Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 16: Line 16:


== Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition ==
== Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition ==
{{atop|Per consensus, {{u|Eissink}} is sitebanned. No other actions taken. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)}}
——– {{userlinks|The Banner}} –——
——– {{userlinks|The Banner}} –——


Line 166: Line 167:
:<small>[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|14px|link=|alt=]] {{Small|1='''Bumping thread'''. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1606776808}}</small>
:<small>[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|14px|link=|alt=]] {{Small|1='''Bumping thread'''. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1606776808}}</small>
{{od|::::::::::::"}}This has gone on for well over the required time and the consensus seems pretty clear. Can some kind administrator close this entire thing for the record and so the bots can archive? Thanks in advance. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::"}}This has gone on for well over the required time and the consensus seems pretty clear. Can some kind administrator close this entire thing for the record and so the bots can archive? Thanks in advance. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Casting aspersions, personal attacks from {{u|Normal Op}} ==
== Casting aspersions, personal attacks from {{u|Normal Op}} ==

Revision as of 17:34, 2 November 2020

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

    Per consensus, Eissink is sitebanned. No other actions taken. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ——– 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 [1], and this [2], and this [3]. 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. EEng 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. EEng 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!!" Lev!vich 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. Lev!vich 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. EEng 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 [4]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. EEng 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]

    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. Lev!vich 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 [6]. 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. EEng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: I don't think it counts unless you say it in bold. Lev!vich 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    it EEng 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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
    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 [8]. EEng 01:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary of the votes so far. Lev!vich 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,HAL333Lepricavark,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]
    Interesting, as you are fishing for block information here. And that seems to be response on you sources being shot down as unreliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Something you still seems to reject. In fact, you are also creating an unsafe working environment. The Banner talk 10:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've followed your links. They lead to wall of text after wall of text. You keep saying The Banner did something, but darned if I can tell what it is. If it's hounding or goading, a laconic -- LACONIC -- list of diffs is all that would be needed. EEng 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging the lot of us was not exactly helpful. If you have a distinct proposal against The Banner, make a new subsection and put your evidence forward. Right now, though, what you've put forward is not going to result in any action against Banner. If that's all you've got, I suggest you drop the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. @Emigré55:, I said above that I did not feel that Eissink deserved any more of the community's time and I meant it. I am highly annoyed that you've dragged this out by mouth-piecing their accusations against The Banner. There was never any evidence provided by Eissink that The Banner was hounding them and your repeated insistence that there was is equally a personal attack. After reading through these jeremiads twice, I can only say that both Eissink's and your reasons for harassing The Banner remain opaque to me and that I should never have wasted the time trying to understand them. You have presented no grounds for action against the Banner other than some warped version of "fairness" but if you continue to pursue this line of attack you will certainly be presenting grounds for action against yourself. I really, really strongly advise dropping the bludgeoning instrument and backing away from the nag's cadaver. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Emigré55, attacking Banner is not doing your cause, of that of Eissink, any good. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    jer·e·mi·ad / jerəˈmīəd / noun / plural noun: jeremiads / a long, mournful complaint or lamentation; a list of woes / "the jeremiads of puritan preachers warning of moral decay" RandomGnome (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! EEng 09:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumping thread. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has gone on for well over the required time and the consensus seems pretty clear. Can some kind administrator close this entire thing for the record and so the bots can archive? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 2 November 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]
    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 [9]). 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 [10] 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." [11] 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 [12], 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. [13] 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 [14], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [15] (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, [16], as was the third [17] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normal Op:, A houseguest visited you and edited Wikipedia? You filed a UCE report?! Seriously, you seem to be making baseless accusations against people. This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 15:29, 31 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 [18] (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 [19]. 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. [20] 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... Lev!vich 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 [21], 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. [22] Her stepson has since complained on the talk-page about Normal Ops aggressive editing [23]. 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]
    • Support T-Ban, the behavior here needs to stop.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have only interacted with Normal Op on the AfD discussion page about the "List of dog attacks ..." page and on the related discussion on the noticeboard about the reliability of dogsbite.org. Abrasiveness is not the same as being a dick. ImTheIP (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would it be possible for an uninvolved admin to close? It looks like discussion has run its course and consensus is near-unanimous. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary sitewide ban. A non-involved editor here, but it seems clear that Normal Op is clearly not being civil. A new editor here, so my suggestion may seem inappropriate for the incident. This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban Mr. Heart (talk) 06:32, 2 November 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[24] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.

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

    1. Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
    2. 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[25]

    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]

    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 Ponyobons 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]

    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]
    1. "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."
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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. [26], [27], [28].
    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. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [], [36], [37], [38], [39].
    Nor was my edit summary deficient. The summary [40] 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[41] fuck off with your bullying bullshit
    Their general hostility and aggression is also directed at other editors, e,g.
    • [42] editsum Which idiot cannot spell Colombia?
    • [43] 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]
    1. 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?
    2. 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).
    3. 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]
    1. Undoing someone's entire edit just because there's a small and easily fixable issue with it is unhelpful; if done repeatedly, it demoralizes the contributor, which, especially in the case of short-tempered individuals, may eventually lead to their losing their cool and lashing out. This is what happened here. It's true that we can find additional instances of incivility in Tisquesusa's editing history; however, that one particular instance that you reported in this thread, and for which Tisquesusa received an expedited two-week block, wasn't some gratuitous personal attack; rather, it was a request (admittedly rude) for you to stop your reversions that was brought about by your suboptimal handling of the cleanup task for which you volunteered. There is no doubt in my mind that if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest, Tisquesusa wouldn't have objected to them as his/her editing history clearly identifies him/her as a productive member of the Wikipedia community.
    2. I suggest that, if you continue to engage in the cleanup of red categories, you change your mode of operation to simply removing such categories instead of undoing the edits in which they were added. This advice is consistent with our WP:Editing policy which clearly states that we should try to "[p]reserve the value that others add" whenever possible. It is my belief that it was very much possible to preserve the value that Tisquesusa added in every single instance where you instead chose to undo his/her edits in their entirety, and that it was your apparent disregard for the value s/he added that caused the unfortunate incident that brought us here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iaritmioawp, as I explained above, my practice is to simply remove a redlinked category only when that category is an addition rather than a replacement. That's because removing a red-linked category which replaces another leaves the article improperly categorised.
    In other more complex cases I will continue to revert, to restore the status quo ante, so that the editor who made the error is notified that their changes wre problematic, and can bring their own expertise to bear on choosing the appropriate categories which actually exist, or creating new ones if needed.
    This is likely to be my last reply to you, because it seems that you have little interest in reading what I write or in actually considering the problem which my edits address. The only reason that so many of Tisquesusa's edits have been reverted by me is that Tisquesusa is an extremely rare case of an editor who has chosen to ignore repeated notifications of a problem which they repeatedly create, so lot sf Tisquesusa's edits have landed on the cleanup list.
    It is very striking that throughout your posts here you consistently refrain from any criticism of Tisquesusa for their persistent creation of problems which will have to cleaned up some other editor(s), whether me or some one else. Instead you have engaged in a thoroughly partisan, witchhunt-style exercise of seeking fault in my work while continually overlooking Tisquesusa prolific creation of errors. In doing so, you have falsely accused me of feuding with Tisquesusa, and you have falsely accused me of misleading summaries: if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest. That is pure fabrication: where I reverted, the edit summary clearly indicates that it is a revert: see the list of diffs that i posted above: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [], [51], [52], [53], [54].
    I have no evidence of why you engage in such fabrication, but it is very ugly behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the summaries obviously do state that the edits were reversions. However, the explanation provided for these reversions in these edit summaries ("Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT") only addresses the component of removing the red category. It doesn't say why the entire edit had to be reverted. This is unsurprising because the entire edit didn't need to be reverted in any of these cases; just the removal of the red category would've been sufficient. If you continue to make such reversions in disregard of our editing policy, as you just said you're planning to, and the reversions continue to aggravate other editors, and you continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa, then I don't think I need to tell you how the story is likely to end—and just to be perfectly clear, I don't want to see that bad ending, I want to see the happy ending in which you agree to bring your editing in line with the policy and respect the value other editors add to articles with their edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Iaritmioawp seems to have given up any pretence at doing anything other than hurling muck at me in the hope that some of it sticks.
    • Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for not writing longer edit summaries, but makes no criticism of Tisq consistently using no edit summary
    • Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for making full reverts rather than partial reverts, but makes no criticism of Tisquesusa repeatedly creating the same problem for others to clean up
    • Iaritmioawp chooses to smear me by misrepresenting my actions. Iaritmioawp says that I continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get. I have checked my ANI contribs for the past 12 months, and have verified my recollection that Tisquesusa is the only editor about whom I have made such a complaint, because Tisquesusa is the only editor to lash out.
      Iaritmioawp says that there are multiple aggrieved editors lashing out ... but the reality is that there is only one.
      Iaritmioawp also makes a wholly false ABF assertion that I go to ANI the first chance you get. That too is demonstrably false, because there are no other such cases.
    • Iaritmioawp continues to ignore the fact that if Tisquesusa wanted to discuss this, they could have done so at any time with a message on my talk page. But the history of my interactions with Tisquesusa is of me repeatedly trying dialogue which was deleted as "spam", and of Tisquesusa launching a vicious, vile, misogynist attack on me. Iaritmioawp's attempts to blame me for the lack of communication amount to an endorsement of Tisquesusa's misogyny, because they place all the onus on me to make repeated attempts to communicate with the misogynist attacker.
    This smear campaign by Iaritmioawp is straight out of the swiftboating playbook: hurl at someone as many false allegations and as much unsubstantiated muck as you can fabricate, in the hope that some of it sticks and if not, the target of the smears is tied down writing rebuttals. The use of those vicious tactics should have consequences for Iaritmioawp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you missed the part where Iaritmioawp said If you continue... They were not saying that you have been actively doing these things for a while, but rather that you should be aware of the possible consequences if you repeat the steps that you have taken in this particular case. Point-by-point rebuttals only work when you actually understand the other person's points. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: intervening to claim that I didn't understand the point made only works if the intervener actually understands the facts of the matter.
    The facts in this case are that there are no multiple editors, no multiple complaints, and no pattern of complaining at first opportunity.
    However, there is a pattern of Iaritmioawp fabricating allegations and misrepresenting facts. I wish that I could be surprised that you choose to endorse that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, I do understand what Iaritmioawp was saying. They were saying that if you continue to engage in the behavior that has characterized this specific case – which does not equate to an accusation that there is a preexisting pattern – you will probably find that it doesn't turn out very well. I literally explained this in my previous post. It's right there in plain English. Now, I don't think anyone expects you to agree with Iaritmioawp, but twisting their words around and then accusing them of fabricating is downright sleazy. In the arbcom case that led to your desysop, one of the findings of fact stated that you had repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying... With your unfounded claims of fabrication in this thread, you are demonstrating to the entire community that nothing has changed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, I have not twisted anyone's words. I have been falsely accused, e.g. of bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa ... and I am defending myself against false accusations and against the unfounded assumption that I was seeking an opportunity to open an ANI case. Arbcom has ruled that it is not acceptable to call another editor a liar, regardless of the evidence, so I make no such allegation here. But given that you quote Arbncom about AGF, it is richly ironic that you make no complaint about Iaritmioawp's assertion that I was seeking a opportunity for ANI case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You twisted Iaritmioawp's words by claiming that they were accusing you of continuing to do things that you had done on prior occasions. In reality, Iaritmioawp was cautioning you against what might happen if you continue to do what you have done on this particular occasion. This is my third and final attempt at explaining this very important distinction that should have been easily understood from a straightforward reading of Iaritmioawp's post. Also, it's too late to say that you aren't calling Iaritmioawp a liar since you have already accused them of fabrications in at least two separate posts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, the plain English meaning of Iaritmioawp's comments is an allegation that I have been engaged in a pattern of deception, provocation and entrapment. The only twisting here is the sustained efforts of Iaritmioawp to misrepresent my position, and your subsequent efforts to obfuscate the assumptions of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this movie before. If you intend to start slinging mud at me as well, you'll have to do it without my participation. Good day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you probably have seen this before, because the game being played out here is an old one. Editors fabricate and misrepresent in order to smear an editor, as has been done to me here. And then when the person who is being smeared objects to being smeared, their objections are taken as evidence of malice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 29 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]
    On the contrary, we routinely indef and/or site-ban prolific editors for intractable problematic behavior. That's why we have policies, pillars, noticeboards, administrators, ArbCom, etc. No one on Wikipedia is indispensable, and competence, both behavioral and editorial, is required to remain an editor here. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Only two comments: (1) regardless of what you think of BHG's approach, personal attacks like these are not justifiable. (2) we should not allow any edit that lowers the quality of article content for the sake of its categories. That lowering the quality or requiring that others fix it makes it easier to make hundreds or thousands of such changes is not a good reason. Categories are useful to some, but secondary to the rest of the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tisquesusa has demonstrated their ability to create categories; see the recently-created Category:Jurassic mammals of South America, Category:Paleocene mammals of Europe and Category:Silurian Sweden. This current dustup seems to have been sparked merely by the addition of one red-linked category; it seems to me that this issue could have been easily solved by the creation of Category:Fossils of Lesotho as a perfectly valid sub-category of Category:Fossils by country. Yes, Lesotho is entirely surrounded by South Africa (see Category:Enclaved countries), but it's a country nonetheless. We do have Category:Paleontology in Lesotho. Tisquesusa, why did you neglect to create that category. If you had promptly done so before BrownHairedGirl ran across the red link as part of her routine patrol, a lot of grief could have been avoided. Cullen328 can we unblock Tisquesusa so that they can respond to me, and participate in this discussion about their behavior? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Tisquesusa should not be unblocked. He doesn't need to answer your question (although you are welcome to ask him that on his talk page), and it wouldn't change the fact that his block was deserved and that his pattern of behavior is and has been problematic. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with this editor's "pattern of behavior". I disagree with the idea that an F-bomb in an edit summary is a personal attack. Rather, it is an example of incivility. And, yes the community should take incivility more seriously. Tisquesusa if you respond on your talk, I'll copy your response to here. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's pattern of behavior is demonstrated by his block log [55] and BrownHairedGirl's abundant evidence (including prior ANIs) throughout this thread. If you read this entire thread, you'll see that Tisquesusa has a habit of adding non-categories to articles, and knows it shouldn't be done, but does it anyway, and then attacks BHG when the non-categories are removed, so at this point it's a pattern of aggression and abuse on his part. Softlavender (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility enforcement on Wikipedia is woefully inconsistent. I've had far worse than an f-bomb directed at me and seen the offending editor not given even a mild censure. Civility enforcement usually depends on whether the attacking editor or the attacked editor has higher standing in the community. The offending edit summary that led to this block didn't just happen in a vacuum; the above discussion has made it quite clear that there are deeper issues which need to be resolved. A draconian block issued less than 30 minutes after this thread was filed – and before the reported editor had a chance to respond – sends the message that the personal attack is the only thing that we need to worry about. This is one of my biggest frustrations with how we handle conduct cases. Once one editor is identified as the 'bad guy', there is a bizarre aversion to examining the context for possible mitigating circumstances. We are told that "Editor A's provocation does not excuse Editor B's behavior, and then we usually end up giving Editor A a free pass (except, of course, for cases in which Editor B is too popular to become a 'bad guy'; provocation is the primary topic of discussion in those cases). The kind of comment that led to a two-week block here often leads to absolutely nothing in other cases. I say we lift the block as time served and try to find a resolution for the underlying dispute so that articles are not tagged with red-linked categories and article improvements are not needlessly undone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read through the full thread and all the evidence therein? The editor was not blocked merely for an f-bomb, they were blocked for continuing a pattern of aggression and abuse that had already ended up at two ANI threads and numerous repeats of the same deliberate disruptive behavior -- deliberately and knowingly adding non-categories to articles even though they've been reverted, warned, and/or blocked many many many times for the same deliberate disruption. So it's not merely a civility issue, it's a DE issue, and a distinct and ongoing pattern of DE at this point. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Tisquesusa's block log. It contains three blocks for personal attacks and one block for edit warring. Not a single one of those block summaries indicates that the editor was ever specifically blocked for adding non-categories or for any other form of deliberately disruptive editing. You appear to be mistaken. I'd like to get an explanation from Tisquesusa as to why they were adding those non-categories before jumping straight to the conclusion that it was deliberate disruption. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems to be deliberate if she has been through this with him time and time and time and time again, which she has; see for instance [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that she has repeatedly reverted his edits. However, your assumption that he was deliberately trolling her (as you suggested below) is not the only possible explanation. As I have already said, I prefer to wait for Tisquesusa's explanation instead of trying to be a mind-reader. You are demonstrating another pet peeve that I have with this kind of thread. Once one editor is labelled as the 'bad guy', it becomes open season for attacks on that editor's motives and AGF flies out the window. Yes, Tisquesusa was wrong to personally attack BHG, but that does not mean that we should tar and feather him by assuming that all of his actions stem from ABF motives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am an uninvolved outsider re this, not an admin, and not new to ANI (please do not research archives ;-) ).
    Having read this thread, I have this question: why cannot an ANI-discussion lead to a forked admonishing? As in: Party-1 did X so consequence Y, party-2 did P so consequence Q? Example in case. As pointed out by Iaritmioawp about this edit by BHG (which lead to the reported reversal-with-f-bomb). I say this edit by BHG is inacceptible by any editing standard we know. (I would have been be kicked off an automate like twinkle or AWB for sure, especially when doing so repeatedly. 'you are responsible for your own edit'). So irrespective of the judgement on the reported editor, why cannot ANI discuss and conclude: "Inacceptible so Z"? (boomerang is only to turn 180°, not broadening in this sense). -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (+clarification, ping @BrownHairedGirl:. DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't think there was any problem with BHG's edit, especially since, as she has explained, she was reverting yet another deliberately disruptive edit (one of dozens of the same type of edits over the past year) by Tisquesusa. That he continues to make those disruptive edits -- adding non-categories to articles -- after all of the warnings, reverts, ANIs, and blocks, can only be because he is trolling BHG. I'd say if it happens again, it's time for an indef. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect: this is missing my point (or: illustrating it). My point is: the BHG edit by itself can be unacceptible (it is, IMO). Then why not judge that as such here? IOW Just as BHG's edits do not nullify (undo, clear, undo, excempts, ...) the issue reported, the reported editor's fault does not nullify the fault in BHG's edit. So why is BHG's behaviour not admonished by itself? That is: without jumping to a "but the other editor did ..."-argument? (this argument never accepted outside of ANI, and rightly so). -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Her edit was not unacceptible. There is no reason to admonish her. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion that an edit which removed four valid categories, restored a spelling mistake, removed two valid internal links, and undid an improvement to the sentence structure was not unacceptable just because it also happened to get rid of a single red category is an interesting take on the situation. Personally, I disagree with that view as I believe such reversions are at odds with our editing policy which instructs us to "preserve the value that others add" whenever possible. The article was very clearly made worse by the revert. Surely you agree that we should only make edits such that they improve the pages we edit, and that anyone who regularly does the opposite should be asked to stop? Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: same misunderstanding/mistake. I am not interested in opinions about the reported editor. My question is: why is BHG's editing not admonished by itself? That is: irrespective of the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding what DePiep is trying to say, Lepricavark's explanation of this "inconsistency" is pretty much on point. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I blocked Tisquesusa last November I left a note saying that any repeat of the behaviour may possibly lead to an indefinite block. That block was also for multiple attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl, which were of such a vile and misogynist nature that they have been revision-deleted; not to mention an edit summary which equated the reversion of his edits to the Holocaust. (If any admin wants to confirm this, they were the edits from 12:47 to 13:38 UTC here). Given that, I believe that Cullen328 has been pretty lenient here. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that Tisquesusa's comments were indeed vile and I said so myself in the previous ANI thread, as they were revdel'd, they referred to BrownHairedGirl as a "Creature" amongst other vile comments, and I can confirm that he did indeed refer to the removal of the portals as the "Shoah", which is indefensible. I forgot how nasty Tisquesusa's comments were in retrospect, my above interpretation of Tisquesusa has probably been too charitable, as I have worked with him probably more than any other wikipedian and have had numerous cordial interactions with him. The problem with revision deletion is that it also whitewashes the maker of the comments, as it means that their track record of behavior cannot be evaluated by non-administrators, I remember that Tisquesusa's original vile comments that got him the 72 hour block had been revdel'd so I had a more charitable opinion of him until I saw the second round of comments he made that got him revdel'd the second time. The second thread can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_12#Ban_request which contains some of my reactions to his vile comments, just to give you some idea of what they contained. Tisquesusa has contributed several substantial improvements to Wikipedia, like the Tremp Formation and Tendaguru Formation articles, as well as the many improvements he has made to Musica related topics over the years. He has refrained from making any similar sorts of vile comments since and there should have been more of a discussion before being blocked for 2 weeks. Arguably the original 1 week block for his original comments was too lenient, I would have agreed with a 2 week block if he made similar comments again this time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 31 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. [67]
    • [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. [68]

    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. [69] (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 [70], 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. [71]
      • [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. [72]
    • 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. [73] 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. [74] (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. [75]
        • (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) [76]
        • @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) [77]
          • @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) [78]

    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 [79] (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. [80], 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: [81][82]
    • [83] ... I am not entirely blameless here, ... [84] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.)
    • Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [85] (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.

    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[89] 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: [90][91]; 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
    [92] your "no category" agenda: having an "agenda"? Sandbh casting bad faith. [93][94] warnings by EdChem. [95] (1st paragraph) Sandbh not retracting, reconfirming instead.
    [96] With my best German accent: ... verboten!: BF, attack, again.
    [97] A little bit of homework would have ... I am not impressed snarky, talking down, cynical at best.
    [98] You know nothing about ... (in an other subthread)
    POLICY denouncing and ignoring
    [99] edited the article under discussion, [100] "is disputed" says Ds, [101] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus.
    [102] 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):
    [103] I know more than I can disclose: ignores WP:V.
    [104] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all.
    [105] In writing all of this I realise the irony of myself quoting WP policy: not irony, but contradicting and cherrypicking.
    [106] (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.
    [107] 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 [108][109] (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. Lev!vich 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]
    Update: I intend to start drafting my fair account now, subject to RL obligations. Thank you User:YBG and Double sharp, as colleagues, for your patience in waiting for me to do so. I don't know how long this will take; reading through the thread just now it appears to contain ~70 allegations concerning my conduct. Thank you User:Andrew for your RFC suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (minor TWIKITEXT fix: YBG = User:YBG, Andrew User:Andrew -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Principles and preliminaries: Here are some contextual guiding principles, policies and statements that I feel are relevant to the thread. I'll be referencing these in my fair account.
    [P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:
    "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."
    [P2] From WP:NOR:
    "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."
    [P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:
    "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors."
    [P4] Ditto:
    "Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."
    [P5] From the WP:BOOMERANG essay:
    "Responders: Investigate fully"
    [P6] From User:Lev!vich on Oct 11 [110]:
    "I was going to close this with the following closing statement: …this thread is over 27,000 words in 14 subheadings, making up about 1/3 of WP:ANI. If any admin or other uninvolved editor wants to read it and close this with action, please feel free to revert my close, but I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time… If there are conduct issues that repeat and help is sought from uninvolved editors (e.g. admin), perhaps consider requesting 20 minutes of help (e.g. by limiting yourself to ~1,000 words in the ANI report) instead of requesting many hours of help (27,000 words). Lev!vich 03:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    [P7] From WP:ASPERSIONS:
    "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.
    Arbitration Committee principle: Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    [P8] This post by User:DePiep, on Oct 10 [111], to a previous WP:ANI thread:
    "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."
    [P9] This following statement by me addresses the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI:
    User:DePiep has been blocked on 13–15 previous occasions, for incivility and disruptive conduct [112].
    Euryalus indefinitely placed DePiep under several editing restrictions in May 2018 [113]; namely [114]:
    1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
    3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
    4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.
    On Sep 27th I filed a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [115]. I summarised the behaviour and provided relevant w\links, dates and times, but no diffs as I didn't know I had to. After I was asked to provide diffs, I replied as follows: "Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs." [116] Subsequently the report was closed by User:Salvio on Sep 28th, on the grounds that, "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented."[117]
    On Sep 29th, User:R8R lodged a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [118]. It was in this thread that DePiep posted the hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment [Principle 8, above] aimed at R8R. The thread was closed on Oct 12th, by User:El_C with, "no action with some mild warnings." [119]
    In the above context, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".
    [P10] The following brief statement by me addresses my WP history and conduct:
    • editor for nine years and WP:ELEM member for eight years;
    • 18,000+ edits: quality, not quantity;
    • never been blocked or formally sanctioned or received (AFAICR) a warning from an admin;
    • I behaved like a bull in a china shop wrt to my Sep 27 WP:ANI complaint alleging misconduct by DePiep;
    • I posted an apology about this conduct at WP:AN, on Sep 28 [120]
    • I have three FA/TFA: metalloid; heavy metals; astatine (with R8R);
    • Currently working on noble metal: before [121]; after.
    [P11] From the closure report to ANI 2 [122]:
    "…there has been some heated language and tone in this thread ("jerk" here, "fucking" there), but nothing that I would consider even coming close to being beyond the pale. This sort of thread, with its original post and following ever-compounding length shows the limitation of of this forum…Warnings: DePiep, don't warn other editors that you will block them (you can't, and even if you could, you would not be allowed to per INVOLVED). Don't even say that you will have them blocked. Say that you will report their edits to admins for review…Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."
    --- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starting what I hope to be a fair account of my actions, in response to ~70+ allegations
    Double sharp’s allegations and concerns
    1. I am “still discussing editors rather than edits”
    That's not right. I’m still discussing content. I've been discussing some editors, out of desperation, after citing innumerable reliable sources to no avail. I see my colleague User:R8R has likewise felt the need to discuss the conduct of another WP:ELEM member [123]. After four years of inaction on the part of the other editor concerned, that is reasonable, IMO, and I support R8R in making those comments.
    2. (sometimes to my mind going way too far)
    You’re entitled to your opinion. Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments you are referring to are relatively benign.
    3. I “show…zero interest in following policy
    I never said I had zero interest in “following” policy. Rather, I have zero interest in having a festival of policy-citing within our project. I note you are in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above, re WP:ASPERSIONS.
    4. I continue…to refer to unpublished sources.
    So? Per Principle 2 above, from WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Yes, I do refer to some unpublished sources, within the WP:ELEM talk page, based on my contacts within the chemistry community.
    As I said, I do this, “Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY.”[124]
    There is also Principle 1 which I set out above, “From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page: "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."
    5. The 1st most egregious quote as DS saw it:
    [23 Oct] "No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here."
    I confirm what I said. I edit a lot, and generally provide citations from the literature, and I discuss a lot at WP:ELEM, frequently with accompanying citations from the literature. IMO, and experience, ANI is the Wild West of due process. That's presumably why Principle 3 above suggests not going to WP:ANI, and if you do, it will be like war. In my experience of WP:ANI there is no surety of due process, and there is no WP policy that I'm aware of that sets out what editors, who raise things at WP:ANI, can expect. WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.
    6.The 2nd most egregious quote as DS saw it:
    [22 Oct] "Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot.
    Please User:Double Sharp, if you are going to cherry pick what I wrote, and join parts of two separate edits I made, then copy and paste the code, not the on-screen text. In this case the w/link to selective perception, behind "perceptual filtering" was left out. I put it their for a reason and have now reinstated it.
    Briefly, the subject quote was a general comment about “not liking” scientific terminology used in the literature and deciding not to use any it on that basis, rather than, making a decision, within an encyclopaedia, based on scientific usage. The link to perceptual filtering explains the phenomenon. I made the comment after citing innumerable sources, without success.
    As User:EdChem (whom DS likes to refer to) wisely counselled, "The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[125] Ditto, as I said, "…all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them."
    6A. "I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread."
    I addressed Games of the world allegations. [126]
    Games of the world has their own block record to reflect upon.[127] They recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.[128]
    In my view, comments by Games of the World, within WP:ANI, have no credibility. Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    7. “Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem.“
    While I respect WP policy, understand it, and strive to uphold it, and occasionally fall short of it due to exasperation with the conduct of one or more WP:ELEM colleagues, I'm not interested in it. As far as IAR goes I fall back on Principle 1, as cited above, which asks WP: ELEM members to not adhere to WP rules and guidelines too strictly (linking to WP:IAR) in the interests of building a better encyclopaedia.
    8. “Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus.”
    Per Principle 4—"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."—this was a content issue; as such, it merits no further comment. In any event, EdChem made a suggestion which he acknowledged I was under no obligation nor expectation to act on [129].
    9. “Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute:
    [20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [130]
    [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. [131]“
    No evidence has been provided for “non-stop” attributions, in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above.
    The 20 Oct comment was made out of exasperation with the conduct of R8R after I cited innumerable sources. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”
    The 19 Oct comment was a courtesy post to Double sharp, as a fellow project member, rather than a revert without warning. He had a choice to add a citation needed tag to the article in question. He chose to instead delete the content involved and made no attempt to improve the article. His "no category" agenda is something DS has been pursuing within WP:ELEM.
    10. “Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others:
    [23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [132]
    (For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general.”
    Yes, I regard Double sharp’s allegations to my approach of article writing “in general” to be unfounded, having zero evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, and effectively trashing my reputation. Double Sharp's concerns with my approach of article writing in general are inconsistent with my WP history, as set out in Principle 10, above, including three FAs.
    11 “ Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources.”
    Per Principle 2 above, taken from WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." In this context, I have nothing to account for wrt Double sharp's concern.
    I believe this essentially concludes my attempted fair account of my actions in response to Double sharp’s concerns.

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

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

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

    1. "I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [144][145]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus."
    Yes, we talk about a lot of things on the WP:ELEM talk page. So what? I can keep track of the discussions. Double sharp does too. I suggest you are spreading yourself across too many projects to be able to focus on any one of them with sufficient depth.
    2. "I also have issues with his use of sources"
    You have provided no specific information.
    3. "[133] “You know nothing about ...” (in an other subthread)"
    Let me add the context to this extract:
    "@Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up."
    Yes, in my opinion, judging by what I know of DS’s RL background, and other posts at WP:ELEM, DS has shown zero awareness of the organisation politics that go on in large entities like IUPAC. I was speaking from decades of experience in working in such organisations, and my contacts within the chemistry community.
    4. "[134] edited the article under discussion, [135] "is disputed" says Ds, [136] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus."
    That’s right, I edited the article as any editor is entitled to do so. As a courtesy I alerted DS that I reserved my right to revert one or more of his edits. Only after I did my research, and found citations in the literature, did I revert. There was no consensus needing to be established in the first place. DePiep likes to cite no-consensus in response to edits he does not like, when there was never a need to establish consensus in the first place.
    I further note what EdChem had to say, which you chose to ignore, and as I quoted elsewhere in this thread:
    "Double sharp notes Sandbh's not following my suggestion on the noble metals article. I was disappointed by his choice but also recognise that he was totally free to continue editing / pursue a different approach. He did restore material that Double sharp had removed but with changes meant to address concerns that Ds had raised – so this is a content dispute, IMO, at this time."
    5. "[137] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all."
    This selective extract has no basis in fact. Here’s some more of what I wrote:
    "I’m more interested in WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia. The quality of an encyclopedia doesn't rest on quoting WP policy to one another. Much more relevant is Wikipedia has no firm rules:
    "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles…"."
    "This is particularly relevant, I feel, in chemistry, where there is much fuzziness not helped by the disinterest of the IUPAC, when it comes to terminology. Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy."
    I further point to Principle 1, above:
    From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:
    "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."
    6. [138] (17 July, Archive): “rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives”. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR."
    Your conclusion has no basis in fact. I made no claim to authority. Rather I set out what I can bring to the project. And, yes, the realities of operating within a project invariable involve dealing with person opions, and their associated perspectives. but that’s life.
    On "skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR" you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.
    7. "[139] “WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace” ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies)."
    That is another selective, out of context, quote. Here’s some more of what I said in that post:
    "Thanks for your interest. Anybody can improve an article anytime they like. As you can see YBG has already taken a keen interest in my efforts to do so. I'm not doing anything different to the approach I took to metalloid and heavy metals. There is no controversy of any significance as I have improved the article consistent with the approach I took to the PTM article, the metal article, and the nonmetal article."
    "I don't understand your reference to rolling out "sweeping" change into the mainspace. WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace. The first improvement I made was to restore (and improve, with citations) the electrode potential table that you deleted. The second improvement was to restore (and improve, with citations) the colour coded periodic table that you deleted. As you said on the talk page, "…I remove the text pending actual citations that use this as a benchmark. For similar reasons I also remove the periodic table." I have now addressed your "pending actual citations" suggestion."
    8. "There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [140][141] (is back now)."
    As I recall, DS temporarily left the project due to, among other things, his failed ANI notification; and failed RFC re the composition of group 3; and his failure at the WP:ELEM talk page to convince me to support his perspective on group 3. I recall he said our philosophical differences, which arose in the WP:ELEM talk page, were causing him undue stress.
    9. "I therefor suggest Sandbh be topicbanned (WP:ELEMENTS) for one or two months, so that the discussions can be concluded in a sound way. -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)"
    A TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.
    Principle 5 above says, "Responders: Investigate fully". Principle 6 acknowledges that this does not happen, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…". DePeip himself said he cannot keep up to date with WP:ELEM dicussions. In this context, I allege DePiep is in breach of Principle 5.

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

    EdChem’s concerns

    1. "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"
    EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my Principle 2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however.
    2. "I share Double sharp's concerns that some of Sandbh's comments needlessly personalise disagreements / issues, such as by attributing motives to others' posts rather than dealing with their content, and are worded in ways that might give offense."
    Yes, I can get snarky at times, as I’m sure other editors can, after providing innumerable citations from the literature, and then running into the "I don’t like it" phenomenon, which arises from the subconscious auto-pilot of perceptual filters. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”
    Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments EdChem is referring to are relatively benign.
    3. "Certainly I object to comparing a disagreement between science educated editors about a science topic to dealing with the rusted-on views of Trump supporters, but ANI's history of dealing with civility issues is not inspiring."
    Omitted by EdChem is the "(no offence intended)" caveat I included with my original comment [142]. We have it here in Oz, with rusted on supporters of the Coalition, and rusted on supporters of the Labor party. Everyone knows that politics hinges upon speaking to the swinging voters and parties in the middle. I note EdChem’s comment about ANI’s record of dealing with incivility.
    I used to do this too, i.e. basing some of my decisions within WP:CHEM on what I did or did not like, rather than accepting that science sometimes produces ugly outcomes, and reporting that.
    As EdChem commented, ""The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[143] Bravo!
    4. "…there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"
    Per my Principle 2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.
    5. "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."
    No evidence has been provided for these implied observations about my conduct, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I have noted repeatedly, per WP:OR, the policy of no OR does not apply to talk pages.
    6. "I share DePiep's concern about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, for which I also accept some of the blame."
    I have no concerns about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, given the nature of some of the topics we discuss there, including the fuzzy nature of chemistry.

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

    Lev!vich's concerns

    1. "I think EdChem has a good summation above."
    You’re entitled to your opinion, and to express it.
    More relevant factors to consider are that core members of WP:ELEM have been such members for nearly ten years, whereas EdChem, who is not a member of the project, has been participating for a number of weeks. I regard his perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial.
    You may wish to consider my response to EdChem’s summation.
    2. "By my count this is ANI #3?"
    So? I filed the first ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. R8R raised the second ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. Double sharp filed the third ANI re my alleged conduct.
    3. "My read of all three ANIs and the discussions linked therein (which is OMG like 75,000 words) is that while pretty much everyone involved has made some mistake somewhere, and thus no one is blameless and no one is solely responsible, everyone involved has made a real effort to (a) modify their own approach and (b) work towards a compromise with others, except, unfortunately, Sandbh, who, as can be seen in the two quotes at the top of this thread (which I will paraphrase as: "To hell with consensus, I will do what I want because I know what's best"), does not appear open to modifying their own approach or working towards a compromise with others."
    That is an unfounded and sweeping generalisation. The first two ANI’s were about DePiep, not me. The third, which is unconnected to the first two, is about me. Ditto your paraphrase, which unjustifiably misrepresents what I said. What I have said is that I have no interest in WP policy, nor in having a festival of WP policy citing within WP:ELEM. As is said, I respect WP policy.
    4. "My read is that at this point, Sandbh's participation is getting in the way of all the other editors completing a resolution of this group of disputes."
    There is no "group of disputes". ANI 1 was closed, with no action. ANI 2 was closed with some mild warnings. ANI 3 is unrelated to ANI's 1 and 2.
    5. "I think removing Sandbh from the topic area is what's best for all the other editors involved in the topic area."
    In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, I suggest such a removal is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.
    In my view, Lev!vich's comments and conclusion fall short of Principle 5, i.e. "Responders: Investigate fully". Lev!vich himself acknowledge that this does not happen, per Principle 6, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…".

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

    Softlavender's concerns

    1. "It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [144] [145] (and also from one in August [146]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch."
    You're entitled to your opinion, and to express it.
    It's easy to throw mud; some of it well stick, never mind its veracity.
    The 4 August 2014 ANI "Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh" was lodged by Double sharp [147]. Among other things it included allegations of WP:OR on the WP:ELEM talk page. As noted by me, WP:OR does not apply to a talk page. Since Double sharp’s concerns were deemed to be content related [148], Double sharp advised he had withdrawn the report[149]. The WP:ANI was closed on the same day [150].
    Note Double sharp's "obsession" with my use of sources.
    The context for DS's 4 Aug ANI filing was an 8,000 word RFC initiated by him 20 Jul 2020, re matters we had been discussing at WP:ELEM. [151] I objected to way this RFC had been put, including, "…other unacceptable behaviour alluded to on his part, including his hack work on our periodic table article; removing some of my citation supported content; slandering me; swearing; and effectively demanding I provide a falsifiable hypothesis when I was under no obligation to do so."[152]
    The RFC came to nothing after another editor from WP:CHEMISTRY posted:
    • Extremely strong oppose (I have to make this prominent to balance and counteract the supports above) Just about all the arguments are irelevant and we should just use the traditional form eith La and Ac under Y. If needed we can use the place holder * or **." [the caps and bolding are from the comment as posted] [153]
    DS subsequently posted, to me, "Now I have stepped back and thought about it. I have gone overboard, and I apologise for it."[154]
    The RFC was closed with this comment, "Per consensus to abandon this trainwreck of a thread as-is. (non-admin closure)" [155]
    As for allegedly being "by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch" [italics added], I'm not the editor in the bunch who has 13 to 15 previous blocks and who is under threat of an indefinite ban, for the slightest transgression.
    Nothing came out of the last two recent ANI filings Softlavender referred to, in respect of me.
    2. "He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines."
    For my cooperative behaviour, I've been discussing matters of mutual interest with fellow WP:ELEM members, Double sharp and YBG [156], and with EdChem [157]. WP:ELEM member DePiep recently asked me for some advice concerning another matter of mutual interest to WP:ELEM members and I said I would try and put something together for him [158]. I’ve been working on the noble metal article. WP:CHEMISTRY member User:Smokefoot, a chemist who works with noble metals, provided some helpful commentary [159] and I incorporated and responded to, his concerns[160].
    In terms of progressing some of the content issues at WP:ELEM, there is a kernel of agreement amongst different combinations of us [161], but not agreement to proceed. I put forward a compromise solution in one matter [162]. Neither of the other parties were prepared to move a little bit. On another matter I have put forward about 28 alternatives [no diffs here; anybody from WP:ELEM can shoot or salute me on this one]. Nobody will move. For R8R I attempted to reach a win-win solution with him [163]; he was not interested, and remains so. On Double sharp's no category agenda, I put forward a hybrid solution to him, here. While nobody else in WP:ELEM expressed an intersted in DS' agenda, DS did recently express a passing interest in my proposal [no diff as I've forgotten where DS posted this comment].
    As for your allegation concerning my dishonesty, you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. I object in the strongest possible terms to your unfounded allegation that I am not honest. Where is your evidence?
    On taking guidance or instruction, and following policy or guidelines, I learnt many lessons after my ANI re DePiep, and I apologised for my bull in a china shop conduct, that I showed at that time. While I have no interest in policy, or unasked for guidance from people who assume they know better than me, I follow it, according to the advice given at WP:ELEM, per Principle 1 above, namely:
    "*Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."
    Yes, I have many good days, and a few bad days now and then, especially after repeatedly banging my head against the wall within WP:ELEM no matter how many citations I provide, and despite the advice of Ed:Chem to focus on what the science is telling us. But that's life, and I have to navigate my way through the nature of politics within a WP project like WP:ELEM. At least I know the nature of the WP:ELEM landscape, and the views of members. And this will guide me in putting forward at least one RFC to the wider WP community. WP:ELEM is a very small project, and I feel an RFC will be appropriate in the case I have in mind, following extensive discussion within the project, and over ten years of WP:ELEM history behind it.
    On taking advice, I will be following your good advice regarding how to start an RFC. [164]
    3. "In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop"."
    You’ve inappropriately chosen to take what I said out of context. I object to your WP:INCIVIL behaviour in this regard. Here is the full post of mine, as posted to WP:AN, concerning my behaviour in ANI 1 [165]:
    "I apologise for acting like a bull in a china shop
    with respect to my allegations of incivil behaviour by User:DePiep. I'll discuss my remaining concerns with the individual editors involved. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    So, I reject your assertion. I may get snarky from time to time with WP:ELEM colleagues, after beating my head against a wall, never mind how many citations from the literature I provide. I suggest this is a far away from being a bull in a china shop. Per my Principle 8 above, and DePiep's hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment addressed at R8R, namely, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R.", which result in nothing other than a mild warning to DePiep, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".
    4. "Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked)"
    In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, a TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread;, and is inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME; and your reputation, from what I recall reading, as a respected editor [166].
    I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:OR, noting it does not apply to talk pages; and Principle 5 above, re responders investigating fully; and Principles 9 and 11.

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

    Andrew’s comment
    Oppose sanction – suggest RfC

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

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

    YBG's concerns

    1. "I will reiterate what I said in a previous round, that at ELEM, DePiep, whose past behavior has been highly objectionable, has significantly improved of late, save for one or two unfortunate outbursts."
    "Sandbh's recent behavior, in contrast, is worse than in the past."
    Outside of WP:ELEM, my editing speaks for itself. Inside WP:ELEM I rarely become snarky, as a proportion of my contributions. I don’t know what YBG is referring to as he has never, AFAICR, raised any concerns within WP:ELEM. If I ever become something more than snarky, then you will know about it as I will post something along the lines of DePiep's foul-mouthed attack against R8R, in this very forum. I've never done so during my time as an editor, and never intend to.
    2. "But a tban is not my desired outcome."
    "What I hope to see is Sandbh's recognition of a need to change his editing and discussion behavior, and a commitment to do so."
    If he responds defensively without recognizing a need to change, particularly if it entails a huge volume of text, then I will sadly have to recognize that my preferred outcome is unlikely to occur."
    I was dismayed that YBG appeared to to judge me before I had an opportunity to give a fair account of my actions. Further, that there seems to be some kind of limit in his view as to what length I can go to defend myself. It is easy for others to raise 70+ allegations, a significant number without evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. It is quite another thing to attempt to address such allegations.
    I believe my behaviour falls within the bounds of rhetoric, which deals with the need to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences—a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics, as our article puts it. While mine and Double sharp's philosophies may differ, I have never attacked DS the person, nor has he me, although we have attacked one another's philosophies, which is an aspect of rhetoric. Indeed, while we have our differences we agree in other matters.
    That said, I regret any offence unintentionally given to WP:ELEM colleagues.
    I’m happy to consider a request to change my behaviours at any time in response to specific, justified, reasonable concerns, and in the context of Principles 9 and 11, above. I’d expect the same courtesy to be extended to me, if I have concerns about the conduct of colleagues.
    At the same time—per Principles 9 and 11 above—I don’t expect to be an angel 100% of the time nor do I expect colleagues to be paradigms of conduct at all times. I have a reasonable tolerance for snarkiness. In nine years of editing I’ve experienced intolerable behaviour from just two editors, one who has retired; the other was DePiep, on three occasions, the second of which resulted in my first ever WP:ANI report, and the follow on report by R8R.

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

    Sandbh's conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. I expect someone will play the Wikilawyering card as per the previous example by Softlavender [167]. That would be funny given the approximately 70+ allegations made against me, in the form of a hugh volume of text, including slander by Double sharp; and the fact the I allegedly don't follow WP:POLICY. Not to mention the absence, across our 6,000,000 articles of any guidance for respondents as to due process at WP:ANI. In presence of that void, all I can do is note the WP-based Principles I feel are relevant to the allegations made against me.

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

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

    10. Alternatively, @Double sharp::

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

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

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

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

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

    Over to you.

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

    • Support TBAN of Sandbh. It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [169] [170] (and also from one in August [171]) 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" [172]. 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]
    • Oppose sanction – suggest RfC I have read through the discussion. The issue seems to be a detail of the layout and colour scheme for the periodic table. This is naturally of great interest to chemists – an issue comparable with the IAU definition of planet which caused Pluto to lose its former status. The trouble seems to be that IUPAC has not come to a conclusion and so the matter is not settled. As and when IUPAC does so, the issue will presumably then be settled here too. In the meantime, some provisional version is required. The discussion about this seems to be reasonably civil and Sandbh's part in it seems acceptable. The main thing that seems to be missing is a mechanism for arriving at a conclusion. We have such a process – WP:RFC – in which specific questions are put, discussed and then a formal close is made so that everyone can move on, There has been some talk of an RFC and Sandbh has indicated that they would accept the outcome. A particular obstacle seems to be that Double Sharp is too busy in RL, "I have drafted a second RFC on the group 3 dispute. I may still post it for the others who have talked about this, because after over seven months of arguing, they deserve an RFC. ... Since the RL time and situation-inflaming issues apply even to starting an RFC: I will not start one." We should encourage someone else to step up and start the RfC. In getting this done, the parties should please consider the following good example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    Off-topic. Whatever this is and whoever posted it, it's not helping. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

    — Richard Feynman, "Los Alamos From Below", Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)
    Re-revert by Softlavender. I reverted [173] the above hatnote by User:Softlavender, adding the following reason:
    "This post formed a part of Andrew's contribution. As he said, it's an example of a decision-making process, not too dissimilar from a RFC. As such, it is on-topic."
    Softlavender has now reverted my revert. Seemingly this is in breach of WP:BRD:
    "These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block."
    I intend to discuss this matter with Softlavender at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DePiep interfering with my fair account. DePiep took it upon himself to replace the horizontal rules in my attempted fair account, with breaks [174]. @DePiep: Stay out of my comments. Do not interfere with them. That is a courtesy I extended to you, following your request, in ANI 2. It seems you are unable to follow the standards of civility you expect of other editors. Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [175] Was posted after your sign, so not interfering. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments now that Sandbh has posted comments and conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I agree, it doesn't matter to me! In fact I posted an invitation for you to drop by for a metaphorical cup of tea. Yes, I said your "perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial." And you said, "I may have a superficial perception of events".
    And then you added, "I have knowledge of science and editing and policy that is far from superficial. ANI contributors are well able to assess comments from editors and attempts to discredit others rather than refuting points being made are unhelpful."
    Where is this coming from? Where is your evidence that I criticised your knowledge of science and editing and policy, or implied that is was superficial? Once again you are bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

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

    Did you read Principle 3? Here it is again:
    "[P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:
    "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors."
    I didn't start this WP:ANI report. Where is your specific, factual evidence countering my allegations of you breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, three time? You cannot get away with blithely saying, "My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page." Where are the diffs?

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

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

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

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

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

    Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.
    Did you read Principle P1? Here it is again:
    [P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:
    "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."
    Please note the link to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

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

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

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

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

    3. After four years of nil progress,[176] it seems the development of a proposed a new colouring scheme for the WP periodic table, is progressing.

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

    Sandbh I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here. I am not convinced there is atonement. Which implies that the issue we are here for, ANI=behaviour, may not be solved or corraled. I might reply more specific (in a later reply).
    Ah and oh, your 00:51 post above contains (apart from harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here), another fine filthy stab directed at me. "Thanks". -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: Thank you. Feel free to post a more specific reply. With respect to your allegations of…
    (1) "harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here)"; and
    (2) "another fine filthy stab directed at me"
    …you are, twice again, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. Consistent with Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors.", I'll add this to your list of breaches, for WP:BOOMERANG consideration. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: PS: With regard to your comment, "I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here." please see Principle P5 above, "From the WP:BOOMERANG essay: "Responders: Investigate fully". You may wish to reflect upon the question of whether, "sometimes glancing" would be construed as meeting the requirement of responders, such as yourself, to "Investigate fully". Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandbh I also have plans for a later reply. Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Double sharp: Thank you. No rush on my part. Take your time. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng, Johnuniq, and YBG: Thank you. ANI#2, which I did not file, ran to 30,000 words; This ANI runs to 15,600 words. By my reckoning, the opening statements alone amounted to some, 4,000 words. Should this merit a WP:CIR block, just by itself? Other editors have since added about 6,100 words. How much of that is "spam", as you put it User:Johnuniq?
    I'm all ears as to how to respond to 70+ allegations, with multiple breaches, per WP:BOOMERANG, by other editors, of WP:ASPERSIONS (an ArbCom policy no less) in another form. Note WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.
    Recall, per Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." It's easy for editors to make allegations; it is much, much harder to respond to them. In any event, I recall I responded to about 2/3rds of the allegations against me, rather than all of them.
    Let us too consider the remarks made by the admin who closed the "wall-of-text" of ANI 2:
    "Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."
    I agree. Your thoughts? Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I've been watching for the past week since being pinged. Sandbh at no point are you helping yourself here. Instead of saying hands up sorry for the personal attacks, you continued to attack other editors and accuse them of this that and the other. Citing things which are not policy and accusing others of casting aspersions. Since most of us here were involved in the previous discussion or are involved with you in other areas where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is not an aspersion, we can all read and remember for ourselves. At no point have you recognised why bringing unpublished material to a talk page is unhelpful, unless it explained a point of view, that was already published, better than said published sources. In addition Sandbh you do not have to answer every single accusation, you could have said a conscise apology for the PA's and that unsourced material on the talk page was unhelpful and left it at that. You do not have to keep quoting this that and the other. Drop the stick - you'll get further in this discussion. But what is really concerning is your comment saying the last ANI was shut and no points were made to me to alter my behaviour. Not true. There were several comments from users asking all members of elements to modify there behaviour and that included you Sandbh. I thought that topic banning you for a period of time was a bit harsh and that a self imposed exit from the site or topic for a period to chill out and reflect on things before coming back and being useful without the bagage would be helpful. But your response on this thread is not helpful and frankly now it looks like that you could end up with a worse outcome for yourself. Games of the world (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Games of the world for your polite comments.

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

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

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

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

    Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Sandbh: That is assuredly not the case. As User:Games of the world mentioned: you could have easily addressed the allegations. Such as by apologising for attacking and accusing other editors, and stopping to do so. Instead what do you do? You continue. You could also have learnt from the previous ANI and noticed that people have raised concerns about your behaviour, just as they did for others'. And the rest of us indeed have made an effort to improve. Instead what do you do? You carry on as if there was no reason to do it. And you continue the feud with DePiep and continue attempting to throw out WP:BOOMERANGS to us. (Funny how "undue policy citing" is something you speak against in your proposed protocol, yet you have no problem doing it when you think it'd support you.) You derail what was shaping up to be a reasonable discussion with multiple perspectives (yes, including one more favourable to you even) by spamming elevator shafts' worth of text until no one is willing to join in, and then make noises about "respect for everyone's time" when you, with your incredibly long posts, did not show any. Finally you continue with your WP:IDHT mantras, carry on stating your preference that the ANI is closed as a nothing-burger, despite almost everyone here having some sort of concern with your behaviour. In your account, somehow everybody is at fault, except you. There is no way to "improve the article" but yours. And the same thing seems to be true of policy interpretation here.
    If we could all stay within general WP bounds, then there would be no problem with us working together. It is clear that we cannot. It is also clear that the problem lies more with you than with me or anyone else at this point. Everybody who tries to mediate the situation gets accusations from you. User:EdChem got them above. User:Softlavender got them above. With everybody else, their approach got good results. Just not you.
    Therefore, having had frankly enough of this behaviour of yours, I have decided to join the calls to support a TBAN for Sandbh with Softlavender, Levivich, and DePiep. Because I have very little hope at this point that anyone is going to be able to get through to you. And I am going to support that its length be indefinite with the possibility of immediately overturning it the moment you show some awareness of just what has here generally been considered unacceptable about your past behaviour and pledge to not continue with it. In fact, if you show this now, I will happily strike this support. Naturally enough, I point out here that I am the OP who started this thread. Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging people I forgot to ping in the above post: DePiep, Levivich. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH

    Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Miki Filigranski replaced the map, that was in the article before, with the new one: [177]. Here is a page from the article of Mate Božić that the old map was based on: [178]. It can be seen that the new map seriously contradicts the source referred to (broadly speaking, a quarter of Poland with Kraków in the 10th century suddenly became Croatian, which is not at all considered the generally accepted view). I checked the other sources on Commons and couldn't find a reputable source that would confirm the new map (I cannot check the Croatian books, but I've seen the Russian ones).

    During the discussions, Miki refused to provide a prototype of the map or in any other understandable way to explain its origin, instead making personal attacks: I am not wasting any more time with someone who has personal agenda stalking editors, blatantly lying there are no reliable sources and interpretation of the policy. Enjoy your block

    He also violated the WP:3RR instead of providing the source:

    1. 16:52, 13 October 2020
    2. 17:10, 13 October 2020
    3. 17:20, 13 October 2020
    4. 16:42, 14 October 2020

    Please explain to Miki Filigranski that while working on Wikipedia, he is obliged to back up his statements with sources instead of personal attacks and edit warring. I also ask permission to return the old map or delete both until the content issue is finally resolved.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FOUR acronyms... Whoa, that's bad. --Jayron32 11:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Four-acronym pizza
    Well, what should be the title in your opinion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just a smartass. Ignore me. This is what I do from time to time. You'll get used to it after a while. --Jayron32 11:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you're required to notify him that you brought him up at ANI. I've taken the liberty to do so. I'll note this is the third time his behavior has been discussed here in about a week, sooo..... --Jayron32 11:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: these two cases are unrelated, as well the previous one was an inflated misunderstanding that was resolved through emails. However, it doesn't change the fact the previous one was brought up after a content dispute where the editor who reported me didn't listen to me and other editors that the scientific content was fringe and cited from unreliable sources ([179]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is editing in areas covered by WP:ARBEE, is he not? Do we need to impose some restrictions here? Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, this report needs short context. The editor Nicoljaus is making WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:WALLS commentary on the article and talk page of White Croats for over a year and even after failed and poorly-formed RfC, making a same baseless issue with VERIFY, SYNTH and which closure made them even more furious ([180]). Afterwards the editor was blocked for many months and after block expiration ([181]), they immediately returned edit warring at the same article of White Croats and in the process violating 1RR restriction of arbitration enforcement on Eastern Europe for which received another block for two weeks. And here are we again, immediately after another block expiration the editor still doesn't leave in peace the article's content and those who made edits ([182]). I violated the 3RR on their 1RR after they got blocked ([183]) for a few minutes because wasn't careful enough on the clock for which forgive me, but again, should the disruptive edit been kept at the article for hours and days? Does 1RR restriction has some advantage over 3RR? Regarding the content, the editor is still pushing their extremely biased POV by refusing to get the point about the topic, accept the editor's consensus and move on. I am really sorry to say it, but the editor is not telling the truth about the sources and synthesis. Their behavior on the article and misunderstanding of the topic as well as what's written in the sources got to the point where there's no denying. All the sources on which the map was based were reliable and reputable. This map is more extensive and neutral according to the available reliable sources, while the one made by Nicoljaus is based on a single reliable source which makes it biased and limited in information. As such, and a fact we are dealing more or less with scientific approximation on the location, in the creation of the map were used several reliable sources to make a more accurate map. Besides the map made by 1) M. Božić 2019 were used 2) H. Łowmiański 1964-2004, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and in conclusion locating them in Poland 3) V.V. Sedov 1979, which content and map on pg. 138-139 ([184]) is dedicated on the location and migration of the Croatian tribes and a variation of the map can be seen on Commons here 3) V.V. Sedov 1995, content and maps (1, 2, 3 of which the third can be found at Commons here) 4) IEA 1997, content and map 5) С.С. Михайлович 2010, content and map for Western Ukraine (for which could cite other as well) 6) A.V. Majorov 2012, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and Croatia 7) N. Budak 2018, which 10th-century map at the end of the book was used to make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, one author writes about Croats in the 6th century in one place, another about Croats in the 8th century in another, and Miki transfers all these places to the map and calls it "Croats in the 10th century". This is WP:SYNTH. Let's go through the sources:
    1. M. Božić directly contadicts the new map (no huge Croatian area around Krakow): [185]
    2. Henryk Łowmiański was born in 1898 and died in 1984, twenty years before 2004. His work Początki Polski was published in 1964. I would prefer a more modern author. Besides that, does he really give such a map? As far as I know from Mayorov's book, he believed that White Croatia was the name of the ancient Bohemian state at the time of Boleslaus I.
    3. Sedov's 1979 book is also somewhat outdated (in later works he revised his views). But the main thing is that the map in his book does not depict "Croats in the 10th century". It depicts suggested migration routes several centuries before. And if you read the description to the map on the previous page, it says: "All known ethnonyms of Croats are within the area of Slavic ceramics of the second group", i.e. inside the red colored area on this redraw: [186] And on Miki's map, they spread far to the north.
    4. Sedov's 1995 book is very revealing. Although he earlier assumed migration of Croats through Southern Poland, he admits that no trace has been found and questions this location: [187]
    5. Old map from Russian textbooks. There are also no Croats in Poland in the 10th century [188]
    6. Well, this map, at last, really serves as a prototype for Miki's ideas. It is absolutely fantastic, and its author is not "С.С. Михайлович", but Semenyuk S. M. As I wrote on the map deletion page: "Mentioned Semenyuk is a complete freak. See his article in Ukrainian Wikipedia [189]. There is no education, he writes books that Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Saxony, etc. are Ukrainian ethnic lands." [190]
    7. Majorov book says (p.51-52 of original Russian edition of 2006): "However, the "Lesser Poland theory" also finds a considerable number of opponents, who point out that the Croats in ancient times could not occupy such a vast territory. At least, there is no evidence of their stay in the upper reaches of the Vistula and on the lands of historical Lesser Poland: according to various sources, Polish tribes have lived here since ancient times." There are no maps in the book with such a huge area of settlement of Croats in Poland.
    8. N. Budak 2018 - I don't have access to this book, but Miki said that it was used only to "make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans." But we need source for Croats, occupying the quarter of Poland in the 10th century.
    • I apologize for such a lengthy discussion of the content related issue. But it was needed to show - Miki cites 8 sources for the new version of the map, but only one of them - the fringe book of Semenyuk - somehow supports his views. I think this is something like WP:BOMBARDMENT. In any case, this discussion should have been conducted on the talk page - as you can see, it is rather difficult to understand what the map is based on. Instead, there was a war of edits and insults like " blatantly lying" and so on.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, but nobody can have a constructive discussion with those who are constantly twisting and ignoring what's written in the sources. They are not talking only about 6th century, the area of Krakow and more was included in the Bohemian state until the end of the 10th century (map), the "freak" is a historian, and else is a simple cherry-picking statements. It is dishonesty and disrespectful behavior at best.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - Small unnecessary addition: I tried to look at the book of Henryk Łowmiański. As far as I can understand from the Google translate of the text obtained from the OCR, White Croatia was sometimes located in Lesser Poland by Yugoslav historians, while Polish historians who knew Polish territory better and who "were better aware of the weakness of information sources about Croatia on the Vistula" - they have rejected this theory since the end of the 19th century. The own opinion of Łowmiański is the following: "Unfortunately, the testimonies of the sources about the original seats of the Croats are not clear enough (otherwise the issue would not be open to discussion) and allow for various interpretations. It was not possible to apply it - it must be admitted - due moderation, in particular by emitting the unclear text of document 1086. Therefore, the results of this research do not seem particularly convincing when it comes to the location of this people in Little Poland. (Niestety świadectwa źródeł o pierwotnych siedzibach Chorwatów — nie dość wyraźne (inaczej kwestia nie podlegałaby dyskusji) — dopuszczają różnoraką interpretację. W jej stosowaniu nie umiano zachować — trzeba to przyznać — należytego umiaru, w szczególności emendując niejasny tekst dokumentu 1086 r. Toteż rezultaty tych badań nie wydają się szczególnie przekonywające, gdy idzie o lokalizację tego ludu w Mało-polsce., Początki Polski, Volume 2, page 121).--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be cool if we can see on this map not the expansion of Bohemian state, but Croatian people in the 10th century, as on your map.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As first and foremost, start to comment in chronological order without constantly using asterisks because you're making a disorder and you could not have an edit conflict after almost an hour. Regarding else, you're again ignoring the context. The (Czech and) Polish scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century "tended to diminish the existence of the Croats on their territory ... Polish scholars avoided to locate the Croats at Kraków and considered that did not border at Ruthenia because when Vladimir the Great attacked the Croats in 992 it would have been perceived as a call for war by Bolesław I the Brave.[33] However, whether the Cherven Cities were inhabited by the Lendians or White Croats, and were independent from both Poland and Kievan Rus', it is part of a wider ethnographic dispute between Polish and Ukrainian-Russian historians". The subsequent generation by Łowmiański (and until today hasn't been written anything more relevant and new except for synthesis which extensively cite Łowmiański), who was a scientific authority on the early history of the Slavic people, revisited the primary and secondary sources and point by point disagreed with the trend of some older Polish historians. The "following opinion" isn't Łowmiański's conclusion on the topic at all. What you cited was the introductory part in which wrote about scientific literature and as such 19th-century scholars who located the White Croats and Croatia on River Vistula in Poland and those who didn't. Łowmiański in his conclusion of the analysis of the primary sources writes, in Croatian translation from the bookstore, "Concluding the analysis of written sources we can finally say that they clearly show the existence of Croats on the Vistula: one can also clearly accept the presence of Ukrainian Croats whose headquarters are on the upper Dniester because on the lower Dnieper were Tivertsi, and in the basin of the Bug and its near tributaries of Pripyat - Volhynians. Nowhere in the sources is denied the existence of Czech Croats. It is not excluded that Dragomira fled to the Croats who lived on the upper Elbe, that one of the Croatian tribes from the document in 1086 had its headquarters in the East Bohemian area; yet we find no original account to support that conclusion. Such a picture of the seat of the Croats is based on written sources between the 9th and 12th centuries and does not show a picture from the great migration period. Croats came to the Czechia from the east, but also on the Dniester they did not belong to the first wave of Slavic people who settled there, but came from other areas because they did not participate in the migration to the Balkans together with the Sklavenes who lived north of the Dniester. The area on the Vistula should be recognized as the primary nest of Croats; pg. 125-126, We stay with the second possibility that Croatian settlements in both Moravia and the Czechia were founded as a result of Moravian campaigns in the 9th century and then Czech in the 10th century against Croats on the Vistula before joining the Moravian and then the Czech state alliance... Thus, concluding this discussion on Croatia on the Vistula, we do not know to resolve the question of whether Croatia existed on the Elbe. We acknowledge the fact that the later tribes of Vistulans and Lendians were branches of the Croatian tribe. The second - Ukrainian branch of the Croats lived on the upper Dniester and certainly also behind the Carpathians" (pg. 98-99, Zaključujući analizu pisanih izvora možemo na kraju reći da se iz njih jasno vidi postojanje Hrvata na Visli: također može se jasno prihvatiti prisutnost ukrajinskih Hrvata čija su sjedišta na gornjem Dnjestru jer su na donjem bili Tiverci, a u slijevu Buga i bliskih mu pritoka Pripetja - Volinjani. Nigdje u izvorima nije zanijekano postojanje čeških Hrvata. Nije isključeno da je Dragomira pobjegla k Hrvatima koji su živjeli na gornjoj Labi, da je jedno od hrvatskih plemena iz dokumenta 1086. godine imalo svoja sjedišta na istočnočeškom području; ipak ne nalazimo ni jedno izvorno svjedočanstvo koje bi taj zaključak potvrdilo. Takva slika sjedišta Hrvata temelji se na pisanim izvorima 9.-12. stoljeća i naravno ne pokazuje sliku iz razdoblja seobe naroda. Na područje Češke Hrvati su došli s istoka, ali i na Dnjestru nisu pripadali prvomu valu slavenskoga življa koje se je tamo naselilo, nego su došli iz drugih područja jer nisu sudjelovali u seobi na Balkan zajedno sa Sklavinima koji su živjeli sjeverno od Dnjestra. Kao primarno gnijezdo Hrvata treba priznati područje na Visli; pg. 125-126, Ostajemo pred drugom mogučnošću da su hrvatska naselja i u Moravskoj i u Češkoj osnovana kao rezultat moravskih pohoda u 9. stoljeću, a zatim čeških u 10. stoljeću protiv Hrvata na Visli prije njihova uključivanja u moravski, a zatim u češki državni savez ... Tako dakle zaključujući ovu raspravu o Hrvatskoj na Visli ne znamo riješiti pitanje je li postojala Hrvatska na Labi. Priznajemo pak činjenicu da su kasnija plemena Višljana i Lenđana bila grane plemena Hrvata. Druga - ukrajinska grana Hrvata živjela je na gornjem Dnjestru i zasigurno također iza Karpata).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this clarification, I really didn't quite understand the author's point of view. Of course, I do not agree that all subsequent historical science only agreed with Łowmiański - on the contrary, he seems to be "the last of the Mohicans." He was forced to admit that "White Croatia" could not be located on the Vistula, but eventually declared "Croatian" the Polish tribes that lived there. For example, such an undoubted authority as Labuda (1916—2010) consistently disagreed with him in his works of 1949, 1958, 1960 и 1988. Majorov in his book of 2006 clearly doubts Łowmiański's assessment (page 48): “And although the literature sometimes attempted to localize the Croats of King Alfred ... even in the upper reaches of the Vistula, where the Polish tribes of the Vistulans and Lendians lived, who supposedly could also be called Croats, the most convincing identification of them with the Czech Croats who lived in the areas adjacent to the Upper Elbe." Your map completely ignores all controversy on the issue; it can only be given with direct attribution to Lovmianski's book of 1964. And, again, this discussion should have been calmly conducted on the talk page instead of edit warring and other... things.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where he was forced to admit White Croatia could not be located on the Vistula River? You're again cherry-picking and misinterpreting Łowmiański. Labuda also located White Croatia in the realm of Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia which included part of Vistula River and its area of Krakow. Do you understand that the present Czech and Polish borders weren't the same in the 10th century? Łowmiański isn't a single source for such a direct attribution. My map doesn't ignore any controversy, yours is doing that by being biased.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are telling the truth that Semenyuk is a historian, show his articles in scholar publications. Not books about "Ukrainian ethnic lands" in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Saxony, etc. that need to be united in a single Ukrainian state, but scholar articles. --Nicoljaus (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semenyuk graduated history at the University of Lviv and in addition worked as a professor in schools and universities. I don't need to show anything. You don't become a historian by publishing scholar articles but by education.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He graduated from the university in 1973 and did not even become a "candidate" (the lowest degree in the Soviet system for scientists). Please provide his academic publications over these 47 years, in which his views are somehow accepted by the scientific community. If there are none, stop promoting this "nationalistic bullshit" (quote from a colleague from RSN). As far as I see in this discussion, no one supported you there: "looks fringy" and "no sign of reliability" (another quotes). In the meantime, you react as if the author has doctoral degree in this field and dozens of publications on Scopus and Web of Science.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, stop making false accusations. What "nationalistic bullshit" I am promoting? I am not promoting anything nationalistic citing a part about the Croats. Also, they are commenting on the reliability of the source, book as a whole, primarily using a quote from another person who's doing it on behalf of some organization. If you think that a critical review of some literature is done using secondary and third party context and not the source's content then you're missing the point completely and making Association fallacy. I am not reacting like that at all, I'm simply addressing that your representation of the person is done in a very biased manner. I already said before the report that the removal of the source isn't out of question. However, you're using that source reliability as an argument to make a bunch of baseless claims to make it seem like an incident.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I am getting a bit of a wp:nothere vibe.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well it does some so.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ARBEE was mentioned above but it doesn't look like Miki Filigranski is 'aware', their most recent alert was in July 2019 [191] and I didn't find anything in AE. I therefore gave an alert. [192] Nicoljaus who looks to be the primary other editor involved in this dispute has been sanctioned very recently [193] so appears to be 'aware'. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JIMBOB8 and BRD

    Multiple users have opposed an edit to the Jamie Vardy page made by JIMBOB8 that changes how information is presented. While the user makes his argument in edit summaries, he simply refuses to discuss on the Talk page, even after an attempt I made to start such a discussion per WP:BRD. Note as well that this user has had edit warring issues in the past, and rarely uses a Talk page even to discuss controversial changes. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stepping aside and retirement are completely different, he is still currently an active member of the national team until he announces retirement, he is still available for a call-up in the case of an injury crisis so he is therefore still playing for them. JIMBOB8 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for joining the talk page discussion @JIMBOB8:. You can discuss the content dispute there. Tiderolls 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hijack this venue to mention that I've noticed JIMBOB8 engage in disruptive editing for a while now. This is, by my count, the third time he has been reported here (once was by me). Here and here are two previous reports. In addition he's been engaged in a slow motion edit war misgendering Sam Smith, despite being told several times our policy on this. [194][195][196][197] That was a while ago, but he's recently started up again. [198].
    When can we safely conclude that JIMBOB8 is not here to build an encyclopedia? — Czello
    I’d like to point out that we may also be dealing with yet another sockpuppet of AH999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the edit warring pattern at Hernanes compared to the last sock. If no one is opposed to this, I can take this to SPI. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead. — Czello 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JM199723

    (Non-administrator comment) In the future, please remember to notify the user in question on their talk page as is policy here at the top of the page and the edit notice when you started this thread. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could somebody provide a translation of the key points of those articles? Google translate doesn't give me something intelligble enough. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would especially not trust anything they have to say about Falun Gong, aka their overlords. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DavidHuai1999 you have come here to promote a claim made in an unreliable source, not sure why you would want to draw attention to that. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think JM199723 maybe Falungong's Internet Watch Army. He accept the interview of Falungong's media, and Falungong's media promote him, glorify his disruptive editing. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 11:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the article actually name this account? If so, I'd like a translation of exactly where it does. Otherwise, this seems like WP:OUTING and should probably get sent to ArbCom instead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The interview article doesn't name this account, but list some Wikipedia article what he edited. In this interview, he said he has edited English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. See global account information, JM199723 also edit English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. And according to editorial preferences and interview date, I can know the interviewee is this user. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 05:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These reports on the Epoch Times claim that how the Democracy Party of China members Ben and his son Benjamin adding negative China-related content on English and German Wikipedia and intended to set up an organization named "Wiki Truth", which made up by the people with same intention, to disruptive editing on all-languages Wikipedia. That is all. 隐世高人 (talk) 12:40 29 October 2020 (UTC)

    Leinster IPs, block evasion by Lapsed Pacifist and Claíomh Solais

    I have been seeing a bunch of Leinster IPs editing in the same style as banned users User:Lapsed Pacifist and User:Claíomh Solais. The IPs are pugnacious in the same manner, frequently reverting established users,[201][202] and they blank their talk pages the same way, with mocking edit summaries.[203][204] Does anybody want to sort this out? I'm not familiar with the past cases. Davide King has been dealing with the guy at Grover Furr, Transcendental, Thepesar and Crmoorhead at Evo Morales and Luis Arce, while Beyond My Ken, Grayfell, FDW777 and Mutt Lunker were active in the sockpuppet cases against Claíomh Solais. Anybody want to pursue this? Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant links:

    Recently involved IPs:

    I assume per the latest (filed today) report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician that SpaceSandwich (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the same editor, especially as they are active on Grover Furr. I don't know whether they are related to that sockmaster, or either of the other two. FDW777 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever they are, they were named SpaceLeninist before SpaceSandwich. All of these might be the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent edits on Luis Arce did whiff of sockpuppetry and I did look at the user contributions to note one minor edit on an obscure page followed by an attempted edit war and a refusal to engage with my points and examples of similar material on similar pages. A few of the Bolivian politics pages get edited by IP users who don't seem to have much history, but usually they fade away and I don't consider them further. I remember the 2020 election material that you linked to and tried to delete because using material from a party political page doesn't seem a good source for anything. There isn't any accountability about what they can claim on a self-published page, particularly (IIRC) for a party that is only the fifth largest in a country of 2 million people. Thanks for bringing to my attention. Crmoorhead (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scolaire says here that it's unlikely that Lapsed Pacifist was the same person as Apollo The Logician because the two had an extended edit war. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe WP:CIR issues

    This user's edit history consists almost entirely of consistently uploading copyrighted images without filling in the required fields ([205], [206], [207]), changing/adding copyrighted images to articles that don't need it ([208], [209], [210], [211]), complete lack of edit summaries, bizarre blanking of redirects ([212]), edits like this, and more. Overall, they are doing way more harm than good and most of their edits have been reverted by someone else. Darkknight2149 11:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 1 week. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone willing to explain User:Szczeszek2035 that personal attacks are not allowed? I failed.

    Request met by Asartea ◅ Sebastian 02:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Is anyone ready for the challenge of explaining User:Szczeszek2035 the basics of collaborative editing, of what WP is not, and of the prohibition of personal attacks? I feel I've wasted my time here and here. Note that the editor has already been warned about NOPA by another editor[213] but it doesn't look like it have worked[214]. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 15:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kashmiri, (non-admin) I've left them a short note for now assuming good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asartea (talk • contribs)
    Thank you! By the way, seems you forgot to sign. Best, — kashmīrī TALK 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kashmiri, Goddamit. Its because I was trying to use replylink which died and then just mindlessly copypasted my message Asartea Trick | Treat 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple issues at Louise Linton

    nsrapp (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:COI and perhaps an undeclared paid contributor. Attempting to puff this bio up with promotional content and a recent philanthropy section that was largely copied from sources. Requesting more eyes on the article and rev/deletion of copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Still trying to stop two ranges of Pennsylvania IPs adding too much plot text

    Restoring a post from archive...

    I've been trying to talk to a Pennsylvania user but this person does not communicate at all. They keep adding too much film plot detail in violation of the guideline WP:FILMPLOT, making the plot section far too large. They have been repeatedly warned about adding too much detail to Bohemian Rhapsody (film), for instance, but they keep coming back. There's apparently zero interest in making an edit summary or a talk page entry. The current ranges are Special:Contributions/2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64, active for 14 and 13 months, respectively. Before that, the range was Special:Contributions/2601:543:4400:87:0:0:0:0/64, active from Jan 2018 to Sep 2019, also without an edit summary or talk page entry. And before that, I think there were some IP4s involved, starting in 2015: 24.154.239.241, 24.154.232.211, 24.154.232.234 and 71.185.171.23. Many thousands of edits in all. Can we get two rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough one, which is probably why your request didn't get a response previously and had to be unarchived. This user's behavior is obviously disruptive, but it's not so extreme that you'd normally be blocked for it. However, given the very long-term nature of this behavior and the user's refusal to engage with anyone about it, I think it makes sense to "throw a shot across their bow" to see if it wakes them up and gets them talking to someone. I've blocked both ranges for 1 month. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 05:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the action. I will communicate with this person if they surface at a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Thucydides411

    I am filing this report against the above editor in relation to his/her edit warring on the China–United States trade war article. Specifically, the editor reverted material that was arrived at through explicit consensus on the talk page and despite being warned that such (unilateral) action would result in escalation of the content dispute process to the appropriate forum. It's clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE as he/she has had an extensive history of such battlegrounding editing on other articles, and I ask that administrative sanctions be imposed on the editor. Flaughtin (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no idea what's going on at that article, but you shouldn't be WP:CANVASSING, nor mentioning Thucydides411 on other editors' talk pages without notifying them [215][216]. -Darouet (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I haven't taken a look at the original dispute, but the OP seems to be exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior themselves by canvassing an editor here because of their extensive prior interactions with Thucydides411 and to have the clearest idea of who my opponent(s) will be at ANI. There's also clearly edit-warring by multiple parties there including the OP (e.g. reverts on the edits in the original complaint 1, 2). — MarkH21talk 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN both. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think both Flaughtin and Thucydides411 need to take a step back from that article, hopefully that can be accomplished without formal sanctions of any kind. Looking at the talk page you’ve both raised good points and there appears to be genuine disagreement about what constitutes consensus but at this moment you guys appear to be talking past each other and not really listening to the other people on that talk page. Sometimes its best to move on to greener pastures when you come to loggerheads with another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darouet - I don't see how that's canvassing; as I said, User talk:Horse Eye's Back made significant emendations to the main article and had extensive prior interactions with the above editor, and so I only saw it reasonable to notify that user to participate in a debate whose result would have significant consequences for the article. If an administrator thinks that what I did was canvassing and if the use of my language was too extreme (use of the word opponent), then I will going forward self-correct. That said my actions (licit or otherwise) should not detract from the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page (which was arrived at without Horse Eye's Back's involvement) and administrators should note for the record that it appears that you aren't a neutral observer to this issue as the above user has commented in support of an arbitration enforcement request that you filed against an uninvolved editor on a separate issue here. As you aren't a direct party to the debate, you aren't an administrator and there seems to be a conflict of interest (administrators are welcomed to correct me if this is a false accusation) on your part as you appear to have an established connection with the user in question, I'd recommend that you let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it.
    Just as I had suspected, you've known Thucydides411 for nearly a decade and you even gave the guy/girl some Wikilove. Clearly you're not an unbiased party to this report as you have a well-established connection with the user and the fact that you (along with user MarkH21) responded to this report within minutes of my filing it (and which it should be noted also means the both of you responded within minutes of each other's response) suggests something more is at work. Administrators: I don't know what you call this and if there has been some stealth canvassing that's been going on (this is not a personal attack and nor do I intend it to be that, it's conjecture based on the best available evidence. However, if it is deemed to be a personal attack then I retract it), but whatever it is, something is afoot - i've never seen this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling. To put it in street talk not even an ambulance (let alone two) arrives that fast in real life. In the meantime, as I said, I'd recommend that you (Darouet) let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it. Flaughtin (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flaughtin, there is no reason for someone commenting here to be "unbiased". We need admins to be objective when considering sanctions, but that's an entirely different matter. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... something is afoot - i've never seen this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling. First time at ANI? Lev!vich 05:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have User talk:Horse Eye's Back (from past discussions) and ANI (one of the most watched pages on enwiki) both watchlisted... the OP is throwing a bit of a wild accusation there. — MarkH21talk 05:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Levivich - no but compared to the other people on this thread I'm just a beginner. I don't know about you but ANI isn't really a place where I prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia. But since I am here, thank god they are here too to show me the ways of how best to avoid coming here in the future. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MarkH21 - not an aspersion when I'm just stating the facts. You are not a neutral observer to this issue given our disputes on an unrelated article. I don't know why you need to get all defensive about it when i'm just telling it like it is. The same rationale is at work when WP:3O prohibits editors from offering their opinions on disputes in which they have had prior dealings with either the article or editors involved. There's plenty of other reports you could have participated in but I don't see you there - as a matter of fact, this is your first intervention on this entire noticeboard. Nothing stopping you of course from participating in this one but let's not like act like you don't have a vested interest in its outcome. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You conjecture that Darouet and I were stealth canvassed here because we responded within minutes of you posting at HEB's user talk and ANI. That's completely non-evidence since ANI is one of the most watched pages on WP, and is an accusation of misbehavior without evidence. I saw your inappropriate post at HEB's talk page so I commented here; it's not mysterious stuff.
    Also, as a matter of fact, this is your first intervention on this entire noticeboard is verifiably false, I have commented as an uninvolved editor on ANI threads dozens of times (e.g. here).
    I don't have any vested interest in any of this. That's your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior assuming that editors are "out to get you". — MarkH21talk 19:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're getting all dramatic in making my conjecture out to be some kind of conspiracy theory. Neither you nor Darouet are neutral observers to the party: you and I have had disputes in the past, Darouet and Thucydides411 have had a well-established connection, and both you and Darouet each made comments against my report within minutes of its filing - I'm just telling it like it is because those are just the facts. And when I said entire noticeboard, I meant the entirety of this iteration of the ANI noticeboard. As I said ANI isn't really a place where I spend my time on Wikipedia so if this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors (to the immediate dispute) rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling is something that commonly happens here, then just say that's what normally happens. Until then I stand by my initial remark that something is afoot.
    There's a hell of a lot more I could say but per the recommendations of an uninvolved editor consider this my last comment to you on this thread. Flaughtin (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors (to the immediate dispute) rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling is something that commonly happens here, then just say that's what normally happens: As Levivich hinted above, yes it's normal. Especially if you post on someone else's talk page asking for their help right beforehand. — MarkH21talk 06:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MarkH21 - the revert was based on an explicit consensus to remove the material that the above user unilaterally decided to revert and what "edit warring" their is on my part does not compare to the extensive edit warring by the above user on the article with another editor (User:Light show). As I said if an administrator thinks that what I did was canvassing and if the use of my language was too extreme (use of the word opponent), then I will going forward self-correct. That said my actions (licit or otherwise) should not detract from the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page (which was arrived at without Horse Eye's Back's involvement) and administrators should note that you are not a neutral observer to this issue given our disputes on an unrelated article (Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests and the corresponding talk page). As you aren't a direct party to the debate, you aren't an administrator and there seems to be a conflict of interest (administrators are welcomed to correct me if this is a false accusation) given our interactions on other articles, I'd recommend that you let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it.
    Guy - Why? Everything I've done on that article has been strictly by the book and it's been nearly a whole month since I made an edit on that article. It's the other user that's been violating all sorts of WP policies and procedures (and not just on the aforementioned article).
    User:Horse Eye's Back - it's been nearly a whole month since I made an edit on that article. If that's not what you call "take a step back" then i don't know what is. On the other hand, during that time, the user above has been engaging in all sorts of edit warring (that includes you [217] and [218]) and ramming in all sorts of material that nobody has agreed to. I mean, really, the edit history is there for everybody to see. And as I pointed out at the outset, it's not just this article where the user has displayed this battleground editing/mentality, it's many others. If there's anybody who needs to take a step back (or be banned) from the article (or Wikipedia), it's Thucydides411. Flaughtin (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've agreed and disagreed with most of the editors here at some point across multiple venues. Plus, disagreement with someone at an unrelated discussion a month ago is not what a conflict of interest is and ANI isn't restricted to observations from editors who have never interacted with the reporter & reportee before.
    I just took a look at the actual article discussion at Talk:China–United States trade war#Discussion of former "Background" section, and I don't see how your own description of three people who want it removed as opposed to two others who want to kept is an explicit consensus. You're both edit warring. If the existing discussion is not reaching a clear consensus (which 3-2 is probably not), then open an RfC or another content dispute resolution method. — MarkH21talk 05:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. You're free to participate in this report; my point is that nobody needs to take it seriously as you - as a matter of fact - just aren't a neutral observer to the it. The same rationale is at work when WP:3O prohibits editors from offering their opinions on disputes in which they have had prior dealings with either the article or editors involved. Aside from trying to deflect attention away from the act that gave rise to this report - the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page - I don't know why you need to get all defensive about it. And again what "edit warring" their is on my part (I made 1 revert based on explicit consensus on the talk page) does not compare to the extensive edit warring by the above user on the article with another editor (User:Light show).
    It's a clear consensus because we know who voted, what they voted for and how they voted. (for the record, this is also how our disputes at the Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests article and the corresponding talk page has hitherto been resolved) At any rate, the entire debate is somewhat moot as the BURDEN of the argument applies to the other users since they are the ones who want to reinstate the disputed material. Of course the consensus isn't absoultely conclusive but it is sufficiently conclusive within the context of the disputes on that article - as I said, while vote tallying is not the ideal mechanism for resolving this content dispute, it is ideal enough for the way previous content disputes (on this page) have been resolved, and their outcomes have been, for the record, abided by by the participants involved. You are more than welcome to go through the edit history of the article if you want proof of this. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That I disagreed with you on a different article a month ago doesn’t mean that nobody needs to take it seriously regarding diffs or comments that I point out here. That's grasping at straws as you battleground against every single editor in this ANI thread.
    You counting 3 editors vs 2 editors is not a explicit consensus nor a clear consensus. Right now it's definitely not explicit since there has been no formal closure from an uninvolved editor, and 3-2 is roughly even (if it was formal closed by an uninvolved editor it would probably result in a "no consensus"). — MarkH21talk 19:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is about the background section to China-United States Trade War. We've been at an impasse for months, and I agree that an RfC is the only way to solve it. Just to give some background, there are basically two versions of the background section under discussion, which I'll call A and B. I have objected to version A's use of White House press releases as supposed reliable sources and its extensive reliance on Op-Eds (such as two paragraphs based on a single opinion column by Thomas Friedman; all of the Op-Eds used by version A are in support of the trade war). By contrast, version B is sourced almost entirely to economics journal articles that discuss the trade war, and to a news article summarizing the trade war. There was recently an RSN discussion in which Light show asked about the relative strength of the sourcing for each version. Two uninvolved editors commented to the effect that version B is better sourced. Buidhe wrote, The sources cited look better than the ones they replaced, while Chess wrote about the problems with version A citing government press releases as reliable sources, and the reliance of version A on opinion pieces. Buidhe additionally commented on the problems with version A making use of articles that were published before the trade war, and which therefore do not discuss it (my personal view: using these pre-trade-war sources enters into WP:SYNTH territory).

    Anyways, we've been back and forth many times on the talk page. I've tried to ask Flaughtin what specific issues they see with version B, which just summarizes what economics articles say about the background: [219]. Simply deleting the section and proposing that we return to version A is not productive, particularly as it comes right on the heels of a WP:RSN discussion that pointed out the serious problems with version A. But I don't think this issue will be resolved without fresh eyes on the article, and I would favor an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There aren't "basically two versions" there are at least 12 versions (stemming from your battleground editing/mentality) and that's just within the timeframe when I was gone from the article for a month. There's more if we go further back in time. If you want to reduce the version of the background section to the "basic options" there are actually three - A, B..................or C - which is to gut the subsection entirely. You couldn't even get that right. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators should note the above user is a direct participant to and supporter of Thucydides411's arguments/position on the above article and corresponding talk page, and has him/herself made disruptive edits on the main article ([220], [221], and [222]). Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here due to getting pinged, but anyways I didn't specifically mention whether or not I preferred version A or version B (haven't really familiarized myself with the content dispute). I was making general comments about the reliability of certain sources in general related to international disputes; which is that opinion articles aren't always the best for matters of fact and that government sources have a conflict of interest. That being said, there are certainly cases where these sources would be appropriate, such as if government sources were being used to cite their claims on the causes of the trade war or opinion pieces were being used to attribute opinions on what the factual situation looks like. As a tangentially involved editor though, if you really have been at an impasse for months and believe the only way to solve this is an RfC, why hasn't the RfC been started yet? RfCs are the best way we have of clearly establishing consensus and while I understand that you feel as if a consensus has already been established and other editors aren't respecting that; the truth is that a formal RfC is the best way to establish consensus and that hasn't been done yet.
    You already have two versions of the article, A and B. Those are the two sides of this dispute; which version of the Background section should be used. Unless Flaughtin or another editor in this discussion is objecting and believes you're misrepresenting their position you effectively have all you need to create an RfC at this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, I'll start the RfC for you if you want. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, I've created an RfC at Talk:China–United States trade war#RfC on the background section about this content dispute which should've been done a long time ago. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Chess Per your comment here, I've pulled the RFC as I object to it. (administrators are welcomed to correct me if I'm not allowed to pull an RFC in this manner as this is the first time I've done this) There's been no prior consensus established for it, it's an inaccurate description of the issues at stake, doesn't give the full range of options to choose from and there may be canvassing issues, particularly given the way this ANI request has developed. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, here's the RfC diff [223]. I narrowed the RfC down to two choices and tried to neutrally word exactly what the RfC was about (what version of the Background section that should be used). Earlier on in the discussion on said page you mentioned 12 different versions [224] of the section that's disputed. It's not tenable to have an RfC with 12 different options, and so I picked two versions that seemed acceptable to both parties. Specifically, for the first version I chose Thucydides411's last edit reinstating his preferred wording and for the second version I picked "version 5" in your earlier comment as that's the version you and Light show agreed upon. It's possible maybe the RfC should've been phrased differently or a third option that could've been added, but at the same time you need to have an RfC on this. It's incredible to me that this is the second time this discussion has been brought to AN/I and you still haven't had an RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: I think an RFC is a good idea. Thank you for trying to start one. The RFC you started looked fine to me; it's also fine to add a third option if anyone thinks neither of those two options are acceptable. Listing 12 different options would be unnecessary and hopelessly complex. (To be clear, the previous ANI discussion was about a different issue, now thankfully resolved, in the same article.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Chess Or we could get an administrator to go through the debate and make a decision; afterall there is a reason why this noticeboard is called ANI. An RFC at this point doesn't make sense because the content dispute for the relevant section is still continuing on the talk page (and so the fullest range of RFC options has not been discovered yet). At this point, it's best to migrate any further exchanges wrt your RFC to that page as this isn't the appropriate forum for it (and at any rate isn't the reason why I filed the report against user Thucydides311) Flaughtin (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit by the user above is further proof of why administrative sanctions needs to be imposed on him/her. At this point it isn't even a battleground issue, it's a matter of basic competency. Flaughtin (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And another, this time involving another editor Flaughtin (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not making yourself look good here. Complaining about other editors lacking basic competency while stating that an RfC doesn't make sense because the "content dispute is still continuing" demonstrates a lack of understanding about the purpose of RfCs which is to resolve content disputes. WP:RFCEND also outlines that you're not allowed to close RfCs because of a belief that the wording is biased, for what it's worth. You should also be aware that just because you filed the report against Thucydides311 doesn't meant that this discussion won't turn into an examination of your behaviour in the overall dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ironic when you were the one who unilaterally decided to initiate the RFC even though you weren't even a participant to the previous disputes. If you want to get all civil about it, you would have waited for my response, not least because even you recognized that I might object to it. Not do you what you did instead, which is to propose the RFC, recognize that there might objections and then go ahead with the RFC anyway. And while we're at it about civility, let's be clear: the only reason why this report was filed was because that user deliberately overrode the consensus that was explicitly arrived at on the talk page - we wouldn't be here if he/she had never done that. So if you want to turn this exchange into one about civility, it's only fair that you at least spend some time talking about Thucydides411's conduct, instead of just trying to make it all about me.
    When I said that editor lacks competence, I'm not saying it as a complaint/personal attack. I'm saying it as a matter of a fact - it's not just a matter of the user arguing that WP:INTEXT doesn't apply; it's that he/she doesn't even know that WP:INTEXT applies. Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) is a reliable source - it doesn't need in-line attribution. - those are his/her words not mine. And this is from someone who has been on this encyclopedia for nearly two decades. Completely different from the way I handled my ignorance with regard to WP:RFCEND where I explicitly acknowledged my lack of knowledge on the issue and asked for administrative guidance on it. I never said I was against having an RFC, I said I was against having an RFC at this particular time - you just didn't read what I wrote. And I didn't close your RFC because I thought that your was "biased." - you just didn't read the reasons I gave. It makes no sense to hold an RFC when the relevant content dispute process is still ongoing because we can't have an RFC when we don't even know what the options will be. (as we speak I am in the middle of reinstating some of the preferred material by the user in question from a previous version of the article to the extant version of the article as a compromise measure...which will probably be rejected and lead to another RFC option) Flaughtin (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In-text attribution is required for opinions, but not for factual statements made by a reliable source. WP:INTEXT gives this example:

    When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars."

    Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) make a number of uncontroversial statements in their background section, in which they review the economics literature. They're summarizing the majority view in economics about the causes of the US trade deficit. Every economics paper I've read on the subject has shared that same view. In-text attribution would give the false impression that this is the view of just a few economists.
    In any case, this is too much detail for ANI. Can we move forward with an RfC? I thought Chess' RfC wording was fine. We can also add a third "remove the background section entirely" option, if that's what you'd like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All your arguments have been rebutted at the relevant sections ([225], [226], [227] and [228]) of the talk page and any further exchanges with regards to an RFC should be made there and not here. Flaughtin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Need for admin intervention

    This months-long dispute between the editors at China–United States trade war has escalated

    JzG is the only admin to have commented so far, suggesting a topic ban on both Flaughtin and Thucydides411. This entire mess needs to be resolved and it looks like administrator intervention is necessary, whether it is via warnings, page protection, or further action. — MarkH21talk 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC); DRN threads added 20:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC); expand description of this ANI thread 20:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: I'm just pointing out that we have had (recent) conflicts elsewhere, in which, among other things, you have referred to me as belonging to a "small cabal of fans" ([229]). I would prefer impartial administrators to comment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thuc, let's be fully honest with those who are not familiar with all the details regarding your history and conduct. Guy did act as Admin at the Assange article -- he placed a page restriction there per Discretionary Sanctions, in part because of your tendency to dominate articles related to Russia and US foreign policy. It doesn't advance your credibility on the merits to bully Admins such as Guy and @Drmies: to back off by claiming they're involved. That only creates the appearance you think anyone who objects to your conduct is disqualified from community process. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      User:SPECIFICO, I think that's a pretty accurate description of Thucydides's MO. I mean, I wouldn't call it "bullying", but yeah. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Point taken. I was just trying to get close enough with a polite word.👩 SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about Drmies. For people who don't know the backstory of you and me, this sudden outburst of hostility is going to look pretty strange, though. Anyone who is curious about the backstory can look at WP:AE, where there's a discussion between a few admins, including Awilley and Swarm, about what to do about SPECIFICO's recent violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions at Julian Assange. My comment there has apparently led SPECIFICO here.
    We're discussing something else entirely different here, which is China-United States Trade War, where there have been various disputes about the background section on and off for a few months. Let's not let the drama from Julian Assange spill over here. There's an obvious way forward here, which is to let the community give input in an RfC about the background section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) That's exactly what I have been arguing for from the very beginning. Flaughtin (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think a ban on post-1932 US politics broadly construed has been mutually earned by Flaughtin and Thucydides411 for battlegrounding. They are generating far more heat than light and the time it takes others to deal with their heat (and walls of text) is wasted. Thucydides411 has a well known history of battleground style editing. Flaughtin dug themselves a deep hole at the article, and it gets deeper every time they post here. It is clear Flaughtin does not understand what is wrong on their end, so I think it will probably repeat. (Flaughtin, when you've dug yourself into a hole, that's a battleground; stop digging and just walk away). Disclaimer: I've had disagreeable interactions with Thucydides411.   // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say that sanctions have to be imposed on me, then obviously I will have to respond. I wasn't the one who started this edit warring and I've been trying my best to back away this thread - that's one of the reasons why I've been arguing from the very beginning for administrator intervention on the trade war article. As I said in one of my earlier comments ANI isn't really a place where I prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia. Giving you the last word per your recommendation if that's something you wish to take up. Flaughtin (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a strong sanction needs justification. You can look at my contributions at China-United States Trade War, and see that my main contribution has been to find strong sourcing for the background section. I have gone and found a whole number of economics review articles on the trade war, and tried to summarize them in a neutral manner. Previously, the section suffered from a lack of good sourcing (it relied heavily on opinion columns and White House press releases). Anyways, I don't think my participation there has been a net negative. You're saying that I'm a "battleground editor", without actually looking at my contributions to the article in question or citing any diffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address adding unsourced content and original research

    (non-admin closure) Blocked for a month by Scottywong. Asartea Trick

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

    23.28.197.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Diffs: [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], and more. Has persisted since early 2019, despite a 3-day block in May 2020. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly the same user, and no response to multiple warnings for unsourced content, original research, synthesis, copyvio, etc. Meters (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 1 month. Let's see if that gets their attention enough to get them talking on their user talk page. If disruptive editing continues after the block expires, then keep re-blocking with increasing timeframes. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment in edit summary

    This Edit by User:Daccalimit. Possible sockpuppet of User:2.186.126.235 (who has been blocked for one month), as the edit is identical and the edit summary similar. Caius G. (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Favonian: This is almost assuredly Special:Contributions/2605:E000:2748:6F00:0:0:0:0/64, who has also evaded on open IPv4 proxies such as 84.167.3.195. May be worth a CU sweep, has past CU blocks. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More than likely, Ferret, but I'm not a CheckUser so you'll have to contact them. Favonian (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can do! @NinjaRobotPirate and Mz7: you both applied CU blocks here in the past and may be more familiar. I came across the IPv6 range a few days ago and dropped a block after I realized how deep the issue went. -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an LTA vandal based on the CU log. I can convert it to a hard block – nothing good is ever going to come from this IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Special:Contributions/2A00:1910:4:AA1E:0:0:0:0/64, already blocked. As info @Acroterion -- ferret (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:തീട്ടം കമ്മി: Block evasion, personal attacks and general tendentious editing

    തീട്ടം കമ്മി (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account a bit over 24 hours ago and since then has indulged in an exclusively disruptive pattern of editing across various articles many of which are also BLPs. The account is also most likely the same person as IP 2409:4073:2E83:5870:0:0:38CA:B803 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was active on the same pages and was recently blocked for personal attacks and harassment through edit summaries.

    The account is heavily invested in editing the page of the politician Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. The section they intend to introduce is accusations against family members of the politician in clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. The aforementioned IP introduced the section and the account is being used to restore it. Diffs of edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries from the user account on the page are as follows.

    1. 17:25, 31 October 2020 "Bineesh and Binoy Kodiyeri are sons of Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. His family, that's why his son's cases are added in his bio, commi anoop comrade"
    2. 18:41, 31 October 2020 "Some communist illiterate got hurt. But, it's a fact. Look the reference"
    3. 19:29, 31 October 2020
    4. 19:49, 31 October 2020
    5. 20:11, 31 October 2020
    6. 20:31, 31 October 2020

    To me this appears to as a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting my content

    User named Tayi Arajakate and Anoop 3737 are reverting my content without sufficient reason.

    What I mentioned in my content are all evidence based. Please check the reference.

    തീട്ടം കമ്മി (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:തീട്ടം കമ്മി has been blocked for block evasion]] (see above). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitewashing an altright figure

    ——– Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——
     Courtesy link: Owen Benjamin

    User wallyfromdibert continuously removes sources, evidence and proof from Owen Benjamin's page. When it is suggested he has political motivations, he becomes extremely defence. Yet he consistently removes any negative information from the page. Wallyfromdilbert removed a whole section of an article from The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, despite it being a syndicated and accepted paper, around since 1917. The author who wrote extensively for the JTA on Benjamin, and Wally simply removes it. There is no other reason for it to be removed, unless one was attempting to whitewash Benjamin and paint him in a positive light. Moreover, Wallyfromdilbert removed multiple quotations from Right Wing Watch, which is also a reliable and official publication. While some of Wallyfromdilberts edit are justified, such as removing links from GODTV and others, it is unacceptable for him to continue to remove acceptable sources in a blatant attempt to hide Benjamin's document behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBuster21223 (talk • contribs)

    (Non-administrator comment) @TruthBuster21223: In the future, please remember to notify the user in question on their talk page about this thread, as policy states at the top of this page and as you're submitting this. I have done so for you this time. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No action is needed here for this content dispute; but if anything this should boomerang. Wallyfromdilbert's initialmost recent period of editing's first edit was October 29, and was removing sources that on-their-face seem problematic; despite Truthbuster's claims the "Jewish Telegraphic Agency" source was not removed. There is now discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently there's a longer history than just this week here; I don't see anything too problematic in the past, though despite Wallyfromdilbert removing it from the article due to poor sourcing, Mr. Benjamin apparently has said that the moon doesn't exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's safe to say that he's become a controversial figure, banned from all major social media platforms. I haven't looked at each edit of Wally's but the article doesn't seem whitewashed to me, it's frank about his outrageous comments and anti-Semitism. I don't know that we need to enumerate every crazy comment he's made. Besides this seems like a content dispute best handled on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth remembering on that point that a lot of controversial figures say a lot of "questionable" things but often only a small percentage of them end up being covered in reliable secondary sources. While WP:BLPSPS nominally allows the use of self-published material when it relates to the subject, this should be limited to simple stuff not the latest questionable thing the person said somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: Providing diffs for claims about other editors' actions would probably be helpful since I have no idea what information you think I removed. There was never any information in the article about Benjamin claiming the moon doesn't exist, and his comments about the moon landing that were reported by Right Wing Watch are still in the article. Here is the diff of all my changes since October 29. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [236] power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok, from over a year ago. Do you think that source and information should have been kept in the article? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is important to give a little more consideration to when a user like TruthBuster21223 repeatedly makes baseless accusations against another editor. Wikipedia is a very unpleasant place to edit when you have to deal with random single-purpose accounts like TruthBuster21223 who make comments about "political motivations" and "consistently removing any negative information from the page" without even any diffs. I think it would be nice if experienced editors took more time letting users like that who are uncivil or make repeated false accusations know that their behavior is not appropriate. Only one comment here even mentions WP:BOOMERANG or TruthBuster21223's conduct. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User persistently creating hoax articles

    Thatdollcalledriley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been participating in a pattern of creating articles related to a musical artist that does not exist. The reason that the user provides for these creations, as stated in an edit summary, is that these articles are related to a fanfiction character named "Shabnam" who is "NOT REAL, JUST FANON." Here are some links to supposed songs created by this "Shabnam" character that were instantly flagged under A9 and/or G3: 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the user has performed many disruptive edits related to categories. I see this as a textbook case of WP:CIR. EMachine03 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked as not here. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that all the articles are going to end up being speedy deleted. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced information

    SBS3800P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still continues to add information without sources or information that is blatantly false. Several editors have warned that user for 2 or so years but no action has been taken so far. Please deal with this ASAP. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._Geethanandan&diff=prev&oldid=978515765

    Nothing more to see here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Anybody hanging around to take a look at what Citation bot has been doing? Going bananas I guess. Look at my last trials to repare. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot problems should go to the bot's talk page. However, this doesn't look like it's got anything to do with Citation Bot. Special:Diff/953856648 seems to be where the "gravatar" nonsense was added to that article, if that's what you're talking about. It's hard to tell what you're reporting, though, because your report is so vague. If you have a specific problem with something that Citation Bot is doing, maybe you should tell one of the bot's developers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment NinjaRobotPirate. In the meantime I fixed them all manually and in the future, I will follow your advise: go to the bot's talk page if is a bot. I figured out it wasn't the bot after all. Glad I didn't react there . The bot might have become angry with me. Lotje (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent WP:BLP problems at Rabiya Sundall Mateo

    I requested page protection over sixteen hour ago, to no avail. There's been prolonged warring over the subject's full name. Any assistance will be welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism at Koottukar (2010 film)

    Sorry, but I'm dropping this here, too. The vandalism is relenetless, and there's been no response at the page protection noticeboard for the better part of a day. Someone please lock this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (nac) "Fixed typo" is remarkably often a misleading ES; and in my experience always is when it's -56 or suchlike. Narky Blert (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi'd for 3 wks. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated removal of speedy delete, vandalism and sockpuppetry by Hasib201937

    Hi, everyone. Please any one have a look at Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman, a WP:PROMOTIONAL page that is eligible for WP:A7 with {{salt}}, where Hasib201937 is endlessly removing speedy delete notices and engaging in edit warring and a sock-puppet of Faisal.proyash. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Loud quacks on that page.--Chuka Chieftalk 21:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuka Chief, Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman needs to be {{salt}} otherwise again the drama will start with a different account. ~ Amkgp 💬 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector why declined? ~ Amkgp 💬 21:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly makes a credible claim of significance. I'm definitely going to delete it anyway but there's a history merge necessary. Working on it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, Please also have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faisal.proyash. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another sockpuppet investigation related to user Faisal.proyash: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanni3523. NJD-DE (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Several accounts blocked, SPI updated. I have merged the copied article back into the draft, declined G11 deletion because "created for hire" is not a speedy criterion and the draft is not unambiguous advertising, restored the UPE and AFC notices that the socks removed, salted the article and move-protected the draft. If you still feel that the draft should be deleted please nominate it at MfD. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miggy72

    Miggy72 is showing a pattern of disruptive editing:

    1. Creation of articles without references: Imperial Point, Fort Lauderdale and Cypress Creek, Florida
    2. Moving Imperial Point, Fort Lauderdale back to mainspace (either by moving[237] or copy and paste[238] ) multiple times after draftification without adding citations.
    3. When discussed with Miggy72, they indicated they would add references but made no effort to do so
    4. Engaging in an edit war with Nathan2055 over {{History merge}} [239], [240], [241]

    --John B123 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @John B123: Miggy72 has engaged with me on my talk page. The messages are...concerning, and seem to indicate an intention to continue move warring. They've again stated they intend to find sources for their articles, but haven't explained why they can't be kept in draftspace until they add them. They've also boasted that I can't find all of their drafts because they keep moving them (I...can, that's why we have contribs pages) and that they've created some 150 articles without any references (not true, they've written only 2-5 articles at most depending on whether you count unfinished drafts as an article, but the fact that they're bragging about that raises some serious concerns). And on top of all of that, all of the images they've uploaded to Commons for use in these article are blatant copyright violations. I'm willing to give Miggy one last chance to try and contribute constructively, but if they continue this behavior after these warnings, then a block for disruptive editing would be more than justified. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You know I'm reading this Miggytalk

    @Miggy72:: yesss, that was kind of the point of the notification on your talk page, so you would read -- and could respond -- here. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unidentified user:71.13.41.195

     Courtesy link: Théodore Canot

    An unidentified user added "hi people" in the article "Théodore Canot" (section "Bibliography"). Please delete this inappropriate message. What punitive measure is appropriate in this case? -- Veillg1 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Veillg1, PearlSt82 has already deleted it. What administrative action needs to be taken? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veillg1: That is minor routine vandalism, and you are free to undo it yourself. For mild cases like this usually no action by admins is needed. It's probably just some kid who has discovered for the first time that you can edit Wikipedia and is testing it out. More severe vandalism however, such as continuous or particularly vulgar and abusive kinds, do need immediate admin attention so admins can block the editor and do any necessary cleanup. You may report them here, but for straight vandalism and abuse you will often get a faster response at WP:AIV. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sutton12

    I came across Sutton12 at the Sutton-in-Ashfield article and saw he was making problematic edits. He has made 350+ edits to the article, but dozens of them were among the 149 deleted by User:Justlettersandnumbers as RD1:Violations of copyright policy.

    Some of his uploads to Commons, (related to Sutton-in-Ashfield) have been challenged at Commons Deletion Requests, and in one recent glaring case he changed the file name of an image being considered for deletion to the file name of a completely different image. No reason given, per normal. Yeah I know, we're not Commons, but I mention it as an example of his editing.

    He has twice recently removed a More Citations Needed tag from the article. Although he is adding new citations, the efficacy of many is largely unknowable because they are not accessible, do not give page numbers, or quotes, and it is difficult to determine how many of his edits to Wikipedia need rectification. Much of his refs formatting is poor to say the least.

    He rarely gives an edit summary, will not indent talk page comments as requested, and does not sign his posts as requested. Some of his responses to editors are meaningless. He lacks writing ability and his misinterpretation of sources introduces errors to the project — example, a paragraph I deleted. I have rectified a few of his edits, which makes me involved, so that’s why I am here. Many of his contributions are truly disruptive, he largely ignores advice and seems to not want to make a collegial effort. I think he needs a block for a little while to think things over, with a warning that it can be indefinite if on return he continues his troublesome editing. Moriori (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an apparent WP:CIR issue here. I will give him a warning for disruptive editing and follow up on it. Deb (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Port Perry High School

    Port Perry High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Requesting range block for IP 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6. Disruptive individual constantly switching IPs every time he/she is reverted at Port Perry High School. Jerm (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    /64 range blocked for six months, since two earlier blocks haven't gotten the point across, I'll watchlist the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Acroterion Thanks. I also had made a request at WP:RPP, but since your keeping the page on watch, I went ahead and removed the request. Jerm (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems to be that single IP range, a single user, so I don't think protection will be needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoang Dat La thang dien

    Hoang Dat La thang dien (talk · contribs) Apparent bot editor making numerous edits in a few minutes. Seems to auto-restore content Adakiko (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pinging interested parties: @Deadbeef and Donner60: Adakiko (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Adakiko: Thanks. I am not sure whether a bot is being used. It may be that the user just keeps returning quickly to a few pages where the user has seen the edits being reverted. User:Deadbeef and I have both reported this to AIV but the board is quite backed up right now. I also left a message on the user's talk page about this being the English Wikipedia and added Wikipedia page links concerning guidelines and policies. This has had no effect. Non-English is not the only problem because some of the edits have some English words but that addition is unsourced and not very clear. I am going to give up reverting this and hope that an administrator deals with it soon. I have noticed that a few other users have also been removing these edits. I should add that this is not to say you are not right about the bot. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has been blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unsourced additions

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

    Despite a plethora of warnings on their talk page, including 3 final ones (I didn't bother to leave one today as they seemingly have no effect) and personal pleas, Qwickthinkin has neither communicated with concerned editors, nor have they heeded the requests to reliably source their edits as can be seen from this edit today and these just recently: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Please could an an admin remind them of the importance of WP:V and communicating with concerned editors. Robvanvee 06:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOCKED
    Blocked by User:CaptainEek. (non-admin closure) Mr. Heart (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Philip H Taylor threatened to sue Wikipedia at WP:Teahouse#HELP with edits and make Wikipedia delete articles. He also attacked User: Nick Moyes. Firestar464 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No question about this one. Personal attack and clear legal threat [242]. Meters (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Firestar464, appropriate notices added on user's talk page. Mr. Heart (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek and Firestar464: Thank you both for dealing with this. It's always nice to wake up in the morning with a threat of having one's ass sued right off. I wonder, however, whether the generous offer to employ a team of high-flying lawyers to go through all the non-notable artist pages for us and help us speedy delete them all is too good to refuse. It would save our volunteers so much effort in weeding out trivial and promotional articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A follow-up

    Ordinarily the above would be where things end. However, Phantom Blue - the article that the page he was seeking help on now redirects to - has been seeing an odd spate of vandalism from an ipv6 address that's been receiving warnings. User talk:Philip H Taylor seems to imply he's on those IPs but denies any wrongdoing. I'm thinking we have block evasion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    diff in the event he blanks his user talk page again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mini-Sock farm at Friend of Dorothy

    Resolved. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzywound -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone semi-protect Friend of Dorothy? A group of anons/brand new users inserting what looks to be a joke quote. Thank you in advance! Gleeanon 09:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be a meme-pushing campaign; I've semi-protected that article for a month to stop it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help! Gleeanon 09:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also blocked all the single-purpose accounts involved, and tracked down and removed a more elaborate version of the same vandalism in one other article, also by an SPA, now blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You nailed it, it’s meme bait.[243] Gleeanon 11:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hey Please remove the block

    Hello team, please remove the block from my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.124.11.231 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @37.124.11.231:, there is no block on your account. Do you have another account?Deb (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @37.124.11.231: if your account is blocked, you must log into it and make an unblock request on your account's talk page, or if you do not have talk page access you can appeal to the unblock ticket request system. We cannot process a request to unblock your account when you are not logged in. Please see the guide to appealing blocks. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Range IP vandals

    A number of vandals in the 2401:4900:51 are changing long standing dates in Indian (mainly 19thC) articles. Such as [[244]], [[245]], [[246]]. There may be other dubious edits as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we narrow this down? Not everything in Special:Contributions/2401:4900:5100:0:0:0:0:0/36 is bad. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Special:Contributions/2401:4900:5130:0:0:0:0:0/38 for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Phantom Blue is receiving persistent legal threats by the multiple IP's which are strongly suspected socks of User:Philip H Taylor who was blocked for legal threats. Eyebeller (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyebeller, could we get specific diffs or users to examine these? (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Main two IP's are: User:2a01:e0a:185:c2f0:4c7a:77fb:b4cf:2ef and User:2a02:c7d:6445:9c00:3162:3d25:3534:7dce. I have clearly explained to the first IP that these images are free use on their talk page. Legal threat here - "Removing photo. no rights for usage were obtained by Universal Music Group. Stop stealing intellectual property unless you’re looking for legal action.". In this diff they say that usage of the photo is "illegal". Eyebeller (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eyebeller, I do agree that this could be the same person based on similar interests. (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is - See here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent promotional push at Bashar Masri

    Even in its previous version this is an advert. Two promotional accounts have been working on this recently, and there's at least some copyright violation embedded, as from [247], [248] and [249]. Requesting user blocks, possibly page protection, and rev/deletion of copied prose. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=986730381"