln's insults back at them to provoke their reactions. I will be very happy to back out once the corroborative comments of other involved editors are being taken seriously and not just being ignored or scoffed at. Perhaps you could do them the honour, now that you are here?

@MilborneOne: Sorry to call on you again, but do you feel that I have failed to represent your case in a useful way? Am I now untrustworthy here? Happy to bow out if my presence here is now doing more harm than good.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say your presence here is now doing more harm than good, honestly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP I just contacted the involved WikiProject members. Our consensus on what to do about the incident has changed; enough of us now feel this is going nowhere and is no longer worth pursuing. I am happy to oblige. My thanks to those who participated, even if we did not all see eye to eye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your report was declined from the very beginning, it wasn't actionable and it hasn't ever been going anywhere from the start. We've been doing nothing but repeatedly trying to explain this to you the whole time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Jtbobwaysf is indefinitely topic banned from Imelda Marcos. After these threads stay open for a month or two because no admin wants to deal with it, maybe editors will stop doing these "multiple choice" sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: [[15]]

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.[16][17] -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: [18][19]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]) 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" [31] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [32] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [33]. 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 [34], 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: [35][36][37]. 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 [38] 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 [39], 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 ([40]) 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. E Eng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.

Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 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]

@Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 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]

Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 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]

Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 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 (d c̄) 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]

Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You said content failed verification when you did not even read the citation sources. . -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 13 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 (d c̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the intent is to prevent further disruption by stopping you from expanding into other areas of Philippines politics. This is something that can also be done by means of an indefinite block. I can apply that if you wish, you've only got to say so. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I retain the position that more than the case of the three or so articles which have become the focus of discussion so far, subject's dismissive behavior towards other editors and towards sources which disagree with his view, and his insistence on his own interpretation of other editors's supposed intentions (his refusal to acknowledge the difference between supposed net worth vis a vis ill-gotten wealth, for example) - thus creating an environment where it is impossible to have discourse under WP:Assume Good Faith - are the broader and more-essential arguments in favor of Proposals 1 and 2. These violate WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, quite blatantly. I do not see that this broader behavior has been sufficiently addressed, thus my continued support for Proposal 2 and 1. - Chieharumachi (talk)

First, I apologize for taking the wrong approach. I have opened RFC Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire to begin to address a few issues in the lede that appear conflated: One if the subject is a billionaire now (aka if she has wealth in the billions) which was the lede around the time of this ANI's opening, two if she and her deceased husband were billionaires (their 'personal net worth') in 1986 when they fled (the lede currently reflects this), and three if the wealth is ill-gotten (aka stolen). Each of these are separate claims and to keep the RFC simple, I only included the first of these claims in the linked RFC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 (DS)

I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is unnecessary. -Object404 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block

It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, let me point out that I am mainly uninvolved in the article. My only edits there are correcting her position (Manila -> Metro Manila) and removing an excess period. I agree with what Object404 has said. Typically, disruptive editors are given blocks. Also, I don't think I could still assume that the edits were made in good faith based on everything on this thread and on the article's talk page. ~~Having said that, I am at a tipping point. I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for Proposal 1 and support a heavier sanction.~~ I'd like to see how this will go and how other editors would comment. To the other editors, a lot of you are probably irritated already with how things are going here. ~~The user is unapologetic.~~ However, I would like to remind everyone to exercise caution with the proposals. Please support the proposal that you think is the most appropriate with regard to his behavior/actions. Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some progress now. The user has acknowledged the error. Even before that, I still think that an indefinite ban is an overkill (consistent with my previous comment). In the meantime, I'm staying with proposal 1. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this dispute I made the mistake of TE and RGW rather than running a RFC (or other DR process). In retrospect that would have been more logical in this type of highly politicized article. I apologize for that and accept whatever punishment is meted out even if it means the end of me editing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at last we seem to be getting somewhere. Jtbobwaysf has at last acknowledged they were in the wrong. If there is a chance that they will participate constructively in a DR process, then let's allow them to take that chance. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is too much. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos are unbalanced, and I believe Jtbobwaysf was trying to remove the clutter of undue weight on Imelda's article.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I periodically try to cleanup this article (havent made any attempt at the husband's as he is not a BLP and less priority I figured), and made the mistake of TE rather than doing an RFC. I have started Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire on the subject that related me my veering off course in my approach that ultimately resulted in this ANI. Feel free to comment. Apologies and thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

Thread retrieved from archive after a lull

Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. E Eng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sound of crickets chirping. E Eng 04:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this to prevent automatic archiving. Could this be closed already? HiwilmsTalk 09:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.

Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [41]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [42] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [43] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [44], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [45] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [46], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [47] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [48], as was the third [49] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That 60% figure is only because someone just split the page and there's only one year left in it... 2020. So I'm responsible for adding 60% of the content for fatalities in 2020. Before the split, just two days ago, I was responsible for 42% of the content [50] (fatalities in 2010-2020), and before the first article-split (in early 2019), when ALL the fatalities were on one page and I had finished the bulk of my work adding dozens of fatalities, I had still only authored 8% of the page [51]. That list-article has been edited for over 11 years and 4,000 edits; having been started 9 years before I was even an editor here. I am NOT the predominant editor for the content (of four list-pages of fatalities). Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above: At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with "Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian"." because we were discussing an AfD for the three articles List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians and that was too much of a mouthful (or typing-ful). I never "compared" veggers to ordinary folks, either — that was your misinterpretation and you got pissed off, and regardless of how I tried to explain what I'd wrote you continued to push the button (as you did above) that somehow I "contrasted veggers to ordinary people". And perhaps you're contributing to this ANI because you're still pissed off about that, and that a week later I arrived in your wiki domain and opened some cans of worms (at Template:Discrimination) and some other editor has picked up that baton and is beating you in your own debates (at WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism) and you see that as a reason to pop one at me here. (BTW, I bowed out of those conversation because I couldn't keep up with the esoteric language and had no access to the sources being discussed, and that other editor was a master at all that and has been doing just fine without me.) Perhaps you should re-read WP:Casting aspersions which refers to accusing others "without reasonable cause". Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mentioned a few times here as someone who made Normal Op "pissed off". I don't have a dog in this hunt and simply advise that any interested party peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album). Compare my brief and rather bland comment to the vociferous fury that it unleashed in Normal Op, which has continued here and caused a lot of work for everyone. Good luck. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If you want to "get the facts straight", let's clear up a few errors in your last post. I have not said that no editor can be pissed off; quite the opposite. And I do not know why you think I am angry. I am not. And I did not say that you compared "veggers" to "ordinary folk". I said that you contrasted "veggers" with "ordinary people", which you did, here -- there are "veggers", including those people who are "veggers" who "ordinary people" wouldn't believe didn't eat meat. You can accuse me of misinterpretation until you're blue in the face, but it's right there for all to see. I don't really have anything to say about your "beating you in your own debates" nonsense, but I think it's striking that the accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who disagrees with you is such second nature that I'm not even the first person you've targetted in this subsection. I've already said more than I want to; I do not want to be pulled into some pointless back and forth. I will not be posting here again. If anyone wants to talk to me, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, if you weren't contrasting 'veggers' to 'ordinary people', you must acknowledge that the way you worded your points could have given that impression to a reasonable observer. When I first read "If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat...)", that's exactly what I thought you were doing. I appreciate that being discussed at ANI must be stressful, but your tone here is exceedingly combative; a more conciliatory approach might be more effective if your aim is to convince people that you can collaborate effectively when you disagree with people. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [52] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the majority of my interactions with other editors have been just fine, but I'm sure it's especially important to focus on the minority that haven't. Stress? Introspection? Sorry, but I'm scheduled for surgery tomorrow and introspection isn't going to happen this week. Signing off now and un-watchlisting this page. If anyone needs to reach me, they can try the email function. Normal Op (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef t-ban - he has slid back into the same behavior that caused his t-ban a little over a year ago. He had a successful appeal July 6th, and within 2 months he was back at it, and received a warning from JzG on Sept 1st. A few weeks later, he received another warning by Nosebagbear. I think he is much too impassioned against bulldog types and a few of the larger breeds to edit collegially in that topic area. His responses in this discussion also speak to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef tban - despite warnings, the behaviour seems to have rapidly reoccurred. I'm willing to give the tban a chance before resorting to full on blocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating/expanding tban - WP:ROPE was given... Le v!v ich 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating the t-ban. Normal Op clearly can't hold back here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was hoping Normal OP would take a break from this area. I realize the stress of being at ANI so I do not hold the frustrated comments against them. Hard for me to argue with the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin recommendation - no Tban but a block for one week. WP:TBAN is used to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Only one editor in this section has claimed that the edits made were disruptive, without elaborating how. Other editors have stated that good work has been performed at times. The issue is one of behaviour and not of disruption. WP:CIVILITY allows blocking in cases of major incivility, therefore in this case a block is more appropriate. The editor would be well-advised to spend this blocked time reviewing the Wikipedia policies on CIVILITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and reference to RELIABLE SOURCES. Beyond this period, further incivility should result in a block for a longer period of time. William Harris (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broadened TBan, to cover animals in general (including animal products such as meat). Normal Op's combative attitude in this thread, and at the discussions listed above, and their unwillingness to accept that their own approach may be responsible for the heat in these discussions, in spite of two warnings issued since their TBan was lifted in July, convince me that there is a problem that requires action. I've considered William Harris's suggestion of a short block, but don't see that having the desired effect, whereas last time a TBan was applied, it seems that Normal Op was able to moderate their approach sufficiently to convince people to lift it. I don't know whether issues around animal welfare, vegetarianism and so on raise particularly strong feelings in them, but the civility issues on display in those areas at the threads above do constitute disruption in my view, and justify a reinstatement and expansion of their original TBan; the fact that the issues have spread to discussions about other animal-related matters suggest that it should be broadened. I wish them a speedy recovery from their surgery, and hope that they return to editing in some of the other areas where they have apparently contributed constructively. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban per Girth. This editor appears incapable of having a reasonable disagreement with other editors on the topic of animals or vegetarianism/veganism. The fact they felt the need to coin a new term for them versus "ordinary people" is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban I have had private email exchanges with five other Wikipedia editors going back 4 months about NormalOp's aggressive editing on articles related to veganism or animal rights, some of these users are too scared to voice this in open space because of a potential future grudge against them from Normal OP but emails could be send to the foundation privately if need be. Many examples could be cited but this user has a history of bullying users who edit articles in relation to animal rights. You can get an example of this at the Regan Russell article. Normal Op submitted the article for deletion [53], the vote was keep and he was not happy about that so he reverted any edits to the article, this user definitely has a WP:OWN problem. Normal OP then went onto the talk-page writing screeds of text and making offensive comments such as Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner. [54] Her stepson has since complained on the talk-page about Normal Ops aggressive editing [55]. I have seen many other incidents like this from this user, he cannot be trusted to edit articles in this field. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive

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

Note: User name changed after ANI opened

New userlinks: MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will be thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have asked the user again to explain their edits, but it seems they have ignored as rather than explaining they again claimed something without providing any source. It's now out of control and quite frustrating to deal with such editing behaviour, my request to any admin please take the necessary actions, it seems the user is highly incompetent. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, Yamla and GiantSnowman, I am pinging you, since this has not been addressed yet and you all dealt with this user before. Can anyone of you please take a look into this user's edits and bring a solution to the matter. Drat8sub (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a competency block is probably required, this edit from 2 days ago is the latest example of them failing to add sources to BLPs. Giant Snowman 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources. I will probably see any response, but please alert me if I miss it or if similar editing continues with no response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by Tisquesusa, round 3

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made another personal attack on me for my edits cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. The latest attack[56] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.

Tisquesusa has been blocked on two previous occasions for personal attacks on me over similar issues:

Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
Nov 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#More_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks_by_User:Tisquesusa – blocked for 7 days by Black Kite, with a warning[57]

I have not attempted to discuss this with Tisquesusa, because my previous attempts to start a dialogue have just been deleted, sometimes with a hostile edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328, for the prompt response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was commendably quick, but I would note that, in theory, the last incident was a final warning. This PA was, compared to a previous particularly unpleasant one, less egregious, so that may be why it was only a doubling of sanction, but if it reoccurs anything less than an indef would appear inappropriate. I know that BHG has the standard admin thick skin, but PAs are one of things we're supposed to handle most severely. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nosebagbear, you identified the reason why I didn't indef. "Less egregious" is exactly what I was thinking. The last incident was almost a year ago as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the closing of this thread as there is still discussion. We seem to have edged back in to the too-quick closes that have been an issue in the past.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I mean I'm willing enough to accept Cullen's reasoning (both facets) - I distinctly don't hold a permanent "parole" status over individuals, but if we get a similar action in another 10 months, I'd probably interpret that as deliberate gaming of the system (that, by the way, I do not believe occurred here) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this was obnoxious, but nowhere near as bad as the vicious rant before. However, the pattern is consistent: refusal of dialogue, and prompt escalation to PAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa is a productive editor who makes large numbers of edits to geology related articles without issues. A 2 week block for an f bomb after the last issue was ten months ago is frankly excessive. Brownhairedgirl antagonises Tisquesusa by undoing his edits rather than simply removing the problematic part of them, which she knows from previous edits antagonises him and causes him to make personal attacks, because she can't be bothered. Tisquesusa does have some intractible behavioural issues, as demonstrated above, but one "fuck off" in 10 months is not indef worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Trying to argue that one editor causes another editor to make personal attacks doesn't seem like something that's going to gain much sympathy from others. Regardless of how much Tisquesusa is being antagonized by others, he is still responsible for what he posts and how he responds. This block might be excessive depending on how serious you view the situation, but WP:BROTHER and WP:NOTTHEM types of arguments are almost never considered accepted reasons to unblock someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, if you think that two weeks is excessive after a one week block was ineffective in ending the propensity to engage in personal attacks, then which block length would be appropriate? Nine days? Eleven days? Please note that I did not indef. So, do you favor a new policy that says it is OK for editors to assume bad faith when the reverted edit had fundamental flaws? I hope not. Yes, BHG could have cleaned up the edit but the actual responsibility for cleaning up a bad edit lies with Tisquesusa. Do you agree? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett got away with repeatedly calling editors cunts for years and made clear that he didn't care about the blocks. Tisquesusa isn't going to change his behaviour from this block so why bother? Blocking him is merely a waste of time. Blocking him as a WP:Punish because BHG cannot avoid antagonising him. Tisquesusa feels antagonised by BHG due to previous interactions during the portals debacle, BHG's conduct during the portal episode led to her being stripped of her adminship. The answer here is for Tisquesusa to have a one way interaction ban with BHG, for BHG to avoid undoing his edits and for other editors to try to reason with Tisquesusa to avoid personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of @Hemiauchenia,'s comments is their assertion that I cannot avoid antagonising him. That inverts the reality of Tisquesusa choosing to responding aggressively to routine cleanup of errors which they repeatedly create.

I have tried discussing issues with Tisquesusa, but the response was always to simply to remove my posts, dismissing them variously as "spam" or "harassment", usually with an insult attached. See e.g. the history which I set out at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa.

My response to Tisquesusa's addition of pages to redlinked cats is the same as with any other editor who adds a page to a non-existent category: if the redlinked cat was clearly an addition, I just remove it; but if it was part of a wider set of changes, it may be more appropriate to revert to an earlier set of categories. (E.g. if an article was in "Categ:Foos in Spain" and "Categ:Madrid", but was recategorised into the non-existent "Categ:Foos in Madrid", then simply removing "Categ:Foos in Madrid" is the wrong solution.)

That's why in such cases I do not simply remove the category. The options are a) to take time to investigate the history, or b) revert, leaving it to the editor who knows the topic to fix their error.

There are many hundreds of such redcats to be fixed every week: in the last few weeks the average has been ~700–1000 per week. Few editors do this tedious work, so there simply isn't time to stop and mount a detailed investigation of each of them. So in most cases, I simply revert, leaving the editor to fix their error.

I do hundreds of such everts every week. Those reverts get significantly more thanks than objections, and the only editor who responds abusively is Tisquesusa. The effect of Hemiauchenia's proposal is that I should refrain from reverting the errors created by Tisquesusa solely because they repeatedly choose to be dismissive and/or abusive when faced with an issue which the overwhelming majority of editors handle with civility. That is no way to run a collaborative project ... and I find it quite obnoxious that Hemiauchenia has repeatedly tried to blame me for Tisquesusa's sustained aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine cleanup" only makes sense if it improves the affected page(s). The net result of BrownHairedGirl's edit was the opposite of improvement. Although the edit did remove one non-existent category, thus slightly improving the page, that same edit also removed four good categories, restored a typo, got rid of two valid wikilinks, and undid a minor improvement to the sentence structure. That's a textbook example of what we call in the industry "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
The summary of BrownHairedGirl's edit failed to adequately explain what she was doing, making it impossible for Tisquesusa to understand why BrownHairedGirl's edit was to be regarded as anything other than borderline vandalism. BrownHairedGirl has since produced an explanation of why the edit was made the way it was made, the benefit of which Tisquesusa didn't have at the time the incident occurred.
Because BrownHairedGirl's edit was overall unhelpful, and its edit summary deficient, Tisquesusa's characterization of it as destructive was reasonable given the knowledge available to him/her at the time, as was his/her admittedly suboptimally phrased request that BrownHairedGirl discontinue her engagement with Tisquesusa's edits.
Holding grudges isn't helpful. At least a token attempt at communication with Tisquesusa should've been made prior to the opening of this ANI thread regardless of the fact that some year-old attempts to talk to the editor were unsuccessful. No such attempt was made.
Because no attempt to communicate with the reported user was made, it was disingenuous of BrownHairedGirl to describe the reported user as displaying a consistent pattern of refusal of dialog; no such refusal occurred in this instance other than, ironically enough, by BrownHairedGirl herself.
Blocking a highly productive and competent long-time editor over a single-diff complaint less than half an hour after the complaint was made, without allowing the reported editor a chance to respond, would be questionable at best even if there weren't any extenuating circumstances. In a case like this one, where the reported editor's regrettable outburst was clearly provoked by an overall unhelpful edit made by someone s/he used to feud over portals with prior to both editors getting banned from the namespace, an expedited block isn't just questionable, it's egregiously inappropriate.
Based on points one through six, and the history between the two editors, I recommend: a) vacating Tisquesusa's block; b) advising BrownHairedGirl that the high volume of her edits is not a valid justification for the subpar quality of some of these edits, such as the one that ultimately gave rise to this ANI thread; and c) instituting a two-way interaction ban between Tisquesusa and BrownHairedGirl. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp has constructed a highly selective and prejudiced view of the history.

First, I did not feud over portals with Tisquesusa. I was doing cleanup work of removing links to deleted portals. Most such links were removed by my bot task ([4]), and Tisquesusa was re-adding the redlinks. There was no feud; it was a simple case of Tisquesusa choosing to attack me for doing that cleanup and for asking them to desist from re-adding such links.

A detailed explanation of why I reverted fully rather than partially would have been available to Tisquesusa if they were open to discussion, because I would have discussed it with them, as I have done with other editors. The evidence is very clear that they are not open to discussion. See e.g. [58], [59], [60].

This is not a one-off error by Tisquesusa. It part of a long series of edits in which they have left articles in one or more redlinked categories. I have pinged them in those other cases too, so they have been well aware of the issue. See e.eg. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [], [68], [69], [70], [71].

Nor was my edit summary deficient. The summary [72] was Reverted 1 edit by Tisquesusa (talk): — Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT, which is the same edit summary that I have used on many thousands of similar edits. It explained precisely why the edit was reverted, with a link to the relevant guideline: WP:REDNOT. This is the same edit summary as I use in every other one of the hundreds of such edits which I perform every week. Note that Tisquesusa very rarely uses any edit summary at all. It is perverse to criticise me for not writing an essay in the edit summary but make no comment on Tisq's complete omission of any explanation of the vast majority of their edits.

This is not a matter of holding grudges. It is a simple consequence of the reality that every attempt I have made to discuss any of these issues has been removed by Tisquesusa with a hostile summary: see the history in 2019, and that in 2019 I was subjected to a lengthy vile and vicious highly personal attack. I do not want to expose myself again to that level of hatred, which has not just been directed at me: it was also directed at Black Kite, who blocked Tisq last time: their block notice was removed with the edit summary[73] fuck off with your bullying bullshit

Their general hostility and aggression is also directed at other editors, e,g.

[74] editsum Which idiot cannot spell Colombia?
[75] comment: you can fold and fuck off with your lazy BS

What on earth is the point of trying to communicate with an editor who has point-blank refused communication and a history of sweary aggression?

Why do you try to put the onus on me to waste my time and to expose myself to more abuse from an editor who has in no way changed their approach from when they made such a vicious attack that it was revdelled?

How does it any way help the 'pedia to demand sanctions against me for doing routine cleanup because Tisquesusa a) repeatedly creates an error which they are well of, b) has rejected communication with such severe personal attack that I am wary of exposing myself again? If Tisquesuasa wanted to reopen dialogue, they have had ample opportunity to do so.

If I don't cleanup Tisquesusa's additions to Special:WantedCategories, the task will be left to somebody else. How much abuse are they expected to endure before they too get threatened with sanction because Tisquesusa routinely prefers aggressive hostility to dialogue?

How does it help the 'pedia for editors dong cleanup to be required to avoid an aggressive, sweary, abusive editor like Tisquesusa for fear that they will be blamed for the aggressive response? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iaritmioawp, here is the bottom line: Engaging in personal attacks is a serious violation of policy, and Tisquesusa has a history of making attacks that are vile, prolonged, intensely personalized and dehumanizing. The next time that Tisquesusa chooses to engage in that behavior, they will be blocked indefinitely. I hope that's clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope it doesn't come to that because we're hardly in a position to expel prolific expert editors from the site. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your edit summaries are deficient is that what your edits actually do goes well beyond merely removing the problematic category. An accurate edit summary for edits like this, this, this, or this would be something along the lines of "I'm undoing every single improvement you've made to the page because you happened to accidentally add a category that doesn't exist as part of your otherwise good edit." Does this sound to you like the summary of a useful edit, or does it perhaps sound to you more like the summary of a rather unhelpful edit?
The diffs you've provided to document "a long series of edits in which [Tisquesusa has] left articles in one or more redlinked categories" are highly disturbing but not in the way you intended. While they do provide us with evidence of a pattern of problematic editing, I'm sorry to inform you that it's your editing that's problematic, not Tisquesusa's. Your goal of ridding Wikipedia of red-linked categories, while noble, does not give you a license to mass-undo every single edit ever made that happened to consist in part of the addition of a non-existent category. If such were the case, we'd have a bot doing that. The whole reason we insist on human review is to avoid the sort of demoralization Tisquesusa has been subjected to by your bot-like edits (edit adds a red category = edit automatically gets undone in complete disregard of its content beyond the red category addition).
The answer to your question of how much abuse an editor is expected to endure is quite simple: exactly as much as they themselves dish out. Do you honestly believe Tisquesusa would've lashed out at you if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories? I don't. Does anyone? Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iaritmioawp, that's a quite extraordinary attitude. Your point #3 tries to equate Tisq's dropping of an f-bomb with me doing a type of edit which I do to hundreds of pages every week, to which nobody else responds abusively.

Your attempt to claim that my series of diffs shows me behaving badly is absurd. Those diffs show that Tisq repeatedly, over many weeks, creates an error of which a) he was repeatedly warned, b) is clearly flagged when he saves the page. (Because there's a redlink in the categories).

You seem to believe that there is no problem at all with Tisq continuing to repeat the same error ... but that I am a wicked monster for not spending my time to figure out whether the redlinked category is a) wholly mistaken, b) should exist, and if so c) what its parent categories should be.

In other words, it is considerably more work for someone not specialising in this area to clean up after Tisq's edits than it would require Tisq to fix them himself. When did it become the responsibility of others to fix errors knowingly introduced by another editor?

As I noted above, Tisq himself is the person best-placed to decide whether the category should be A) removed, B) replaced with another, or C) created. Why ae you so absolutely determined to absolve him of any responsibility for his edits and instead to pile with attacks on me? What's this really about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010

Abusive language and personal attack. [76] AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which way did your comment help anyone ?, You pinged me and proceeded to poke me, Go do something useful that doesn't involve pissing me off. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know trains are a passionate subject, but maybe...chillax? Davey, dunno why you had to remove Algae's comment, it didn't meet any criteria or reason for removal in the WP:TPG. And you were unnecessarily acrid about it. I think Algae was responding in good faith, although Algae: you could have clarified your statement instead of making just a passive aggressive "you're wrong", you could have clarified "heres my interpretation". @Davey2010: Please stop removing AG's comment tho, if you keep it up I'll have to block you and that would not be fun for either of us. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained fully why I did, What a circus this project has become!, I'm here to improve articles for our readers - Not to be poked by some sad child with absolutely fuck all else better to do!, Oh well, I'm done here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Little late for this now as the claimee has participated, but AlgaeGraphix, in the future you must notify the user whom you are bringing to ANI on their talk page as dictated by policy and the editnotices that popped up when making a new thread here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu, when the person reported replies to the report a minute after the report was posted, the notification is moot. There is literally no reason to burden the servers with a notification edit if the person to be notified is already participating. Policy doesn't "dictate" notifications in such circumstances, nor does policy dictate anything, because of the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Le v!v ich 20:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I only let them know as I was under the impression that with the degree of action that can be enforced here, impropriety could potentially be seen as a technicality to dismiss. I'll take that under advisement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 48 hours. Any admin can unblock once they're assured of Davey2010's willingness to work collaboratively. – bradv🍁 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu and Levivich: I fully intended to notify Davey2010 and do a proper ANI complaint (especially as it appeared as if he was about to launch into a full-blown edit war), but real life interrupted. And FWIW, I've been editing train articles (albeit with more emphasis on diagrams) probably just as long as Davey2010. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout. AlgaeGraphix, no worries. It was just me jumping the gun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout here, too, re-reading my earlier message. Sorry, Tenryuu, in a twist of Muphry's Law, I was way too pedantic while complaining about pedantry. Le v!v ich 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, all good. I think everyone here was just trying to make sure the reporting process went well so that the case could be investigated without any technical hiccups. :) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Seriously, I am watching nasty trash talk on my watchlist go on and on. Can an admin intervene there and sort it out. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the above. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv has beat me to the block. I agree, time for a cool down, this is absurd. Continuing to spew personal attacks, at multiple editors, after being dragged to ANI. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, hopefully he will cool down. Go for a walk through the tree's in a nice peaceful environment. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear, the purpose of this block is to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, not to convince someone to go for a walk. Cool-down blocks are discouraged by policy. – bradv🍁 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And peace by with you Mr Bradv.

Govvy (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT defending Davey's reaction or personal attacks, and am NOT criticizing the block, and am NOT criticizing AG for coming here. But, just as food for thought, when Davey removed the comment the first time (and subsequent times), he'd obviously read it. Whatever benefit AG intended it to have, it obviously wasn't having the desired effect. Was it necessary for everyone to re-add it? To be honest, if I were in AG's shoes, I'd have probably re-added it too, as my reptilian brain would instinctively react to being insulted and reverted. But just a thought that, as an outside observer who was not the target of the unacceptable attacks, there is a tremendous benefit to the encyclopedia in people treating others more graciously than the others are treating them, even when not really deserved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I think about it, is was kind of an unhelpful message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: As a member of the group "everyone" if you have been nice to ping me of your concerns of my actions? Per WP:TPO should people's go around removing comments from talk page discussions, especially when having an opposing view. The standard practice when I do something incomprehensible is to leave a little comment questioning my thought pattern, not to remove the entire thing. To state the relatively obvious I was drawn by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains being on my talk page and noting the inappropriate action determined to intervene. You may consider my warning [77] was likely to result for a block for Davey2010 but my reading of Template:Uw-3RR indicated it was technically correct.02:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) [reply]
Intervening is not always the right choice though...you warned the guy after he'd already been dragged over here and acknowledged it, it shouldn't be hard to see how that might inflame the situation with someone who was clearly feeling prickly for whatever reason already. This is one of the times where following the letter of the law isn't necessarily the best way to de-escalate the situation. Just sort of something to keep in mind in the future I guess, obviously this one has ended poorly. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wicked Twisted Road: Not intervening to challenge the behaviour on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would not have been a correct thing to do? Yes I did that at 19:30, 3 mins after it was raised at ANI [78] (which I did not spot); but there is some concern Davey2010's purpose may have been to get AG blocked so I would not have wanted AG to have done a 3rd reversion. And removal of opposing comments from a talk discussion is a pretty serious matter ... let also the "Fuck off prick." comment in the summary on the original reversion by Davey. Davey reverting me at 19:35[79] with the comment "We can all have a friendly discussion without the childish poking, If AG has nothing of value to add then they can simply move on elsewhere." which was after Davey was aware of the ANI (which I was not) basically meant further action. At 19:42 Captain Eek reverted Trains&oldid=984901056 984899983 and in the same minute I issued a Template:Uw-3rr warning (I think I recall seeing Captain Eek's contribution just before mine but on balance determined Template:Uw-3rr reasonable at the time. (Re-reading Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors having read part one of "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a Template:Uw-3rr template message on their user talk page." without reading the follow on sentence ". Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." ). In retrospect therefore I apologise for my post at [80] which should not have been a template (a learn point for me there); this perhaps leading to Davey's reversion [81] with the comment "Fuck off troll" which likely contributed to the block. As it happens I was unaware at the time I had !voted at the RFC in question at WikiProject trains, subsequently re-reading the discussion somewhat later yesterday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early unblock?

Regardless of the incident I am most pleased to see Davey2010's considered response on their talk page and per Bradv's reasoning I think I would be supportive consideration of an early unblock as further disruption seems unlikely (touch wood). It looks like a little "flying off the handle" and perhaps reading a little more into something than was meant ... and I think I'm seeing a lot of goodwill wanting to wish Davey2010 back.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"flying off the handle" - c'mon, you could have at least said "going off the rails..." <groan> But on a serious note, Davey seems quite upbeat and sincere on his talkpage. This time tomorrow, the block will have gone no matter what. We all have our off days. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I flipped the frick right off my rocker just yesterday. Now I'm self-relegated to topics starting with vowels and numerals for two weeks. No lights, no music. Just ANGER! But since it's not forever, I'm already feeling better. Good luck, Davey! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who can believe you? Le v!v ich 23:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A hitman, a nun...lovers. Peaceful loving youth against the brutality of plastic existence. Chic 'N' Stu, Mr. Jack, one that smiled as he flew over the bay. Sweet Danny and Lisa, old school Hollywood baseball and yes, even the stupid mushroom people (though of war we don't speak anymore)! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the admins are aware of this, but this is not the first, nor second time Davey2010 has been brought to ANI because of his swearing. AshMusique (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 is a longtime editor and I think most admins who would frequent this page are aware that he has been brought here before on complaints. This was a short block and I believe it was judged to have served its purpose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. Davey2010 is unblocked, and has committed to working collaboratively. As a final note to both him and AlgaeGraphix – you are both interested in working in the same area, and that collaboration will work infinitely better if you're able to communicate. You certainly don't need to agree – some of our best content is written by people who disagree – but you do need to be able to talk to each other. I hope you can both put this little spat behind you and get back on track. And with that final low-effort pun, this thread can probably be closed. – bradv🍁 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would find Davey2010's "sincere and unreserved apologies" more believable if he had bothered to ping or poke me as well, as the person who the profanity and accusations were directed against. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that would be better, the important thing IMO is that Davey has apologised for his conduct, and that's all that matters given that blocks should not be punitive. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN proposal

I would like to propose a two-way IBAN between myself and AlgaeGraphix - We had a disagreement back in June which spilled over to ANI and given his comment recently and even today it's very clear we don't get on and never will, Again I see the comment today as him trying to poke me and so having this IBAN would stop his silly comments and would stop my silly edit summaries. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If these two editors won't voluntarily keep away from each other, then they need to be forced to keep away from each other. To be clear, this would be a complete interaction ban, including pings, thanks etc, with the sole exception of posting mandated notices on each other's talk pages, on pain of being blocked for breaches. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak support~~Neutral - I'd like to see another option - I could have cried when I saw AlgaeGraphix's comment at [82] as it was likely to be re-escalatory, though I AGF that was not AlgaeGraphix's intent. Obviously we'd be preferring a two way voluntary no-fault I-BAN if it has to come to that. @AlgaeGraphix, what is your viewpoint on this? Alternatively are you able appreciate Davey2010's concerns and voluntarily willing to try to modify your interactions to try to avoid Davey2010's sensitivities? I'd really like another option here. Please AGF I'm doing my best help here, though I'm really nervous I'll make things worse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Djm-leighpark, What other option do you think we have ?, I've done my damned best to stay out of his way and yet still he continued to poke and prod me (as demonstrated in your link), If I'm being honest as I can be I would've preferred to have no IBAN and we both stay out of each others way however for AG that hasn't worked. Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: My thoughts are as follows: Let us take the assumption that is not possible to prevent AG from "touching your buffers" or annoying you from time to time, even if that is at a lower frequency. Because that is the case the only thing you may be able to control is your response when you feel you have been offended. I appreciate while what am about to say may seem easy but as it may be near impossible to change your response. In particular it is important not to respond directly at the person you have offended you. Option One would be to simply ignore whatever it is. Option 2 would be to use a mini-wiki-breaker self-enforcer for a few hours. Option 3 would be to see if anyone would pre-volunteer to try to mediate if you feel a problem has arise to avoid direct confrontation with the person who has caused you a problem. There is also the problem AlgaeGraphix has not responded to your IBAN suggestion here; which is perfectly permitted; and without AlgaeGraphix's support this IBAN will suggestion will likely fail. And if that is the case you probably need to train and pre-prepare yourself in a coping strategy to let the safety value let off excess boiler pressure.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I remember previous ANI reports from earlier this year about Davey2010 engaging in personal attacks and using phrases like "Fuck off", and if memory serves, it ended with Davey apologising and promising not to do it again. Although both users were at fault in that report, I really hope this doesn't become a pattern. Edit: Found one of the major ones I was referring to. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Call me by my genitals. Dark knight 2149 06:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The community doesn't need to impose any sanctions beyond the one that was already imposed. I don't believe that Davey, who writes things like "Fuck off prick", is genuinely harmed because someone (gasp!) pinged him. Le v!v ich 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never once stated I was "harmed" by a ping, I stated I'm fed up with his silly replies .... there's a difference (and in all fairness to AG he's probably fed up with my edit summaries!). If 2 users cannot get along and are at each others throats then clearly something needs to be done about it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I thought there was an understanding that you were aware that incivility/personal attacks in response to conflicts is disruptive and that you had learned from your mistakes? Dark knight 2149 00:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any two way IBAN. Per Levivich. While Davey has used personal attacks against AG, I don't see what intractable conduct AG engaged in to warrant an IBAN against them. I wouldn't oppose a one way IBAN of Davey against interacting with AG. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problem seems to be that Davey can't exhibit enough self-control to stop hurling F-bombs at other editors ("Fuck off troll", "Fuck off prick", "Fuck off child", "…you're a fucking idiot", "Fuck off", "[what] the fuck is wrong with you?", "…what in the holy fuck are you playing at ?", "fuckwit…"). 99.99% of editors manage just fine without resorting to invective like this; why does Davey feel that he deserves special dispensation? (FO's/flying off the handle have been a thing since I've been here^[83]). I put June's dust-up behind me (and TBH had forgotten about it), but seems (to me) that Davey still harbours a grudge. Perhaps he should just mute notifications concerning me? I certainly don't feel that I'm engaged in some sort cut-throat competition with him, and TheDragonFire300's suggestion sounds reasonable. In any event, there was no malicious intent on my part, and the pinging that he takes so much offense to is the default reversion edit summary (which he also frequently employs). If it makes everyone feel better, I will attempt to be less facetious with my comments in the future. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry that it's taken so long to respond, but it's been a busy day IRL.

@AlgaeGraphix: Appreciate your aim to try and structure comments so they might be less likely to annoy Davey2010; I think that would be helpful. (I'm saying this not to blame any of your previous comments but as supporting your positive good faith attempt to try to reduce the risk of conflict in the future). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and battleground behavior from Wikieditor19920

Wikieditor19920 has been warned by User:Bishonen; closing this as it has returned to ideologically based sniping by editors not involved in the dispute. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not asking for any serious action here, just for an uninvolved editor to give Wikieditor19920 a reminder about civility and not engaging in battleground behavior.

At this contentious article's talk page Wikieditor19920 has been seriously WP:bludgeoning the process at an RfC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_%22journalist%22

And their comments throughout the talkpage are uncivil. Accusations of edit warring where none has occurred, repeatedly accusing a number of editors of WP:STONEWALLING, frequently accusing other editors of bias, declaring editors votes at RfC as "irrelevant vote"'s a brief look over the page even just recent discussion will demonstrate their lack of civility, making collaboration very tense and difficult. They've been asked to tone it down repeatedly, to no avail. I'm hoping a word about civility form an uninvolved and experienced editor might help calm the incivility of this discourse down some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

As you can see at their talk page, they've been having issues with other editors at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920

Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a needless escalation of an editorial disagreement. I've been completely civil with @Bacondrum:, who has been itching to come to ANI[84][85][86] following a few content disputes. I think that certain content disagreements at this page have become heated on all sides. The page is about a political controversial figure, and BLP and WP:FORUM remarks (frankly, including from Bacondrum) have been a concern. Bacondrum suggests, among other things taken out of context, that I accused them of bias. Their first comment at the talk page was basically a diatribe calling the subject the very definition of a hack writer.

It's unfortunate that Bacondrum has sought to escalate these disagreements with ANI threats (and now an actual ANI thread) and taking select remarks out of context. I actually agreed with some of Bacon's recent proposals to the page, and was disappointed when they went further than what was suggested and introduced factual inaccuracies and language of questionable neutrality. These can be hashed out, but Bacondrum should consider responding to valid critiques at the talk page rather than taking it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors (including me and anyone else they disagree with) of bludgeoning [87][88][89][90][91] and suggested another editor was whinging at an unrelated page. No one, including me or anyone else, has made similar accusations against Bacondrum in response. Maybe a reminder to Bacondrum is in order as to why these kinds of accusations are not conducive to civil content discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into WP:FORUM-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his he is the very definition of a hack writer is a great example of what I'm referring to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point exactly was that large amounts of the arguing on the RfC could be removed with no loss of useful content. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well yes, it's hard to know when you've reached a stalemate sometimes, but I agree.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920 has a bit more than 7,000 edits, and a quarter of them are to three topics: two Muslim women and an Islamophobic activist. His edits abnd comments on Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and talk are often problematic and fail to gain consensus, and his edits and comments on neo-fascist apologist Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are always supportive. This is not a good look. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I don't know that those measurements are accurate. But my edits at Linda Sarsour, which is presumably one of the pages JzG is referring to, brought the page to GA status. I helped write the lead at Ilhan Omar, which included the first paragraph about her electoral firsts. I was on the side of some changes that gained consensus on that page, and others that didn't.

The casualness with which JzG throws around terms like "neo-fascist apologist" about the subject of a BLP (none of the high-quality sources about the subject, including the WaPo and NYT, use this language) and suggests some sort of "problematic" pattern on my part because I edit controversial pages in AmPol is both outrageous and a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. This is precisely the kind of disruptive pot-stirring that has occurred repeatedly at Andy Ngo, with good help from JzG with comments like these. [92][93][94]. I also almost missed this: it is ridiculous to characterize my comments as "supportive" of the subject, for suggesting that we don't turn the WP page into another arm of Reddit to bash the subject and follow BLP for mainpage content.

I'll agree to being more dispassionate in my talk page contributions, but frankly there are general and persistent problems at that page with how users are treating it and I think everyone could use a "reminder." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, they are accurate. Ngo's apologia for neo-fascists is in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article state anything about "neo-fascists?" I don't even want to get into this. It's so silly.

The subject is obviously highly controversial. Maybe for good reason. That doesn't mean we throw WP:V and WP:BLP out the window. Bacondrum's latest edits did just that by stating allegations in Wikivoice and suggesting he leveled fabricated accusations, neither of which are true (see BD's last edits here). I and another editor took issue with these changes, and suddenly we're at ANI. Bacondrum could've consulted me on my talk page rather than threatening ANI on the article talk page repeatedly and making accusations of "bludgeoning." Better yet, he could've simply responded to my contents criticisms in a non-personal way. But regardless, I will happily do my part to make it a more civil discussion if BD is willing to do the same. But the comments like the ones I raised issue with above have to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, yes I have behaved badly in the past and I endeavor to do better. I’ve not been eager to come here, I’ve been trying to avoid it, giving you lots of opportunities to calm everything down and have a civil discussion. I’m not asking for sanctions or anything of the sort, just for you to be civil during the debate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—wouldn't your characterization of Andy Ngo as "neo-fascist apologist" be inapt, not to mention gratuitous? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I have also been trying to edit that same article and in general I think of Wikieditor as a civil POV pusher. They revert any edits that reflect poorly on the subject of the page and often make spurious accusations of violating Wikipedia's BLP policy for putting any negative content about the subject of the article no matter how well sourced. I also caught them WP:FORUMSHOPPING on a recent RfC I made to push past their dominance of the article: they tried to go to the BLP noticeboard when it became clear the RfC wasn't going their way. Loki (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Congratulations on your incredible sleuth work on "catching me forum shopping" at BLPN, but maybe you didn't notice that I posted a notice about the BLPN thread on the Andy Ngo talk page. This is a user who suggested that a thread going a way they disagreed with is being "warped by POV pushers," and they make similar accusations here. The lead, which I helped write, dedicates three paragraphs to controversies and potentially negative information, so what you are suggesting about me "removing all negative content" "no matter how well sourced" is provably false. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Wikieditor19920 a fairly sharp warning on their page about bludgeoning discussions, specifically the Andy Ngo RFC. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, I hope that takes some of the heat out of discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: should to comply with the standards they set for others (that apply to all of us). Nearly half of their comments at that talk page are criticisms of other editors, repeatedly making eye-rolling accusations of "incivility" "bludgeoning" or "refusal to collaborate." Any time I or another editor has disagreed with Bacondrum, reading their response is like running through a BINGO card of one of the above. This is unacceptable. I've been verbose at times; I've never personally criticized or "attacked" Bacondrum. This user also recently violated 1RR at the page. It would be helpful if @Bishonen:, who left a very reasonable message on my talk page which I appreciate, or another admin were to address this behavior as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I ran a word search on Talk:Andy Ngo and "Bacondrum (talk)" only comes up 21 times. "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" comes up 143. I don't think your representation here is factually accurate. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But was Wikieditor19920 in dialogue with Bacondrum, IHateAccounts, in most of those 143 occurrences on that Talk page? My admittedly perfunctory perusal of the current Talk page shows that not to be the case. My admittedly perfunctory perusal of the Talk page shows Wikieditor19920 in dialogue with editors other than Bacondrum. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are in dialogue many editors editors, I'm not the only one coping it. Looking at the number of edits and the lack of civility at talk, in a significant number of them are WP:UNCIVIL, personal attacks, acerbic comments, blatantly bludgeoning the debate, wikilawyering, WP:OWNing the page, slow motion editwarring...they clearly have a WP:battleground attitude to his subject. They are being very disruptive. If they refuse to listen to calm requests to stop, ignore admin warnings - perhaps a temporary topic ban would help? Even just a very short break could help. A topic ban helped me correct my own disruptive behavior in the past when I got too caught up in an article. And it would allow the many editors who want to contribute, but are being harangued by this user to move forward and continue improving the article collaboratively. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I'm affraid Wikieditor needs further attention. I mean, just look at their comments here: "LokiTheLiar Congratulations on your incredible sleuth work", "Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors", they are even battling at ANI with uncivil comments and refusing to listen even after an admin warning. If there's a problem with my behavior, I'd be happy to correct it, but Wikieditor is making collaboration at that article all but impossible. They reverted sourced content recently with the edit summary "Block quote are not appropriate for the lead", but there was no blockquote in the content they reverted and there's no guidelines that say anything of the sort anyway, he's just battling, blocking any and all constructive edits he disagrees with. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=next&oldid=985109142 and I think Bacondrum is right, that edit summary misleads about what has been done and why. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and When I made those edits I opened a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#Another_go and wikieditor has not bothered at all to discuss, I don't care if I'm reverted, but Wikieditor reverted based on spurious reasoning (I firmly believe it was vexatious), and then went about adding a his own content and falsely accused me of edit warring when I made further contributions. As you can see here I'm working with another editor (an editor with opposing views, but we are able to be civil), on improving the lede - we are literally being forced to do the work on my talk page, because of constant disruption from Wikieditor. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've said what I've had to say here, I've acknowledged my propensity to talk a bit too much on discussions, and I'll try to remedy that in the future as suggested by Bishonen. I'm not going to continue to respond to the accusations by the filer about my edits or comments (they are false, obviously), but I will note that the filer is now approaching 3RR at a page with 1RR DS sanctions. I've submitted a report at 1RR. Bacondrum is not exempt from the 1RR DS at that page, which he is well aware of at this point. I've proposed what I believe to be an appropriate remedy there.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A vexatious edit warring report, the diffs Wikieditor has provided are not even of reverts, just random edits he doesn't like. This is nothing short of harassment. Bacondrum (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ideological dispute with the charge of bludgeoning merely a technical reason to silence the opposition. I don't think an article should do a hatchet job on its subject. Andy Ngo is obviously a journalist yet the article had to have an RfC to determine whether Ngo could be called a journalist in the lede. JzG argued that Ngo should not be called a journalist in the lede and JzG refers above to Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist". Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123

User:John B123 is a regular new page patroller, a largely-unthanked but important task in which most of his edits are constructive. However, in this he has two bad habits that combine badly: he likes to patrol from the new end of the queue, and he likes to draftify articles. Wikipedia:Drafts clearly requires that new articles only be draftified when there is "no evidence of active improvement". I asked for clarification about this a couple weeks ago on Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draftification: How active is active? and the consensus of responses there was that "substantive edits in the last couple of days" would be enough to disqualify draftification. John B123 regularly draftifies articles for which the most recent edit was much more recent, less than an hour before draftification.

This behavior first came to my attention when John moved a new article Danzer's configuration to Draft:Danzer's configuration; if I remember correctly, I was automatically alerted to this because it happened to link to another article I had created. As draftified, the new article was not obviously promotional, had one published reliable source, and had two edits (including its creation) within the hour previous to its draftification, with an edit summary promising more activity (references plural, and figures, promised to come). Many more edits followed soon after draftification. Investigating I found an even more egregious example, Ramón Mellado Parsons, which John had draftified after a pattern of 14 edits over 1.5 hours previous to draftification, the most recent one of which was three minutes prior to draftification. Since then, the pattern has continued, and I was alerted to it again today when I was pinged to User talk:Gumshoe2 over the draftification of Draft:C. Robin Graham (obviously notable per WP:PROF#C3 with one reliable source for that claim included in the article as of its draftification). As I write this, there are 73 draftifications just in October listed in User:John B123/Draftify log, among which I looked more carefully at the history of the first 20. ALL were draftified less than 24 hours after article creation, and 70% of them were draftified within an hour of their most recent edit. (One was later deleted as a copyvio, not noticed by John.)

When I asked John politely on his user talk to justify the speedy draftification of Danzer's configuration, he was unapologetic and defiant, and the discussion soon became testy, and laden with bad-faith assumptions on John's part and (I admit) some intemperate language on my own. Eventually it reached the point where John asked me to stay away from his talk page and find other admins if I ever thought administrative action would be warranted. So, I am taking this here to ANI, where other admins may be found and may take action. My own opinion on what action to take is that it would probably suffice to topic-ban John from draftifying articles within 24 hours of their creation. I don't think removal of his (recently granted) page-move privileges or other stronger sanctions are warranted at this time, but I do think something needs to be done to put this WP:BITEy behavior in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the previous conversation User talk:John B123/Archive 15#Draftification requires no evidence of active improvement is somewhat different how it is described above, so I would ask others to read and form their own opinions. I feel the draftification of C. Robin Graham was justified as per the edit summary: Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Notability isn't the criteria for draftification, an article can be notable but not yet ready for mainspace. I would note (after being moved back to mainspace) that from the edit summary [95] another patroller considered the article should be in draft. --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any input on the general topic at hand but your comment "When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button at the top of the page" about C. Robin Graham on my talk page suggested to me that notability was the reason for your drafting, and is why I moved the page back. (as per my and David Eppstein's comments on y talk page) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A careful reading of this comment indicates a more serious problem: the general notability guideline is the wrong notability guideline for this article. Anyway, we can quibble over judgements of notability but John's response here completely fails to address the actual reason for bringing this here, the timing of his draftifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I would also have a hard time not doing something about it (presumably, draftification) if I happened upon gems like Draft:JDS_Azuma or Draft:Parliament_Election_Maharshtra_2019 in the queue. At the same time, there is an obligation of extending some benefit of doubt to the creator and giving them an opportunity to turn this into something we would not be embarassed to have in mainspace. I would suggest just not patrolling from the red-hot end of the queue, thus avoiding both the itch to somehow clean that stuff up right now, and allowing a minimum of AGF to the author. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these points are reasonable - there are new articles where, so long as we were 2 hours in (in case they were just dropping stuff in), I'd be very concerned about not acting right then. However, in the large majority of cases, a relatively actively improving (if still poor) page can be left unpatrolled but undraftified, certainly on the timescale proposed. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the opening post, I patrol at both the front and back of the NPP. Patrolling at the front is necessary as a first line against copyvio, COI, attack pages etc. It also helps cut down on messages on NPP's talk page along the lines of "the article I created yesterday hasn't been reviewed yet, can you review it". Patrolling at the back of the queue is obviously important too. As per the previous conversation, there are no guidelines or recommendations that NP patrolling should be from the back of the queue.

To put the figures that have been put forward into perspective, during the period of 70 articles sent to draft, I made about 3,500 new page reviews. The percentage sent to draft is a small. I don't know how this compares to other patrollers, but suspect it is more than those who patrol mainly at the back of the queue (where articles that should/could be sent to draft have already been weeded out) but less than those only patrolling the newest articles.

Contrary to what is being suggested, I try not send articles to draft. In the same period, I tagged 131 articles with {{unreferenced}} instead of sending to draft. I haven't bothered to count the number of longer articles with only 1 ref that I've tagged {{refimprove}} rather than draftify in that period.

When I was granted page mover rights is irrelevant. It was suggested to me that I should apply for these rights to save others from having to delete redirects left behind. To try and make out that I've been given a new toy and am overusing it is unjust, and also factually incorrect.

As for not addressing the underlying issue, I have deliberately avoided that to try and avoid this conversation degenerating as it did on my talk page. My patience is growing thin though, as this is the third place the same conversation has been brought up. --John B123 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of long-winded "I do lots of other stuff and deliberately refuse to talk about the timing of my draftifications" is exactly what I meant when I wrote "unapologetic and defiant" above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bow out of this now, as it's heading towards points scoring rather than discussion as the last discussion did. If somebody could inform me of the outcome I'd appreciate that. --John B123 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the difficulty with encountering an article that is a) in a crap state and b) suitable for draftification (e.g. notable subject but zero usable refs) - and then having to pass up sorting it out because it is also c) freshly created. It feels like just ignoring a problem in the making, and let's face it, in many cases all that AGF is actually wasted... if the guy who created Draft:JDS Azuma was thinking about turning this into something viable before next Michaelmas, I'll eat a battlecruiser. My solution to keeping a hand in while avoiding to step on the toes of those who are intending to improve their article, has been a little bookmarks folder where I push all those cases. I check it every few days, and if the thing has not improved or otherwise been dealt with over that period, to draft it goes. It's a little clumsy but works. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish that editors would follow the instruction at WP:Drafts#Requirements for page movers: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD". This is something that should be done automatically, not something that anyone should argue about. I have seen this being ignored by several new-page patrollers, so maybe it should be made more explicit, but I can't for the life of me see how it could be any more explicit than it already is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would need to be a clearer policy to sanction JohnB123 here. I see at least 4 other editors who have draftified articles within an hour of creation in the past day, two of whom have done so for quite a few articles this month. If there's a consensus, MoveToDraft should be modified to warn editors about page creation / last edit time before applying a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- if other patrollers are also doing the same thing, and similarly refuse to stop or even to discuss this part of the requirements, then maybe they should become subject to the same limitations. Or, if we're not going to enforce this requirement when patrollers are found to be repeatedly and blatantly violating it, then there is no requirement, and we should remove it from what we tell editors about how draftification works, and accept that anyone who starts trying to create new articles is likely to be bitten in this way. I create many new articles but have already long since given up on trying to craft new articles using the Wikipedia editor, because I don't want to go on for what may sometimes be more than an hour without saving and I don't want to deal with patrollers interfering before I'm done. Instead I create the article source offline with a text editor without preview, don't upload until it is more or less complete, and only then start polishing the issues that show up in preview. Is that what we want to tell all our new editors to do? (And don't tell me that's what drafts are for. Drafts are for being a honeypot for spammers to keep their content out of mainspace. Good-faith new editors should be warned never to use drafts because their drafts will be kept out of mainspace with picky excuses that would never fly in an AfD and then they will be deleted after six months. Which is a fine thing to do to spam but a shabby way to treat good-faith new editors.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User 49.180.129.245

This user is being disruptive in a number of areas and has already been left warnings in their talk page:

Leaving abusive messages on talk pages
Poor quality editing in terms of grammar, spelling and SPEAKING IN CAPS IN TALK.
Edit warring on the Bolivia page
Use of primary sources to make statements about controversial issues from a source that is listed as biased in the Reliable sources page.
Quoting organisations in an inaccurate way via the same biased source, namely misquoting conclusions made by Ethical Hacking
Making statements about sources that are not backed up by the source material
In general a lack of detailed knowledge in the subject area which is undoing material that was written in a more neutral way

Any help much appreciated. I have not raised any issues here before, so don't know how it goes. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you are concerned with their editing but they have received several messages from admins so they are aware of this account. Also, Crmoorhead, any time you discuss another editor on a noticeboard, you must notify them. I will do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice on protocol. I will know in future. :) Crmoorhead (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Kwarbai

I encountered Abbas Kwarbai through my work at AfC. They created some 30+ drafts - almost all biographies - often in fairly short succession. These had common problems such as copyvios, promotional issues, irrelevant sources and repeated formatting mistakes. Like other reviewers I thought this pattern indicated WP:UPE.

They left me a series of warnings ([96], [97], [98],[99]) asking me to stay out of 'their' articles. I have tried to explain how they don't own those articles and that anyone may edit them, but they persist, including this statement on their user page which LakesideMiners removed but Kwarbai has replaced, accompanied by this warning.

Our interaction had been positive up until they were named in this sockpuppetry investigation (where I took the view that they weren't a sock), and then later I asked them to explain how they choose who to write about.

Over at Commons, their pattern of copyvio uploads is a cause for concern. They don't take kindly to having their copyright violations being tagged.

They continue to exhibit ownership.

Overall, I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, my concerns over UPE remain, and competence is required. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over Abbas Kwarbai's ("Kwarbai's") contributions. I believe Kwarbai is not, subjectively at least, "not here to build an encyclopedia"; it appears that there is some effort being made to write encyclopedia articles that might be of use, versus truly WP:NOTHERE efforts (i.e. mere trolling, x-warring, and/or political edgeplay). I don't have a comment on the WP:UPE issues but that is, of course, not acceptable under the Terms of Use.

But Kwarbai does not appear at all to understand the notions of WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and should acknowledge an understanding of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations of editors if Kwarbai is to continue without a block (which would reasonably be indefinite given the exceedingly non-cooperative tone of Kwarbai's commentary). Kwarbai's comments to Curb Safe Charmer, and as a matter of record via edit summaries apparently directed to the community at large, are not remotely appropriate, in my view. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have, since my first encounter with the subject of this thread, kept an eye on them. Their edit pattern is very much problematic & have all the tale signs of UPE & sockpuppetry. Their antagonistic approach to constructive criticism is counterproductive & indicative of the fact that they may not be compatible with this collaborative project, add to this; their incompetence(at the moment), unwillingness to learn, repeated blatant image copyright violations & subtle threats at editors that dare to correct them, makes a block to prevent further disruption imperative at this juncture. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user has made a counter-claim of bias on my part at User_talk:Lenticel#Bello Lafia. He claims I have 'attacked' 'his' articles by tagging statements as {{citation needed}} or {{failed verification}}. The example he gives is Bello Lafiaji where I'd proposed it should be merged to the organisation Lafiaji worked for. Julietdeltalima has reviewed my edits to that article and concludes in the edit summary of her revert of Kwarbai's revert that my merge proposal was 'perfectly legitimate'. Kwarbai complains there had been no discussion of the proposed move, but if they'd clicked on the 'discuss' link they would have found it on the talk page of the target article.

I think this speaks again to ongoing WP:OWN and WP:CIR. Rather than properly read, understand and act on issues in their articles that have been tagged their reaction is to undo them and claim bias. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HersiliaAramazd

Involved parties

WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
HersiliaAramazd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[100]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by WMrapids

This is a new user who has shown unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and does not appear to be here for encyclopedic reasons. They have made inflammatory comments in their edit summaries in support of Azerbaijan, such as here.

In the first edit I noticed with the user possible canvassing, they pinged other Azerbaijani users on a talk page, saying that my edit in an infobox "seems to be aimed at disrupting the article, and assisting the Armenian POV by hiding the front-line changes" of the Azerbaijan military. I told the user to use good faith with my edits and per the Templates section in WP:CANVASS, I notified the user on their talk page. They quickly removed my notice. Other notices about the possible canvassing were placed in related talk pages, such as here. They then bombarded my talk page with more accusations of WP:BATTLE (to be fair, I did not know it was a level 3 warning as I used the recommended notification from the Template section, but how does a newer user know this much?). After making attempts to disengage with the user, they began edit warring on my own talk page. I strongly believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia and recommend that appropriate actions be taken to prevent this type of behavior from jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HersiliaAramazd

I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report so that it comes to the administrators attention. It all began when the user made an edit moving the map of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict from the top to the bottom of the infobox. (Without even discussing with anybody what-so-ever), he opened a talk page discussion saying he has made the change, and anyone opposing it could comment. (Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa). I told in my comment at that discussion that I opposed it and that I've had found it POV. I pinged 2 user which had recently participated in the dispute to participate in the discussion and see that the user has had opened that discussion. Following this the user has accused me of not assuming good faith. Accused me of canvassing, and left me a level 3 warning at my talk page. And reverted my recent edit without an edit summary of the said map in commons[101] in which I've had added the recent Azerbaijani advances (which can be considered a borderline vandalism). Later, I've removed his level 3 warning which does not substantiate the level 3 added by him, and warned him about the just said violations. From which in less than a minute he deleted from his talk page. I've reverted him to give him a chance to at least read it, following which he threatened to open this dispute if I did, which I immediately did to bring it to administrator attention.

Even now the user is baselessly accusing me in his notice "showing unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions" HersiliaAramazd (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, "Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa" is incorrect. Bold, revert, discuss and our major policy of be bold apply to changes like this. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the user acted boldy, was immediately reverted by another user. Which he reverted again. Do you think that is how BRD is supposed to work or is it borderline edit warring? HersiliaAramazd (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different discussion entirely (templating users), but to the point, the template used by WMrapids was Template:uw-canvass. This is the single warning template for canvassing. So, other than the unfortunate templating aspect of this section, that argument is moot IMO. I have no further comment on the situation at this time. --intelati^talk 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report". HersiliaAramazd, Standing firm is not a problem, but acting with the intention of escalating the conflict instead of working to resolve the problem constructively is a problem. // Timothy :: talk 19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue Care to check this.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Tsushima

Report found to concern a content dispute with no problem by the reported editor. If necessary, resolve with an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion ensued here (perma). I'm not going to even attempt to summarize it because I don't think I can in an objective way, so please read the whole thread (perma) before chiming in. It's not long.

The incident itself is arguably not a big deal (and I'm not without fault), and I would have simply moved on if it was virtually any other user. But seeing Hijiri88's overall unwillingness to engage in a collegial discussion, repeated failure to acknowledge points brought forward (re: /iː/ vs /i/, YouGlish) while accusing the other party of the same, and accusation of bad faith even in the face of the other party yielding, just over a month after an indefinite block was lifted, I thought it important to bring it to admins' attention. Nardog (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is bad faith to point out obvious canvassing. After reading the whole thread Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) seemed reasonably patient with a user trying to push original research into the article and then canvassing when they were losing the argument.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pointing out of the canvassing was valid, I own up to that. What I find problematic is his insinuation that I intentionally omitted information, when in fact that piece of information that I allegedly left out was something I'd been mentioning as a factor for my position from the beginning. Could be an honest mistake, but IMHO that speaks to the way he engages in mere content disputes, coupled with wordings like inaccurate (impossible!) in the section title, So, you are not going to address any of my points and just talk past me?, and patently ridiculous, which leave little room for honest, productive discussion and make interaction with him exhausting (which was not the case with OceanHok in the thread, for example). Nardog (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Could be an honest mistake, so I'm going to assume that it is. Nardog (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some rule defining the limits within which editors may brandish their extreme sensitivities as cause for perceived offenses. Encyclopedias are written by grown-ups, preferably, with some minimalist ability to handle the give-and-take of strong disagreement. It's poor form for editors who can't get their way to engage in personal archaeology, seize on some datum that the opposing editor was once banned, and exploit that to cut the Gordian knot by using the tiff to reinstate the ban. Threads like the one cited are small change compared to most I have seen. I don't think anyone, certainly not the general reader, but an accomplished phonologist understands these transcriptions and pertinacious disagreement over such nugatory minima, to invent a pleonasm, is a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of "lookup word"s later, I believe I agree with the above take. At a skim of the discussion, I can't see gross incivility much less personal attacks, although I do mean skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the discussion at Talk:Ghost of Tsushima and there is nothing there that is a CIVIL problem. Please engage with issues raised or leave the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation here, and this is a run-of-the-mill content issue, and the discussion thus far on the talk page has been quite civil. This thread should be closed, and if the editors involved can't reach an agreed-upon consensus, please create an WP:RFC where people can !vote. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tvaughan1

Tvaughan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tvaughan1 registered in 2006 but has fewer than 600 edits. Over 50 of those are at talk:Hunter Biden, and combine the usual mess of "Russia hoax", unreliable sources, belligerence and a few copyright violations revdeleted by EvergreenFir.

Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise", I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked. There are a couple of others at that talk page who are also long on outrage and short on actionable proposals for content, but I expect that will die down in time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged in a good faith effort on the talk page to reach a consensus on WP:NPOV edits to Hunter Biden. Most of my efforts are from months ago and they've been archived. Quoting relevant passages of a newspaper article on a talk page, with attribution should not be considered a copyright violation.I'm not the only Wikipedia editor or person who has pointed out that Hunter Biden is far from WP:NPOV. It's embarrassingly obvious to all but the most partisan. In fact, describing the situation as "meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise"" proves my point. There is a social media and news blackout on that story, and that has become a story in and of itself. Does the laptop not exist? Is it not notable? Are there not reliable sources reporting the existence of the laptop, and corroborating the authenticity of the contents? These facts may be uncomfortable to partisans, but they're widely known and widely reported facts. To defend blocking mention of the laptop Wikipedia editors are citing debunked theories of a Russian disinformation campaign, with no proof whatsoever (at best citing opinions that it must be or could be Russian disinformation). An accurate summary of the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden would mention the concerns of a conflict of interest, at a minimum. Censoring speech isn't the way for Wikipedia to go. The main topic is and has been hotly debated in the US and worldwide, but the article presents only a 1 sided view. This article has been the subject of a number of news stories about Wikipedia's left leaning bias. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, oh do please let us know which reliable sources you think are complaining about our "left wing bias" on this. Breitbart? Redstate? Conservapedia? 4chan? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you're being argumentative. But surely you must have seen this blog post from the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that Tvaughan1 seems to ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy heavily. They have been making edits in the talk page that are up to the line, if not over the line, crossing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy to do so. At Talk:Hunter Biden#Chinese Communist Party they have made these edits by "sourcing" to multiple sites that are considered unreliable and marked in red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including RT (TV network), The Post Millennial, and Breitbart News which "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories" and "should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." I am also concerned about the potential connection to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NationalInterest16 but I had previously asked a different administrator for their advice before JzG posted this discussion here. The specific edit with the bad sourcing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=984976350&oldid=984975986 IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a point on the talk page that it has become an external news story that Wikipedia is biased - specifically because of Hunter Biden, and I linked to a set of articles to make that point to other editors, for their information, on a talk page. I wasn't attempting to cite those articles in a Wikipedia article itself. Accusing me of violating WP:RS for pointing that out is disingenuous. I have no connection to NationalInterest16.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, how can a non-governmental organization ever engage in "censorship"? Please explain your understanding of what constitutes "censorship." Please do not use epithets, perjorative adjectives, or other non-neutral language. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julietdeltalima According to Wikipedia, "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." I agree with that definition.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having standards for reliable sourcing is not censorship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julietdeltalima—you refer to "non-neutral language" but I think it is virtually axiomatic that any time there is a debate there will be some "non-neutral language". Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, Larry Sanger thinks we should be more complimentary towards creationism. He’s tried to replace Wikipedia with something better and failed. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I've been trying to figure this out. Larry Sanger believes that false balance and the use of dubious sources known to fabricate and violate basic journalistic ethical standards are necessary for a "neutral point of view"? He's angry because debunked nonsense and buzzwords for talk radio, like "Solyndra" or "Benghazi", aren't 99% of the coverage on Barack Obama? Who is this Larry Sanger, and why should we care what he rants about on his blog? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry is an important former employee of Wikipedia, who helped set it up, but then left Wikipedia. In recent years he has veered towards accusing Wikipedia of being biased, and going by his Twitter account, he appears to endorse the QAnon theory, the "Antifa is a real problem" theory and some other nutty theories (I think he even claimed that climate change is not caused by humans). 45.251.33.147 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 17:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be Larry Sanger. As 45.251 says, I think his own radicalization towards the right and acceptance of the right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories has led him to believe that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by the left and all of that nonsense. See for yourself, but brace yourself. He seems to think that because we call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories, and don't treat fringe theories the same as we do mainstream scientific opinion, the project is "badly biased". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare—couldn't "acceptance of the right-wing talking points" be restated as nonacceptance of left-wing talking points? Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm referring to things like his QAnon-esque claims around secret child sex trafficking rings etc., which is not "nonacceptance of left-wing talking points". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that he alleged that Wikipedia is a "secret child sex trafficking ring"? I might have missed some of the relevant material but I thought Sanger's objection was to images on this project of young girls in sexually suggestive and revealing poses. But maybe I got that wrong. Can you provide sources for "claims around secret child sex trafficking rings"? Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at Sanger's twitter if you want to wade through some right-wing conspiracy crap and stop trolling here please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He also thought Citizendium would work, so that should tell you what you need to know right there. His bio says he's 52 but if that's really true there's something seriously wrong . He looks like Methuselah [109]. E Eng 05:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sanger offers good constructive criticism of Wikipedia: "There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call 'false balance'. The notion that we should avoid 'false balance' is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.[110] Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Turns out Larry Sanger doesn't know what the word canard means. E Eng 06:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College's department of Philosophy has a lot of explaining to do. —valereee (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger wants people to buy a book called Essays on Free Knowledge? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

So... basically, Sanger is an Almond Joy and not a Mounds? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some kind of performance art. E Eng 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fully investigate this at the moment but can anyone suggest a reason why I should not topic ban Tvaughan1 from American politics for a month per the report above, under WP:ARBAP2? Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I've given Tvaughan1 some advice for how they can best move forward in their situation. Full disclaimer: I have no idea what is going on with this laptop thing or whatever. I think cocaine might have been involved? I'm not sure I want to know exactly. Either way, I have no idea if Tvaughan1 is advocating for something WP:FRINGE or just WP:POV, but I've assumed the latter given the discussion here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see how that works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bet the farm. E Eng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Tvaughan1 I thought I'd start a subsection on this topic. FWIW, the copyvios are because of the amount of copy-pasted text. One to three sentences would be okay. But in the second case you copy-pasted nearly 50% of the article's content. I understand why you did it, and you were right in providing the source and putting things in quotes. But WP:COPYVIO's instructions on fair use directs us to use as little as possible to convey our point. IMO, when you're using more than 10% of a source directly, you're veering into copyvio territory. In the future, please limit copy-paste and use your own summaries (which readers can verify with the linked source). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and I understand WP:COPYVIO but certainly a bit more leeway to quote articles should be given on a talk page, versus pasting quotes into the articles themselves. Given the defensive responses to every attempt I and others made to source facts, I doubted that a paraphrased summary would suffice. But I'll do as you suggest moving forward.Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the extra leeway. E Eng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng Thanks for the feedback. Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—I don't know how you are starting this out by saying "Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden 'October surprise', I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked." Has there been a "meltdown in the conservative media"? Has there been an "October surprise"? These are expressions of your political views. You are imposing your own lens on current events. Why would Tvaughan1 "end up blocked"? Certainly not as a consequence of the differing political views that you each have presented. I should think that they would be blocked only if they are found to be severely in violation of our policies. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has in fact been a meltdown in conservative media. And yes, there's an October Surprise. "The Times reported last January that Burisma had been hacked by the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html

I think the only way to describe your reply to JzG is "willfully obtuse." IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Reliable Source on this: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/24/trump-maga-hunter-biden-conspiracy-432046 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it does count as wilfully obtuse. It's pretty clear that the conservative media bubble is telling a very consistent, though largely counterfactual, story. It's like the "Russia hoax": a walled garden of sources discuss Russian interference in the 2016 election as if the problems with the Steele dossier somehow invalidate not only the entire Mueller report, but also the contemporaneous findings of intelligence agencies throughout the West, the subsequent bipartisan committee findings in both Senate and House, and the numerous convictions and indictments. There's a clear Trumpist narrative promoted by loyalists, and a separate factual narrative in the reality-based media. Reports this weekend show the hard news reporters at the WSJ, for example, contradicting the opinion writers, exactly as they do on climate change. If you get your news from the conservative bubble, you've been told that mainstream is the opposite of conservative, and that all mainstream sources are biased against Trump because they do not reflect the faux-reality you're being fed. Of course anyone who is not capable of understanding that has a serious problem here because we know that the opposite of conservative is liberal and the opposite of mainstream is fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Joe Biden would say, c'mon. You are expected to maintain at least a veneer of objectivity, JzG. Now you blithely refer to the "conservative media bubble". How is this unlike your reference below to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist".[111] If you are going to conduct yourself like this on a Talk page aren't also prone to creating articles that are skewed to your political interests? Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop we're also expected to understand the difference between objectivity and false balance. Reality is not the average of mainstream sources and media bubble bullshit. We don't split the difference between reality-based sources and left-wing anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda, and we don't split the difference between mainstream reporting and the Breitbart narrative on this either. Mainstream sources are very clear: nothing about "laptopgate" stacks up. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack of editor Miki Filigranski

Editor User:Miki Filigranski attack me personally on talk page Anti-Albanian sentiment with claim that I am been "highly disrespectful toward many Croatian and Serbian editors with my propagation of Anti-Serbian information".[112] I edit article of Anti-Albanian sentiment and enter information based on various sources which concerning that article. My edit is explained on talk page and in edit summary of that article. Please protect me from such personal attacks and I expect an appropriate punishment because talk page is for talk about edit issue not for personal attack. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{{1}}}~~--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Serbian edits of Novak Djokovic article do not exits (see that page), of Tribes of Montenegro article do not exist(see talk page: WP:OR, [113]), of Anti-Albanian sentiment article do not exist(this is claim of historians[114] not me, and confirmed in earlier edit as RS, in edit summary of editor @Peacemaker67:[115], of Name of the Serbs and Serbia article do not exist (this is claim of historian not me, supported with editor Miki Filigranski[116], and see talk page [117]. Mikola22 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're really delusional.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's wrong in some disputes and he's right in some other ones - just like you - he's not "delusional". Don't bring mental health issues into content disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor misunderstood my "support". I "supported" this, not this nor this. There's a difference.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it's much better when just the facts are highlighted in a dispute. Maybe he didn't understand your objection at that point, just like Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version on the other side could have been avoided if the quote from the source had been checked before the reverts. Now, I think that this has gotten way out of proportion - the nature of the disputes in relation to the personal labels don't justify the discussion which we're having right now.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement, I withdraw the report for false accusations and there is no bad filings, because I and editor Miki Filigranski in the past did not have any wars in our edit works and I think this was an exaggerated quarrel. As for this first report about personal attack it remains as report but if any sanctions be proposed, I expect milder warning, because his punishment means nothing to me when we are in a conflict for the first time. Mikola22 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of editor Miki Filigranski

~~{{{1}}}~~Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{{1}}}~~--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that happened to you Miki Filigranski. I must point out that the same editor is active on Eupedia Forum (under a different name), where some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening. I know that we can't link or give direct information on en.wiki, but I am not sure what's the community consensus in cases like this one?! Surely we can't turn a blind eye to such cases because of potential privacy issues? If this comment is not appropriate, I shall kindly ask admins to remove it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this has escalated a bit too much in the context of wikipedia. Editors can communicate with each other outside the confines of wikipedia, but they shouldn't WP:OUT personal details on wikipedia. If Miki Filigranski has said something that isn't accurate about his possible communication with Mikola22 that is mostly outside wikipedia's scope. There is an WP:ASPERSION in MF's comment that Mikola22 is motivated with Anti-Serbian sentiments and has an Anti-Serbian agenda. Edits should be judged, not supposed motives.

I disagree with some of Mikola22's edits but in many disputes he is fundamentally right. On Tribes of Montenegro he removed a a sentence which as he explained on the talkpage Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version doesn't appear in the source in relation to Montenegro. He has been reverted a total of three times by Sadko and Miki Filigranski who haven't replied on the talkpage. So, an editor who is right in a fundamental way (the source doesn't mention the article's subject) has been reverted by two other editors a total of three times and they haven't even replied on the talkpage. And then he's being accused of having an "Anti-whatever agenda" by one of them, while the other (Sadko) has a logged warning on AE for filing a report against Mikola22[118] which became a sort of WP:BOOMERANG and Sadko was "warned not weaponize AE to eliminate opponents of content disputes". And now Sadko is accusing Mikola22 of having an account on a forum where "some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist". Now, that's a heavy WP:ASPERSION, but it's a typical aspersion in the context of the discussions in the Balkan topic area.

The root of the problem is that Balkan disputes have no admin oversight. Oversight means supervision of the editing process, not punitive measures which usually come at the end of heavy disruption and solve nothing because they just stop one account, which reappears under a new username a couple of months later (I've filed two SPIs in the past two weeks). To recap, WP:ASPERSIONS should stop, the talkpage should be used for content disputes and a message for the admins: be more present. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the opportunity to read what I have, you would be careful with your comments Maleschreiber. I have all the disgusting links, but I shall not post them as I have basic respect for Wiki guidelines. No attempt of relativization and being the devil's advocate can help here. Be careful with whom you align yourself, as a general rule of thumb. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to know about your off-wiki communication with any other editor - that's for ARBCOM. You've made a heavy accusation against Mikola22 and as for "alignment", I was in disagreement with both Miki Filigranski and Mikola22 on Talk:White_Croats#Consensus_in_bibliography less than a month ago. Also, I've filed two reports against sock puppet accounts in the past weeks and both were blocked. You were edit-warring alongside one of them against Mikola22[119] and at the same time you were claiming on your talkpage in Serbian that you will be getting "new victories" [120]. I don't care about the countless petty Balkan disputes that erupt every day, but they're not one-sided and many times the people who are putting forward the heaviest accusations are involved in even worse behavior.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase has a completely different meaning in Serbian, you did not understand it well. And it shows that you are not assuming good faith. Anyways, empty comments which only appear to be neutral but are here to show that everybody is "bad as well" aside, if you are going to hound me, please do it while consulting a dictionary. I am happy to add more information and material to already existing claims made by fellow editor Miki. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification @Miki Filigranski: "You really went too far with privately blackmailing me and pushing the Anti-Serbian agenda that I became sick of it."

I’ve never said that in my life or blackmailing someone in my life and there’s no evidence for that nowhere. For lying I expect the strictest sanctions. If you claim something, then you have to prove it, there is no evidence for it, and there will never be any evidence for that. Therefore you are deliberately and obviously lying to save yourself from sanction. But that won't help you. Mikola22 (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and Ymblanter: Please, is there is a place on Wikipedia where false statements with bad intention can be additionally reported for more severe sanction because this is more than a personal attack. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every instance of off-wiki real or alleged harassment must be dealt with by the ArbCom--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Please would you help me put together that report or request. I don't know that rules well. If you don't want to I understand but maybe you could recommend someone to me, if you know some editor. Mikola22 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you contacting the ArbCom and explain the situation in a concise way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Where, to whom, what, I don't know that part of Wikipedia, that's why I'm asking you for help. There are more possibilities exist and I don’t know exactly where my case belongs. Mikola22 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a contact e-mail address, I believe it is read by the whole committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sadko

I would like to point out that this a false report made in order to press the senior editor who is reported, as he promissed to report Mikola22 if that kind of rude behaviour and WP:PLAYPOLICY continues. The comment by fellow editor Miki Filigranski has valid points. Editor making the report is constantly WP:CHERRYPICKING sources (even if it means randomly searching for 2nd class books which would prove a point), looking for ways to game the system and last but not least - major WP:BLUD. If you just take a qucik look at [121] you will witness that the editor in question is waiting for 24h to revert other editors, knowing that he or she has 1RR. WP:BOOMERANG is needed, in my book. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His 1RR has been lifted User_talk:El_C#Appeal_2.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko, I am not under 1RR restriction. As for 24h is considered, I think that's enough time for submit some evidence on talk page when you receive ping from me and you are that day on Wikipedia. By ignoring talk page, you are not doing good to yourself, me or the article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack of editor Sadko

Editor User:Sadko personally attack me on AnI page with claim that "some of my writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening."[122] Given that this is the second time that personal attack occurs and this time false (although he was warned not to accuse me falsely anymore(warning from AE [123])). Beside that he first time personally attack me that I am Nazi falover, with no sanctions although he was reported for statment on editor @Ktrimi991: talk page, ˙("This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles." [124]). I ask the authorities to react this time for WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and WP:ASPERSIONS and that this time editor Sadko be sanctioned. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My general comment (the second one) given to an editor who was not familiar with those circles is true and it was not directed against anybody. Do you have anything against Anti-fascism? Pinging people for whom you think that might help your cause is not that useful, only more relativization will be done.

I stand by my comment, have the links/diffs ready and I and some other editors are observing those forums. It's not an asperation, it's a fact, and I can only imagine what fellow editor Miki went through.

Just because you filed the report does not means that you are free of every responsibility, when the report made was more like "I'll report him before he reports me" kind of thinking. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no regret in his answer but a new imaginary and false threat. Therefore this must stop. I cannot suffer personal insults every few months and there are no sanctions for him. This time I expect the most severe sanction for this behavior. Mikola22 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement.@Doug Weller: Where I violated 1RR restriction rule, show me? I have not violated that rule in any of last edits. If I remember correctly I used 2RR somewhere, but not for the same edit. Can I use RR at all? I'm waiting for evidence to see where I violated that rule, and then I will answer. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for emailing editor Miki Filigranski and this information: "if he participate anyhow on "the enemy side" (i.e. Serbian) against me then I would intentionally and immediately (i.e. out of spite) participate in any article or discussion against him." It is enough to say that I never sent to him email in my life. The proof is my email address which does not exist in his email with any message from me. All my edits has edit summary and I also follow the articles that he follows and I can edit them freely. Mikola22 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WEBDuB:, you cant on every my report come and talk about how I have something against Serbs and Serbia. I am editor, and I edit articles which concerns and Serbia. You report me with this claim and don't wait for your fellow editors to be reported and there prove this claim. You have several Wikipedia options. Editor Sadko tried this and he received sanction for making a false accusations, now you try.Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WEBDuB:, after this editors get sanctions, you report me with this claim. When I editing articles I don't see you at all, maybe a couple of times. I only see your accusations in situations like this. If problems exist you know what you need to do, please do it. Mikola22 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber: I use 2x2RR in 8 days, but first 2RR was because in one source I added 4 more sources as conformation, and this is not in bad faith(editing with adding new sources), and second time I followed the revert of editor Sadko but I thought that this revert for separate information would not count as 2R. My intention in this revert also was not in bad faith because I didn't know this RR rules exactly(the last time I saw this rules was 7, 8 months ago). Mikola22 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikola22: where did I say you broke 1RR? Doug Weller talk 09:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: If you think that my 1R is problem(I don't get it right) but I didn't made revert as a vandal, I explained everything in edit summary and previously explained on the talk page. If I respect someone's edit summary(fringe etc problem), I don't know why someone else would not respect mine edit summary and explanation on talk page? Mikola22 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved editors

Or in this case, an uninvolved Admin. User:Mikola22 had a 1RR restriction imposed upon him this year by User:El C who granted an appeal only 8 days ago. It appears from the above that the lesson has not been learned. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if there is evidence of off-wiki harassment, it should be mailed to ArbCom, not posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{{1}}}~~--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything like a personal attack. Miki Filigranski commented on the suspicion of tendentious editing during a period with tensions and polarization on Balkan topics. It is already visible that Mikola22 practically exclusively contributes Serb-related articles on sensitive topics, such as one of the deadliest genocides, Kosovo Myth, the origin of the names of the nation (including the fringe theory that the term “Serbs” come from “slaves”), Serbian medieval history, removal of Serbian names of towns in Kosovo, as well as the most famous Serbian personalities such as Nikola Tesla and Novak Djokovic. Situations like this can always lead to the WP:BOOMERANG.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikola22: Of course you have the right to edit the articles you want, no one disputed that. However, don't be surprised when someone suspects WP:TENDENTIOUS, and do not interpret every comment as a personal attack. Especially after already conducted cases and sanctions.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I see a minor edit-warring domino which mostly involves Mikola22 and Sadko - both usually staying at 2RR. We should examine the content of the edit-warring. On Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version, Mikola22 was removing something that was not in the source and he was being reverted by Sadko. Now, would that excuse a continuing edit-war if Sadko hadn't stopped? No, but if there is no admin oversight to make sure that editors don't make verifiably false edits, frustration can take hold.
I can't comment on possible off-wiki communication. There's ArbCom for that sort of situation. I think that wikipedia eventually will move to a model of non-anonymous editing and then all kinds of problems will stop. Whatever Mikola22-Miki Filigranski have said to each other off-wiki, it doesn't excuse the personal attacks/WP:ASPERSIONs against Mikola22 in the comment section of this report from the "Anti-Serbian agenda" accusations to "chauvinism" - all in the context of disputes Mikola22 has had with editors from sr wiki (except for MF) who in the past have even accused Mikola22 of being paid by the Kosovo government: User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_48#Paid_advocacy_accusations. The conditions which allow for such a situation to fester and explode from time to time on either side have to do with the fact that there is no admin oversight in the Balkan topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had last year really serious problems in real life because my Wikipedia editing is not fully anonymous. I would not recommend anyvody to disclose their real name.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've sort of done that once and had to ask for an admin to delete my edit afterwards. I think that a lot of editors on wikipedia would not behave in the way they do, if they didn't act under the cover of anonymity. The editing environment would be a lot more civil and people would take responsibility for their edits. On the other hand, active editors might be subjected to off-wiki pressure by organized groups, companies, co-workers, employers etc.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The two most egregious quotes as I see them:

[23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [125]
[22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [126]

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

Detailed evidence with diffs

Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments (diffs posted for all).

My apologies that it is so long. There are just so many of them.

Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem.
- [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [127] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.)
Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus.
- See WT:ELEM#Noble metals for the objections I raised. In spite of this, and User:EdChem's offer I am wondering whether hatting this and starting a new thread on the content in the article, perhaps with a summary of the points made above, might be a good way to reboot this conversation [128], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS?
Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute:
- [20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [129]
- [19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [130]
Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after User:EdChem reminded us on 20 Oct that this is not appropriate in a content discussion. [131] This reminder was because I am not entirely blameless here, having been aggrieved by the comment immediately above and responded more harshly than I should have, but I accepted EdChem's statements after he told us to stop and have been trying to leave behavioural issues out of it there. In fact I think it got worse.
- [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [132] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.)
Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others:
- [23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [133]
  - (For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general. Now, I did make a mistake; the parentheses should have lasted until "in general", because Smokefoot's 2016 concerns were about the article Heavy metals – they may be read at Talk:Heavy_metals#Shakey_foundations – and it's me who sees them as applying to his approach in general rather than Smokefoot. This aside, which I have corrected, I fail to see what is "libellous" about this criticism of mine. However, if consensus here is that my statement has gone too far, then I am completely willing to refactor it; I want to follow WP norms.)

What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh.

Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Note that my qualms with his edits to Noble metal raised above were partly about whether the sources present really supported what they were citing; in this context I find something else problematic. I am unsure about whether this is the right place, but User:Games of the world mentioned it in the previous ANI thread, so I will work under the temporary assumption that it is pending anyone else who is well-versed in these areas of WP telling me that it isn't.

Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources.
- [22 Oct] @Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up. Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on. Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [134]
  - @Sandbh: And why should we consider what has not been publicly released when it is by definition not verifiable? Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [135]
    - @Double sharp:. Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY. How do you see that? Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [136]

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

I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. My profound apologies to all the regulars here who suffered through the previous threads and who would most likely have preferred it if they heard nothing else from us again. I understand.

Almost everyone relevant to this who has participated previously in discussion of this matter has been pinged above, so I only have User:Softlavender left to ping. I can't thank her enough for pitching in in the previous incredibly long thread (and I am truly sorry that my opening statement is this long – that's why I restricted myself to one or at most two examples per bullet point), and I hope against hope that some way of solving this that does not involve sanctions is possible. Sandbh surely must have a vast library of sources, judging from his previous contributions, and his perspective would be very valuable if he was persuaded to respect policy. Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size concerns and shortening the OP

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

Original report, reduced size

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. User:Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments.

Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, WP:IAR [137] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.)

Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals. [138], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS?

Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [139][140]

[141] ... I am not entirely blameless here, ... [142] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.)

Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [143] (For reference, what I wrote was ... Now, I did make a mistake; ... This aside, which I have corrected, ...)

What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh.
Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions.

Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [144] [145][146]

I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI[147] even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here.
User:Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of the report

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

Circumstances I want to note: being a long post is OK to me, bc it describes the complicated behaviour patterns that indeed might have an ANI angle. I note that EdChem, who contributed to the earlier ani-posts in this, has stepped in WT:ELEMENTS to contribute to content discussions and giving example of good talkhabits. Re my own contributions: I myself took a low profile (low activity) on the page. I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [148][149]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sandbh about editors behaviour not content

[150] your "no category" agenda: having an "agenda"? Sandbh casting bad faith. [151][152] warnings by EdChem. [153] (1st paragraph) Sandbh not retracting, reconfirming instead.

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

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

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

POLICY denouncing and ignoring

[157] edited the article under discussion, [158] "is disputed" says Ds, [159] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

[164] (17 July, Archive): rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR.

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

Responses

Responses by Double sharp (Ds) and EdChem, there are many, I mostly skipped here. Researching this, I do sense serious attitude and actions by Ds to correct the flow, also signs of desperation, resulting in this ANI report. There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [166][167] (is back now).

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support TBAN of Sandbh. It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [168] [169] (and also from one in August [170]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch. He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines. In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop" [171]. Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked). Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attacks by Wrs1428

I reverted some of the edits this user made to the 2020 United States presidential election series. They asked me on my talk page why ([172]) and I explained it to them. In response, they said I don't care! You do not get to infringe on my freedom of speech. ([173]). I warned them against making personal attacks with a template message on their talk page ([174]). In response, they left me the following message on my talk page: Oh. So you're gonna go on a power trip, huh? Fuck you! ([175]). ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the fact that they are a new editor, I left them a polite warning. Please let me know if there are any further problems either with such blatant attacks or problematic edits. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, personal attacks and severe battleground behavior by user

The User:Mehtar10 has only been editing for sometime but has racked up multiple warnings on their Talk page, engaged in edit wars with different users and even used WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. But looks like the user wouldn't care either way because they show a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I am surprised no action or block was initiated against this user. Gotitbro (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Gotitbro: Per the policies written up at the top of this page and in the notice when creating this section, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now topic banned from all pages relating to India or Pakistan, which includes talk pages, noticeboards, etc - all pages. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

problematic user

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Problematic user

– Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

A user with so called name Qiushufang keeps deleting two sections about Arabia and Byzantium to the article that is named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder that have referenced sources that are very difficult to be found in other languages and then writes to the view history and talk pages lots of "excuses", he seems to have weird ambitions too for this article, as if he "edits" to make a "point" or something.

Trying to find justice to this situation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.116.209 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user, I have moved this topic from WP:AN, as it is not the correct location. I don't think writing unreadable prose and WP:CITEKILL are particularly good additions to any article. From what I saw on the talk page and history, the additions seem to have been suitably reverted. Please fix WP:content disputes on the talk page of the article, rather than posting to AN. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted their edits due to lack of inline citations, an overabundance of bad citations, overwhelmingly non-Enslish sources, dubious content, and are likely made by a banned account avoiding said ban. Both IPs 45.114.116.209, 185.213.24.162 have no editing history on History of gunpowder before re-adding content by the now banned IPs 185.25.22.24 and 119.235.251.172 whom I reverted for the above reasons. See [176], [177], [178], [[179], [180]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Lee

"I don't think writing unreadable prose and WP:CITEKILL are particularly good additions to any article." we don't think too but that doesn't appear to be so much "unreadable" prose as you say, so don't blame us for that

as for the sources that specific user had asked for lots of sources for proof so there they are

"...the additions seem to have been suitably reverted." have been "suitably" reverted according to the intentions of that specific user

"...do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point." don't tell to us that, we didn't "disrupt" any wikipedia to prove a "point" as you say contrary to that specific user that "edits" to make a point or something

"Best wishes" best wishes too— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.116.209 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy IP, who is the us/we that you speak of? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaylen Waddle - Persistent Racism

Page for Alabama Football Player Jaylen Waddle being consistently and repeatedly attacked by anonymous users to add racist remarks and false information. Requesting a revert to last non-racist version of the page and blocking of the anonymous user guilty of racism ( 2600:1005:B10C:274D:AEFC:12B0:C1F5:376B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B09A:3B2E:400E:31CF:2BE4:8530 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article and reverted to a pre-vandalism version. It seems that Waddle broke his ankle in today's football game. I have no idea why that would lead to a spate of racist vandalism but I do not understand the mentality of vile trolls. Now, I will go block some IPs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User: 2600:1005:B10C:274D:AEFC:12B0:C1F5:376B for a month, which is much longer than I usually block IPs. The reason is the barrage of overtly racist BLP violations in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally pointless to block an individual IP allocated to Verizon Wireless for more than a few days. You'll just cause collateral damage to random people without impacting the vandal's ability to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest 72 hours instead, NinjaRobotPirate? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably better, yeah. If he comes back, it'll probably be on another IP address on Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B100::/40. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding by Horse Eye's Back, again

OP indeffed largely for the frivolous speedy deletion tags (A7) on obviously notable subjects created by their opponent. That sort of hounding and harassment (and just plain disruption) will not be tolerated on the project. My observation is also that the OP continue to exhibit WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in this very thread. Time for correction and reflection. El_C 18:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I first joined Wikipedia a few months back, I had previously made an ANI report involving their older account "Horse Eye Jack" here by their perceived hounding and battleground behavior on articles which I'm involved in. The admins decided it did not qualify as hounding at the time, and I thought to myself fine, perhaps this will be a one-off incident. Ever since, I'm trying to play ball with this user here by not engaging with conflicts they are involved in and discuss any issues on article talk pages and even on their talk page themselves.

However, this user will not stop following my edits (even on their new account), as we can obviously see in these articles which has minimal connection at best with each other. Furthermore, they did not make any contributions on this article until I came along as you can see from the timestamps on the Editor Interaction Analyzer, which I even mentioned here on the talk page of one these articles where they also made aspersions on my edits.

1. Taiwan Miracle – Analyzer
2. Crony-capitalism index – Analyzer
3. Economy of East Asia – Analyzer
4. Japan–Russia relations – Analzyer
5. Federalist Party – Analyzer
6. Maplewashing – Analyzer
7. South Korea – For context, they had reverted another user, but happened after my involvement while other users including me were reverting a vandal constantly making edits on this article – Analyzer
8. Singapore – More aspersions – Analyzer
9. Hong Kong tea culture – Analyzer
10. Taiwanese Wave – Analyzer

I don't consider myself a perfect user, and I've made mistakes myself. But this has seriously got to stop. I'm willing to interact with other users but I have to question the motive behind all these. Wherever I go, it's almost guaranteed they will come along. We *may* have similar interests in where we edit at some areas but the amount of times this has already happened is more than just a coincidence. And as I've said, it's always after my initial involvement on an article. This isn't the first time it has happened, and it probably wouldn't be the last. A two-way IBAN between myself and this user could solve a lot of future problems. Telsho (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In your linked diff from Singapore, there are two consecutive reverts from two different people exhorting the other to use the talk page instead of reverting, yet on Talk:Singapore, neither of their names appear even once. Meanwhile, on Talk:Crony-capitalism index, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho and Horse Eye's Back. On Talk:Economy of East Asia, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho and Horse Eye's Back. On Talk:South Korea, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho, Horse Eye's Back, and several others........... while it's obvious that you two don't seem to get along (and I don't know enough about the details of the issue to say which of you is reverting to The Wrong Version / who Started It), since Wikipedia is filled with lots of knowledgeable editors on virtually every subject, might some attempt at a WP:RfC (or even a WP:3O) be more condign than an AN/I thread or an IBAN? jp×g 04:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside problems with the interactions themselves, I had a quick look with the Editor Interaction Analyser [181]. From what I saw, yeah sometimes Horse Eye's Back appeared on an obscure page that seems unrelated to their general interest like the maplewashing one that I assume they must have gotten there from checking Telsho's contributions. But other times it seems there's a reasonable chance that it was just an area of interest they had watch listed or it was a page edited by Horse Eye first under one of their accounts. I didn't see sufficient evidence of persistent hounding, indeed sometimes e.g. [182] I assume Telsho must have been checking out Horse Eye's contribs. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did checked thoroughly to see if HEB or their old account had previously made edits on these 8 articles that I have listed, and it doesn't seem to be the case (I've added the Editor Interaction Analyzer for the articles above). I don't know how many uninvolved articles it has to be to count as hounding, but 8 is definitely not a small number, and it's growing. There were actually many more articles where we were both involved in which I've left out due to that. To address your second part of your sentence, my minor edit on Turning Point USA was merely to add a better source tag as the source used were questionable at best. However, one major factor is that I did not remove their content, while HEB/HEJ tends to blank/clear all my edits at once on contributions that I make while constantly accusing me of "vandalism" with no regard for assuming good faith, and then avoiding the question when I asked them on the talk page as to why they are suddenly involved a day after my initial edits. Either this is an extreme coincidence or they are tracking my contributions based on prior interactions. HEB also likes using the term "clean diff" or "no consensus" when there wasn't any justified reasons for the revert. What happened to being bold, if you're just going to revert and then cast aspersions during discussions? There were so many unnecessary edit wars which they have initiated with me for no particular reason. For the sake of my account, I have attempted to avoid on articles that they edit, but after they reverted me yet again yesterday on another uninvolved article, I had to bring this up because I don't see this harassing behavior stopping anytime soon. Telsho (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood my point. You can't complain about Horse Eye occasionally checking out your contribs as if it's some major evil when clearly you're doing the same. The point of our hounding restrictions is it doesn't matter a great deal whether the other editor was always right in their actions, continually following someone around is a problem. But if it's only been 8 times, well I don't think that crosses the line. If Horse Eye edited the article first, then the reason they're editing it is likely because it is on their watchlist rather than because they're following you. The fact you often edit the same articles just reflects the fact you have similar interests. And frankly I'm not certain all 8 even come from your contribs. E.g. the South Korea one the edit seems to come well after your involvement and is also right in Horse Eye's normal area of interest i.e. East Asia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it probably would be best if you both lay off from checking each other's contributions. And you both should also try to depersonalise your disputes. So on article talk pages, no mentions of hounding, no comments on how the other editor is always doing X (e.g. reverting, etc. Since unfortunately most of the time it seems clear you don't convince each other via discussion, if you've tried and it isn't going anywhere and it's only you two, be quick to involved someone else e.g. WP:3O rather than endless back and forths let alone revert wars. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the timestamps, the better source tag that was added on Turning Point USA was done at the same time and day after where HEB initially got involved and reverted my contributions on Crony-capitalism index while accusing me of vandalism. It was not premeditated by me, in fact I did not even revert them, it was just a tag. In regards to your suggestion, it's just that I don't know if HEB would honor that. Based on the analyzer, it's obvious as to who's doing the reverts more often in a deliberate manner and initiating edit conflicts. I also highly doubt they had these articles on a watch list, as they had never made any contributions on these articles that I've brought up on the list prior to my involvement, even on their old account. Perhaps an enforced IBAN sounds like "as a last resort" thing, but if HEB would agree on an unofficial IBAN and not get involved in each other's contributions on different articles I would definitely be cool with that. Telsho (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed boomerang

I propose a strong WP:BOOMERANG, this is after all the user which used a wikibreak of mine as an excuse to tag Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. for speedy deletion, these are articles I had created but not edited in a long time and are not even remotely within Telsho’s normal editing fields nor could the speedy delete tag actually be justified. He also tried to get Apu Jan [183] speedily deleted but thats well within their normal pattern of disrupting Taiwan related pages. More on this can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#User:Telsho & LTA socking. They also deleted by unilateral redirect Taiwan Miracle, Taiwanese Wave [184], Hong Kong tea culture, The Three Ts [185], and Taiwanese whisky (there may be more but those are the ones I can remember now). They also vandalized or tag bombed Milk Tea Alliance, Taiwan Miracle [186], Taiwanese tea culture, Maritime industries of Taiwan [187], Little Pink [188], Taiwanese art [189], Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition [190] and at least a dozen more in some misguided attempt at hurting me. If you check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive417#User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Telsho (Result: No violation) you will find that Telsho has been specifically warned about edit warring on the Singapore page, it was a revert of them there yesterday which caused them to post this here. To be accused of wikihounding by someone who has wikihounded me is absolutely ridiculous, Telsho has been skating on the edge of a ban for three months now and its time to pay the piper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I mention about similar topic areas? Where you reverted wasn't that. Go ahead, get all defensive. That's one way to solve this issue, doesn't it? Also, a WP:BOOMERANG to ban me for what, exactly? Telsho (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using the analyzer on articles such as Hong Kong tea culture and Taiwanese Wave, we could see these are more examples which I actually forgot where they also hounded me as well, shortly after they made a second account. Thanks for reminding me and bringing those up. Telsho (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding, disruptive editing, vandalism, not here, take your pick... You went down the list of articles I had created and systematically redirected, tagged, or vandalized them... You’ve never justified that group of edits any of the times you were challenged by myself, other editors, or admins about it. Please do so now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself? Telsho (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find I also hadn’t edited Taiwan Miracle before you tried to redirect it to Economy of East Asia. Please review what hounding is not, I had legitimate and ironclad policy based reasons to revert your unilateral redirects of major (in the case of Taiwan Wave and Taiwan Miracle) pages. What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I had legitimate and ironclad policy based reasons" Yeah okay, thanks a lot for righting great wrongs on this website with that wikilawyering tone of yours HEB. Yes, I've reviewed what hounding is. Could you please enlighten me as to what hounding actually is by re-reading the first paragraph of WP:HOUND, and what you're doing isn't actually that? Because I have up to 10 different examples (and counting) showing otherwise. Telsho (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One step at a time. What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives (Moira K. Lyons)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me to take "One step at a time" while avoiding the question as to what exactly is going on here? Again, could you explain how your behavior differs from what is mentioned on WP:HOUND? Also HEB previously HEJ, you make a new account. At the time, there was no guarantee you were ever going to return. The moment you did however as HEB, you pretty much raided my contributions with great vengeance and reverted them, while continuing to do so on many different articles to this day. So, what is it? Telsho (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were aware I wasn’t active and that "there was no guarantee you were ever going to return” makes your actions more egregious not less. What exactly is going on here Telsho? What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives (Moira K. Lyons)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of your existence again because you were suddenly making reverts on articles which I had previously contributed, and therefore was on my watchlist, not because I was aware that you "weren't active" at the time. And I'm going to assume you won't answer the question as to whether you being involved with me on 10 separate articles qualifies as hounding. I think I was also being particularly clear when I used WP:A7 for the speaker. I'm honestly wasting my time going around in circles with you. Telsho (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider those interactions to qualify as hounding. Thank you for answering my question but simply stating which criteria you used doesn't really cut the mustard, “Speaker” is in and of itself all the indication of importance that is required so A7 was never valid. You also haven't explained how you found yourself on that page, why were you tagging multiple obscure Connecticut political pages for speedy deletion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theres also the question of why you chose to edit war with Phil Bridger over the speedy delete tag you put on Dogmid Sosorbaram. Why nominate a page you’ve never visited before in a topic you’ve never edited in before for speedy deletion and then edit war with an admin when they remove the tag? What possible justification can you have for that (and simply stating which criteria you used isnt going to cut it)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going off-topic on purpose to try and detract attention on the main subject as to why I started this ANI? I'm not about to let you do that. Nice subtle WP:CANVASS with that ping though. Also heads up, Phil Bridger isn't even an admin, and 1 revert is not an "edit war". If that was the case, approximately up to 80% of your contributions since you "returned" has been edit wars. Please come up with another excuse. Telsho (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I do not consider those interactions to qualify as hounding.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not an admin, but you that doesn't change the fact that you edit-warred over the speedy deletion tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I would suggest concentrating on your own AN report if I were you. Last I checked, Dogmid Sosorbaram was not placed under a standing 1RR restriction by ArbCom. Telsho (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily (from both sides) I am not you. I am perfectly capable of multi-tasking. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Telsho (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on topic. To conclude, HEB thinks their behavior isn't hounding, despite joining discussions and reverting on multiple pages or topics where I'm initially involved in on many separate occasions which I've mentioned above. I wonder what the definition counts for them then... Telsho (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strange editing pattern from 172.74.95.x addresses

Apologies if this is the wrong board, I'm not sure what is the most appropriate forum.

Several IP addresses in the same range are making repeated, high-volume (see their contribs), mostly-useless (see below) edits. Most of the edits aren't tagged, a small proportion are "visual editor". They appear to be interested in ethnic/racial groups and in video games.

Users noticed so far: 174.47.95.98 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.107 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.103 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.99 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.102 (talk · contribs)

Examples: Mixed-race Brazilian (from 10 consecutive edits, one VE); Multiracial people 11 edits from 2 IPs, includes 2VEdits; Adriana Lima (re-ordering of ethnic groups in heritage), Afro-Asians 2, Afro-Asians 1.

Edit types: inconsistent toggling of upper-lower case on qualifiers like native/Native, white/White; swapping order of asian and african; upper/lower-casing of page names in piped links; changing links-to-redirects into piped links; moving label suffixes in/out of piped links, [[page|label]]s; uppercasing template names; adding (useful) or removing (not) spaces between template parameters; changing spaces before/after equals signs in headings; swapping order of section hatnotes and images; removing Oxford commas, changing color ↔ colour; not understanding how parenthetical commas work; some grammatical errors, some grammatical improvements. The source-code changes don't appear to be VE artifacts.

I thought they might have been using volume changes to hide some racial POV, but haven't found anything egregious.

Is this worth more eyes, or just ignore it? —Pelagic ( messages ) – (18:16 Sun 25, AEST) 08:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PA in edit summery

103.154.54.190 (talk · contribs) has posted this [[191]] rather charming little rant. Also very much an SPA as they have only made two edits, the same one [[192]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for the PA. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I informed the wrong IP there are a few in the 103.154.54 range that have made (more or less, and only) the same edit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've partial blocked 103.154.54.0/24 from that article only for an extended time. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations and personal attacks

See my report at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2020 October 25.

Phule lulu is violating WP:COPYVIO even after multiple warnings,[193][194] and now accusing me of vandalism.[195][196]

At least 3 editors have reverted him but he is not getting the point. This is definitely a competence issue. Wareon (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon is using the pretext of Copyright violation (referring to an extract from archive.org which originally got added to this article back in August 2016 by a different editor, not me[197]), to remove most of the cited references on the page, so as to paint a majoritarian perspective on the topic while misportraying the plight of the oppressed. While I defer to the admins to decide whether the content originally quoted from archive.org by a different editor is Copyright violation or not, I'd request the admins to go through the recent edits on Shambuka page by Wareon in their full form, along with quality of references, so as to take an informed decision. --Phule lulu (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phule lulu: The whole point of listing it on the copyright violation page is to enable other editors (not necessarily admins) to check and see if there are problems. Until someone has confirmed there are no problems, you shouldn't be reverting to content that may violate someone's copyright. You've presented zero evidence that it's a "pretext" so that could be consider a personal attack.

Your comment on the copyvio page just adds to the concerns since as mentioned there, it doesn't matter how old a work is if the content copied is not the original work but some creative variant of that work like a human translation of that work. In that case, the copyright status of the variant matters. Also "it is possible" is not how we deal with copyright. You need strong enough evidence it's not. For a 1957 work, the lack of a copyright notice could be relevant at least with regards to copyright protection in the US which is probably all that matters on en.wikipedia. But this is something some more knowledgeable will need to check and your comments suggest this doesn't apply to you.

And removing copyright violations or (sufficiently) suspected copyright violations is fully justified by policy and without exception. It generally does not matter when the copyright violation was added. It does not generally matter where the copyrighted content came from. The only only times those points matter is if it suggests there's no copyright violation e.g. the text is in the public domain or released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 compatible licence, or it came from Wikipedia in the first place. (Also finding out when the copyright violation was added may enable the article to be reverted to the version before it was added rather than blanked.)

~~From a quick check, what I saw was a 1957 book on archive.org so frankly archive.org and "centuries old" seems irrelevant.~~ If you are the one who added the copyright violation, boasting that it was added in 2016 isn't helping your case. You need to stop adding copyright violations right now and help us clear up all your copyright violations which given the length of time since you added them is unfortunately likely to be messy. Where you don't understand copyright, you need to listen to what people are telling you. If you don't stop, you will be blocked.

If you want the article to reflect the "plight of the oppressed", what you need to do is write decent content yourself rather than simply copying what someone else has written. The more time of other editors you waste fixing up problems you create, the less likely anyone will have time to write such content.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I misread who commented on the copyvio page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards