Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.") Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source" I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much. I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [1] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[2][3][4] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots). Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [5] [6][7][8][9]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[10][11][12] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [13], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[14][15][16] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

DK: "Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."

Continuing to make this claim even after I've highlighted it here suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are right here for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out." As I stated above, I later ammended this to "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT." At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You have provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" explicitly that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

"based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence multiple times on this very page: first in my initial statement, and here again today. You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have responded to this before but frankly I was feeling a little unheard. SWL36 explained to you why google searches are not evidence here. I explained that we were looking for reliable sources here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When the ratio is greater than 100:1, comparisons of google hits are taken very seriously—we even have this at WP:COMMONNAME: "generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". And of course I provided News results, not web results.

You very carefully avoid responding to the question of how a term that appears in less than 1% of newssources is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and what would a violation of WP:WEIGHT be if that's not already the threshold? I fully expect you will not hear the question—or will respond with "but CNN!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response is that 1) Using Google Searches in this way is problematic for the reasons SWL36 explained. 2) I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term. This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun and using terms like "SNC-Lavalin controversy" or "Lavalin scandal" which will catch other scandals SNC-Lavalin is involved in besides this one. There have been many others besides this one affair; none of those are known as LavScam. Others have pointed out to you before the problems caused by comparing the unique term "LavScam" and less unique terms. 3) The results have changed since you did this tally. It looks more like 8% on my math now (not that that is the defining issue). 4) While we rely on reliable sources, news articles are not the only form of reliable sources. Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public. While we need to avoid WP:OR, we should not ignore the fact that use of a term in other spheres is relevant to whether it is a WP:COMMONNAME. You were provided this WP:RS concerning the prevalence of the term on Twitter. 5) MOS:LEADALT 6) CNN! 7) Washington Post 8) The many other sources listed on the talk page here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term."—the onus is on you to provide counterevidence.

"This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun"—no, the results include the Toronto Sun. Are you saying you haven't actually clicked through the links?

"It looks more like 8% on my math now"—No search I do returns anything like it. The links above certainly don't. Where's the evidence? And how would 8% satisfy WEIGHT regardless?

"Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public."—neither do your "gut feelings".

"6) CNN!"—the same WP:IDHT as predicted. WP:WEIGHT makes no exception for CNN, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"The many other sources listed"—the same IDHT. List as many sources as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's a fringe term used by a very small minority of sources, thus highlighting it is in violation of WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify much of that with any response because you are not hearing any part of what I have said except for what you have chosen to quote, while ignoring the rest. Others can read the rest for themselves. I will say, I certainly clicked on the links and I note that you provided this link while noting "only 1,650 for "Lavscam" -torontosun.com" concerning this 1% calculation of yours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Those were not the links provided to support the "fraction of 1%" stat; they were to support the "2/3 of sources that use 'LavScam'" stat. Please demonstrate good faith now by acknowledging your error. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if I am mistaken on that I apologize BUT I don't think I am. You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers, BUT you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for "LavScam". You have cited so many Google searches it is hard to keep track. I assume you mean to say this comment is where your "one percent" number comes from. There you use similar search terms which catch unrelated materials, specifically trudeau lavalin vs. trudeau lavalin -lavscam. These search terms again create a false narrative because they will get numerous hits unrelated to the 2019 scandal. SNC-Lavalin is a company which has been around for more than 100 years. It was around when Trudeau Sr. was PM and then leader of the opposition and then PM again (leading to many possible erroneous hits). A quick review of SNC-Lavalin shows that they have been in many legal disputes and bribery scandals (some of which occurred while Trudeau Jr. was an opposition leader. A lot has been written about those which would lead to false positives. But I digress, you have been told about problems with your choice of search terms before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers"---that's right.

"you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for 'LavScam'"—not "few"—I gave numbers in the thousands. The evidence shows that there are thousands of sources that use the term "LavScam" (primarily the Toronto Sun), but that there are hundreds of thousands that don't. There are undoubtedly "false positives", but we'd need evidence they are statistically significant. "'pierre trudeau' lavalin -justin" gets us 376 hits—a rounding error. Even with your "CNN" example, "LavScam" appears in a single article out of the six CNN has published on the affair; with the WaPo it appears in 6 out of 148. What about these "false positives"? We have strong evidence that "Lavscam" appears in a small minority of sources, and no evidence that it appears in a significant percentage. In fact, look at this: "Lavscam" set to pre-February 2019. Look at how many pages of "false positives" we get for "LavScam" before the controversy was even born! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This part of the thread is simply becoming a discussion of content and doesn't belong here. I am mindful of The Blade of the Northern Lights complaint about length of this ANI below. If you want to continue to belabour the point, I invite you to raise it on the talk page so we can disagree there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even name whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."

Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for (some sort of) closure

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "responsive" in what way? I haven't been ignoring anyone there—I've been responding with diffs, quotes & links from our sourcing policies. Here's my last response (nearly two weeks ago) to Safrolic, who opened this report—hardly "unresponsive", or even curmudgeonly, and Safrolic has refused to engage with it. The article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I just see that the complaints allege failure to address other's points/concerns/sources/rationales/etc., and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns. What I've seen doesn't really look that way, but if people don't feel heard then they don't feel heard, so one can try harder to make them feel heard. At any rate, I agree with you on the substance of the matter; there's a PoV issue going on at that article, and you're right to stick to a CCPOL-based position (without any "inventive" reinterpretation of what the core content policies mean and how they apply, which seems to be what the other side is doing). I think this ANI got opened because some of your responses were a little brusque. I doubt there's really anything more to it, and it's weird to me that this thread is still open, much less open with any doubt as to what the closure should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns"—uh-huh, and accusations of having an "agenda", both accusations of which are backed up with precisely no diffs, nothing. Here's a for-instance: I've demonstrated that the disputed alt-term appears in a small fraction than 1% of newssource hits, and 2/3 of that from a single newssource; the response is that CNN has used it (a single time); my rebuttle is that even including such sources still results in a small fraction of 1% of newssource hits, 2/3 of which come from a single newssource—WP:WEIGHT doesn't make exceptions for CNN. The response is that Curly Turkey is pluggin his ears: obviously I'm not—I've responded directly to the claims and demonstrated how the claims violate policy. Response: "Yeah, but CNN!" ad nauseam ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aye. I definitely noticed that "alternative term" analysis, and it's pretty obvious that including that barely-attested opposition slang in the lead would be patently WP:UNDUE (maybe even including it in the article at all would be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a concern, as none of the named editors seems to have expressed the slightest interest in putting it in the body—notice how many times I brought that up in the course of these "discussions". They're not interested in noting the term—their single-minded obsession is with highlighting it in the lead sentence. This would ensure maximum exposure and maximum spread in usage via Citogenesis. Putting it in the body would simply bury it—not worth the effort. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: from today—here's more of that WP:IDHT WP:CIVILPOV game I've been talking about—as if linking to every single source that uses the term somehow changes that fact that it's used by a small fraction of 1% of available sources. This is the same Darryl Kerrigan I quoted extensively for IDHT behaviour above. "Reasoning" is not a reasonable strategy against this type of persistent behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is not so so much lack of responsiveness – indeed, it seems to me CT tends to be over-responsive — as that he responds without listening. And he responds abusively. E.g., his first comment at the top of this discussion (at 07:47, 12 April): "So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ...", his suspiscion of "an astroturfing campaign", and his accusations that others are edit-warring. And that's without drawing on examples from any other pages. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  To the extent this may pertain to my own post higher up, what I mean by "responsive" is the narrow sense (i.e., logically and substantively responsive to what it's responding to, which I think is how this term is generally used in discourse and debate circles). I don't mean "simply making any response at all, just to make one". I.e., I wasn't suggesting CT should post more frequently or longer. I've suggested (albeit vaguely) that the opposing side don't seem to feel heard by him, so he can try to address their material in more detail or something; I dunno, really. I'm not a mind reader, and cannot intuit what exactly anyone wants out of him in any particular thread or subthread. More to the point, though, when multiple editors feel there's a PoV problem at the page ("whitewashing" or not), and as CT indicated there were several others until basically pushed out of the discussion, an ANI like this looks very much like an unclean-hands attempt at WP:WINNING. I'm rather surprised it hasn't boomeranged already. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that CT's tone tends to over-excite the "civility is more important than reliability" crowd, who hang out in ANI like this is some kind of nightclub.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: why did you revert (diff), without explanation, my response (diff)? to SMcC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I have no idea! (And that applies both to the revert and to the content of this discussion.) It has resulted, I surmise, from some Wikipedia incarnation of butt dialing. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I will attempt to restore my response, as follows. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mac: a certain level of civility is essential for reliability. This incident arises from a page where there are issues regarding (in part) the veracity of certain content, the reliability of certain sources, and even of verifiability (i.e,, whether content is supported by the source). These are not uncommon issues, and they usually are resolved (or perhaps not) without reaching ANI. What brings the matter here is an inability to resolve these issues at the article's Talk page. Whether there is a POV problem there is immaterial here; the issue here is why. And from what can be seen here the biggest factor running through all of this is the battleground approach taken by one editor: Curly Turkey. Is this not sufficiently evident from pretty much every comment he has made here? Or is it necessary to list and argue every point and response?

To be clear, what I would like out of him is: no more personal attacks, no more accusations of edit-warring, no more railing against everyone else, etc. In short, some civility. And then perhaps the discussion could get down to some actual issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have diffs that the "battleground" was well underway before I showed up (Littleolive oil was chased right off the page, and Legacypac's even been indeffed for his personal attacks). So much for your "approach taken by one editor"—and yet again no attempt on your part to back up your assertion—just attack, attack, attack—and accusations that a formal complaint against Legacypac's POV-pushing (backed with diffs) is a "personal attack". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was suspecting something similar—there's a pile of people who'd love to pile on me for my language, but it's hard when I've sworn only once on the page. They can't "get" me, and it's a pain to have to engage with the actual evidence, especially when there's so much to sort through ... on a boring Canadian politics page. My concern now is the POV-push will win through attrition, which seems to have been the modus operandi before I showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @J. Johnson: I've provided diff evidence to back up my assertions. You've provided hand-waving WP:IDHT refusals to engage with evidence and policies. Examples of your own IDHT: "problems that exist in only one editor's mind" and "problems that don't exist"—a sampling of the long list of problems appears on this page from both before and after you showed up, as well as links to editors who have also identified problems. We can see Safrolic and Harris Seldon acknowledging sourcing issues I fixed at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Continued sourcing issues—they've both even thanked me![17][18][19]. It's hard to see these repetitions of yours as anything other than disruptive WP:IDHT, particularly as you have done precisely nothing to improve the article in any way.

  You also throw this Catch-22 at me: "If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. ... By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't"

  You've nowhere demonstrated an interest in improving the article and appear to be bent on preventing me from doing so. Your one edit to the article has been to join in a tag-team editwar to remove the {{Cite check}} template to hide the continued sourcing problems from the readers with the specious reasoning that "its presence violates WP:NPOV". Again, no evidence to back that "unique" interpretation of our policies up—just the IDHT I linked to above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delayed response- I've been moving my apartment all of yesterday and will be all of today as well. So, there's two separate issues I have here; firstly, the uncivil behaviour (which I also hope will decrease now that lpac isn't exacerbating it), and the sourcing policy issues. With regard to Lavscam, I don't really care that much, but I was going with existing consensus and my reading of how we're supposed to interpret alternative names. I can see looking at the RfC that despite a lot of replies, only a few editors with more than 1k edits have chosen to weigh in, and among those editors it's about 50/50. I note that CT is wrong that none of the editors have suggested putting alternative names in the body- from my vote, I quote: Both [WP:LEADCREATE] and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name,.. This paragraph is still in my plans for this article- if you check the stats for the page, I've written about a fifth of the total copy, and I plan to keep going now that my exams are done.

Now, for sourcing; CT has made some fairly non-controversial edits. Things like fixing formatting, fixing wording[20], that's helpful. He's also made edits which I think are less helpful. Notably, he refused to accept this source, which you can read more about here (the whole section, but I've linked to my most relevant diff). There was also this dispute on my talk page and the article talk page. I originally made the ANI report after that talk page discussion. What I really want (what I really really want) is outside eyeballs on these policy applications, because I haven't seen anyone else 'agree with his interpretations of sourcing policies. J.Johnson was actually some outside eyeballs; someone who came in from his post on a notice page for sourcing in Canadian articles[21], and who was immediately accused by CT of 'joining in the edit warring' [22] when he removed an article-wide citation check template CT kept adding to the article. Basically the mirror image of lpac's treatment of Bradv above. As mentioned above, I won't be able to read/reply to this again until later tonight or tomorrow morning (pacific time), so thanks in advance for your patience. [Safrolic @ 13:58]

"Notably, he refused to accept this source, "—I didn't "refuse to accept this source"—the source remained in the article. You've WP:3RRed to keep that source placed after a quotation that does not appear in the source,[23][24][25] and the article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. You had this explained regarding other sources and again on the talk page:

• "If it's meant to source earlier portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and only the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't."
• "There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly)."

Along with detailed explanations of our sourcing policies. But rather than implement either solution, you've gone the WP:IDHT route (you still haven't replied nearly two weeks later) and have 3RRed to keep the article in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state (where it still is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say anything in your last reply to that discussion which wasn't addressed earlier, or which was supported by anybody else looking at the discussion/the edits themselves. I don't feel the need to get The Last Word in, generally, so I decided to let it stand until/unless someone else came along and agreed with you on it. So far, no one has. Safrolic (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is about the most exasperating IDHT I've seen from you yet, Safrolic. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith, nor in upholding our core content policies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles

TBAN from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic for persistent POV-pushing, sourcing-policy violations, and WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer per copious evidence in the sections above. None of these editors will give up on contaminating the article or preventing it from being cleaned up, and have already driven others from the page via attrition and personal attacks. At least four editors have noted POV issues with the article. Our WP:Core content policies are at stake—we cannot allow it to spread by turning a blind eye here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Won't even dignify this with a vote. This is an embarrassing and vindictive way to try to win a content dispute when you haven't provided solid diffs of these editors doing any of the things you have accused them of, additionally you didn't user link a single one of them and I'm sure they would like to defend themselves against these charges: Legacypac (talk · contribs), Darryl Kerrigan (talk · contribs), Safrolic (talk · contribs).

The only instance of blatant sourcing violations was the "illegal political interference" statement added by PavelShk [26], this was rightly fixed by Curly and no one objected. This [27] appears to be Curly misunderstanding citations, the first sentence in the paragraph is a paraphrase from the CBC citation, while the quote is from the National Post citation and no violations of souring policies occurred here, except removing citations for well-sourced content. SWL36 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The source was never removed—it was moved only to content it supported (your diff even shows that)—but this keeps being framed as "removing sources". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with SWL36. This is not way to try to win a content dispute when solid diffs have not been provided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unsurprisingly, I agree with SWL36. This is an attempt to win a content dispute which has been discussed at length on the talk page. My dispute with CT relates to that issue. I think I have stated solid reasons for forming the opinion I have, namely MOS:LEADALT, WP:POVNAMING and the consensus on the talk page. I have also taken issue with CT's disruptive behaviour toward others here and on the talk page. From where I am sitting Safrolic has done nothing but attempt to discuss edits and improvements with CT in good faith. PavelShk, a new editor, made the inappropriate (but I assume good faith) edit adding the term "illegal". This was reverted and there does not appear to be any continuing debate about it from him or anyone else (CT excluded).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Good morning to you too! My diff from two weeks ago should provide some additional context to SWL36's reply. Note that there is significant overlap between the Natpo cite and the CBC cite, and the CBC cite is fine for everything but the exact wording of the quote (CBC paraphrases it). I still await someone else supporting your interpretations of sourcing policy. Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  So again you admit the quote does not appear in the citation, but 3RRed to keep it where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm still puzzled as to what the perceived problem is with this paragraph, both citations cover the content and a quote is used from the NP citation. There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph. SWL36 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  SWL36: "There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph."—under the condition that both citations support the whole paragraph. When they don't, we place the citations after only that content it supports. Look at the first paragraph of the first section of Today's Featured Article. There are two citations. The first supports the first half, the second supports the second. Putting them both at the end would imply they both support the whole paragraph, which is an WP:INTEGRITY violation. I've given more details here. Keep in mind that I've been involved in scores of WP:FAC and WP:GAN assessments (both giving and receiving)—this isn't my interpretation of sourcing requirements, but what the community has required for many years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Even if I accept your narrow reading of WP:INTEGRITY, the two sources support the paragraph as a whole because the CBC source closely paraphrases Dion's quoted words: "Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act." (from cited CBC source) "Dion said he has 'reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 (of the act) may have occurred.'” (from NP source; the text in single quotes is what is quoted by the wiki article). This non-violation of a very-narrow and atextual reading of WP:INTEGRITY is not sufficient for a Tban, a trout, or even just a revert. SWL36 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  So—you admit, and provide evidence, that the quotation is not in the source cited. No policy allows the sourcing of a quotation to a paraphrasing of a quotation, which the community would never support. This is but a symptom, though, of wider behaviour patterns throughout the various disputes on the page—the TBAN proposal is for those behaviours.
  I'm curious, though, SWL36—what problem could either of my proposed fixes cause? Neither removes the source. Nobody has engaged with the question, or seems concerned that Safrolic would WP:3RR over it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I appreciate Safrolic's view that this proposal should not be dignified, there needs to be a clear and definite rejection of this one-sided, disruptive, and even frivolous proposal. It is also quite inappropriate. There is a rather entangled dispute about content, sources, and POV, but all that belongs on the article's Talk page. What is pertinent here (as I have said above) is why these issues have (so far) not been resolvable. That is due mostly to CT churning the discussion so much (such as with this inane proposal) that there is very little chance for anyone to grapple with the issues and sort them out. I explicitly reject his various contentions (such as "copious evidence", "WP:Core content policies are at stake", and the rest). But as CT has raised the issue of a TBAN, I think we should consider a boomerang. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, unsurprisingly, I agree this should boomerang towards CT. I see more WP:IDHT behaviour above and to SWL36 immediately above concerning citations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR, on behalf of basically everyone who hasn't already commented here. I'm not sorry to say, the sheer length and hydra-esque quality of this thread basically kills any attempt to get any definitive resolution. At this point, I think the verbiage is enough to bore a judge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand this. (how) Can we fix this, so that some kind of resolution can be found? Safrolic (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'd like to ask a favour. I've opened a discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam"—out of the numerous disputes, this is the most contentious. I've headed it with a note to keep on topic and refrain from personal remarks. Could you monitor it to ensure it does indeed keep on topic, and that participants refrain from dragging in other (or past) disputes, WP:NPAs, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, etc.? I'm not asking you to so much as peak at any other part of the page. Or if you're not up to, do you think you could recommend another admin? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can watch over that discussion. I don't have any strong views on the subject, so it shouldn't be a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks enormously! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My single edit has been mentioned here multiple times. Let me explain. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I created an account specifically to edit SNC-Lavalin Affair page. I've done a lot of research for that page when it was just starting. I did make that edit where "illegal" political interference was mentioned. I had my reasons for it because that was my understanding of the source after reading it, but when it was reversed, I agreed with the reversal and never tried to edit it back. So it should be a non-issue. Also, it looks like I correctly tried to remove citecheck from that page. Mr Turkey never explained to me what specific sources must still be checked. However, Mr. Turkey immediately accused me of being a sock puppet, astroturfing, being a single-purpose account, violating a million wikipedia policies I have no idea about, and all other imaginable sins in figurative language! So, by now I pretty much lost any desire to contribute my time and edit anything more here. I though experienced editors like Mr. Turkey would be supportive and help new editors instead of trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents. PavelShk (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify: Pavelshk removed the {{Citecheck}} twice in one day, once as an IP and once under their username. This appeared to me an aggressive way to game the system, especially given the amount of editwarring that has been going on at the page since before I even showed up—including by IPs, and including removal of maintenance tags—and the continual aggression and editwarring from several of the other editors. I jumped to conclusions about PavelShk's motivations. I thought we had cleared this up weeks ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Graywalls

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

---

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

In 11+ years editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure I've ever posted here. This is not a page I watchlist, so I'm not very familiar with how to present your case, but I'm asking for help from other editors regarding User:Graywalls. This editor registered in September 2018, starting with the Mook (graffiti artist), Cope2, Glossary of graffiti, Graffiti in the United States, Graffiti, Cornbread (graffiti artist), and John Fekner pages. They moved on to articles related to Oregon, Portland, and homelessness:

Also, starting with Hawks PDX, they seemed to focus on LGBT-related content about Portland:

Hounding

Our paths crossed in March when we disagreed over merging Homelessness in Oregon into Homelessness in the United States by state. After this interaction, the editor started focusing on me and my work: Right 2 Dream Too, Turf War (Banksy) (nominated for deletion and kept), Hawks PDX, CC Slaughters, No Vacancy Lounge, Nostrana (restaurant) (since promoted to Good article status), Escape Nightclub, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Holocene (Portland, Oregon), etc.

• Allegation disputed: Those articles are connected through neighborhood, category and sometimes overlap in categories within a certain article leads to propagation. If article A is included in "category A" in which I find article B, and I find a similar pattern in articles within category A, you having edited on them or having created them shouldn't be used to invoke hounding allegation to avoid me from, to put it in your own word you used in the last few days "tampering". Graywalls (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

For nearly 2 months now, I've logged in to Wikipedia to see pings, talk page notes, and watchlist diffs from this editor, and they've been occupying a tremendous amount of my time and energy, not to mention the elevated stress levels. Following is a brief overview of content they've worked to remove (sometimes successfully, but with an unnecessary community cost, and sometimes not) -- I've collapsed some content for easier browsing by uninterested editors:

List of articles demonstrating efforts to remove content

Speedy deletion: They inappropriately nominated a couple articles for speedy deletion, which I then had to work to rescue: Bit House Saloon and Draft:Elephants Delicatessen, which remains in the draft space. White Owl Social Club was also nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. AfD: They have also nominated other articles for deletion, which were kept: Dante's, Glossary of graffiti, Hawks PDX, and No Vacancy Lounge. They were successful in deleting my World Famous Kenton Club article (AfD), but I was not willing to expand the article just to convince folks the article was appropriate. I've since recreated Draft:World Famous Kenton Club, which remains a work in progress. They were also successful with deleting a few of my other articles, which I've said I would have redirected to spare the wasted volunteer time: Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill (AfD), Oregon Bears (AfD). The Second Foundation (Oregon) and Holocene (Portland, Oregon) AfDs remain ongoing here and here, respectively. They editor seems to prefer deleting over redirecting. Oddly enough, but unrelated to my work, they want to Northwest District Explosion (likely not notable). They also seem to focus on drug use: diff at Pioneer Courthouse Square, Cascade AIDS Project, Club Portland, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Outside In, etc.

All of the above is simply to say this editor and I have interacted on many articles. I'll give a new editor a pass for inappropriately nominating a few articles for speedy deletion, or flagging for AfD, but they are continuing to target articles I've created even after demonstrating they have a less than stellar judgement of notability and source appropriateness, and they don't seem to care about wasting volunteer time (insisting on deleting over redirecting when the latter is totally appropriate).

I've spent a significant amount of time rescuing multiple speedy deleted articles and expanding multiple recently-AfD'd articles, and I've asked Graywalls to simply try redirecting and/or posting their concerns on talk pages before going straight to AfD. I can't keep dropping whatever I'm doing to clean up after them, and I'd rather be spending my volunteer time improving the project in other ways. I should note, Graywalls was asked to stop hounding me by Reywas92.

Behavior

I wish hounding were the only problem, but actually that's my lesser concern. User:Tedder posted a note on their talk page about their behavior back in early April, but unfortunately, their behavior has continued to be combative, obstructive, and generally disruptive. Following are just a few talk pages demonstrating their feet dragging, preference to keep tags over addressing simple problems, unwilling to compromise, ignoring consensus, and edit warring: Talk:Embers Avenue, Talk:Outside In (organization), Talk:CC Slaughters, Talk:Hawks PDX, Talk:Club Portland, Talk:No Vacancy Lounge (currently awaiting 3O response), Talk:LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Talk:Holocene (Portland, Oregon), Talk:Street Roots, etc. I could go on and on.

Now, I fully admit, I'm sure Graywalls can and will provide some evidence that I've also behaved inappropriately, or point to some editorial disputes where they are actually correct and I am wrong w/r/t policy interpretation. I'm not suggesting everything I want is right and everything they want is wrong -- in fact, many times I've tried to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on discussions because I thought third opinions would be helpful. I've been subjected to relentless poking for many weeks now, and my interactions with this editor have been incredibly frustrating. Just getting the editor to agree to allowing "c. 2012" to a business article's infobox was excruciating, and wasted a lot of volunteer time. I've tried hard not to edit war, but at the same time, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a vandal/troll. I do apologize if I've been overly aggressive, but again, I've never encountered this much obstruction and resistance in a decade of editing. I've probably not done a good job summarizing our interactions, but I can definitely say being on the receiving end has been very unpleasant, and I would not wish this on any Wikipedia editor. Hard to describe, but their pokes often seemed retaliatory -- if I replied unfavorably on one talk page, they'd start a new one on a related page, or reignite a past discussion elsewhere.

In short, I will own up to any of my behavioral mistakes, but I feel justified in bringing this problem to other editors. Simply put, I cannot continue to engage with this editor, and I don't contribute to Wikipedia to work with such disruption. I am clearly not alone in my frustration. I am bringing my concerns to the administrator noticeboard because I don't know what else to do. Below I've created a list of articles they've worked on, which can be used or ignored to trace some of their edits.

Discussion

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I've created a list of articles I think might need a little scrutiny:

I invite other editors to please share their experiences, if they feel inclined. @AHampton, Kbabej, Peteforsyth, and Reywas92: I've observed some of your interactions with this editor on various talk pages, and wonder if you'd care to add any comments or concerns. I'm sure Graywalls will deem this a cherry-picked list, and that's fine, they are welcome to invite whomever they'd like to this discussion. I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but I stand by the vast majority of my edits.

I'd like to think my edits to Wikipedia over the years demonstrate a clear net positive contribution to the project, and an enthusiasm for the movement in general. I've been struggling to assume good faith with Graywalls for a while now, so I'm putting them on others' radar so I don't have to worry about this any longer. Even if no action is taken, I feel better going on the record and identifying my concerns. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not one bit surprised to see this posting. I think it's unfortunate Graywalls has chosen Another Believer to focus on, for whatever reason, but it beggars belief Graywalls is just happening across articles AB has created or heavily edited. Graywalls stated on their talk page, "They just all happen to be his." That, frankly, is unbelievable. Instead, Graywalls has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING AB since early March, posting WP:DRIVEBYTAGs on articles, adding questionable content (see this discussion), or nominating many articles for deletion (covered above in AB's post). AB is not the only one to notice this behavior, either. Tedder stated "I've seen a pattern of editing that comes off as disruptive, hostile, or prickly." I would second that statement with the caveat I don't think it's just "prickly" behavior; with Graywall's unusually adept WP editing (for such a new account), they are choosing to be intentionally hostile. Indeed, some of their edits (example here) come across as deliberately trying to provoke. I think AB did an appropriate job of laying out examples above, so I don't see the need to get into even more of those. What I would like to point out is that AB has been a consistent and dedicated volunteer for years; I don't think he would come to this noticeboard lightly (nor should people). But it is warranted. --Kbabej (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• This interaction report, where one of the parties has only about 1600 edits and most of the edits are separated by seconds/minutes, makes it awfully hard to frame this as anything other than hounding. Is it possible this could be resolved as simply as this recommendation? - Graywalls, please don't follow AB's edits. If you continue, something like a one-way interaction ban is possible, and that's always a hassle that's best avoided when possible. So maybe take a voluntary step back, realizing that hounding can have a negative impact on a fellow community member, regardless of good intentions? There are a whole lot of articles AB has not been a major contributor to that could use your attention, after all. :) This isn't to say you haven't raised any valid points, but unless a user shows a clear pattern of unambiguously problematic edits, following their edits isn't ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls responding to Another Believer's allegations

My interest focuses on topics, as well as things in my area. Articles touched or created by Another Believer substantially overlaps. With the number of edits made by AB, the prevalence of articles in Portland area having been touched by him is very high. The probability of articles having characteristics that is of my interest having been touched by him should be considered. I disagree with the allegation of hounding and you can see from my edits that I don't interact with his articles outside of my area. Hounding would be following after a particular editor; rather than topic. When the number of articles that have been touched or created by a certain editor is disproportionately high, the probability of overlapping is correspondingly high. I follow articles through things that branch from articles and categories in which they're listed. I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. Part of the reason where my AfD significantly overlaps his creation relates to the fact many of the articles, such as those on a bunch of bars, taverns, restaurants and clubs have been created by him; as well as much of "establishments" listed in the neighborhood categories.
After reading news stories like these, I've been watching different debates, discussion, noticeboard talks which is how I am familiar to processses. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bnppw4/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwpqmn/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia

Interacting with AB, regardless of his other involvements, I'm getting the impression as he's lording over anything he's created or contributed as if he's claiming an implicit ownership. It's outrageous he's listed essentially every article I have worked on as "might need a little scrutiny". I'm beginning to feel some of his interactions are not in good faith, but rather to get his way anyway he can, such as very directly asking people in AfD who comment in contrary to his desired input if "they'd mind changing their vote"; and asking other users very directly "making very specific edits", admin shopping and airing out charged allegations against me with loaded language in disparaging way, specifically framing me as the problem onto WikiProjects page, and on other users talk page who have shown any sign of sympathethy with him. Following the "admin shopping" discussion, it was suggested to me by Ritchie333 to use AfD to nominate questionable articles for deletion; and I don't nominate them because they are AB, I nominate them, because I believe they are run of the mill local venues. AB admitted stacking up sources after AfD has been nominated to save the article; which I see as disruptive, because loading up the article with a bunch of calendar events can significantly add work load on AfD participants and hinder transparency into lack of the article's true notability.

When disputes arise, he has a tendency to "ping" specific editors he's already familiar and after seeing those users interaction on matters that relate to us, I've come to an opinion that these people are likely to side with him. He's not heeded advise from 3rd opinion here that Wikiprojects are not the best forum for editorial disputes. The interaction here referencing another editor's voice expressing concerns about his article points that there has been issues concerning his edits long before I was even on the map. arguing with every opponent on clearly questionable notability entries. [28] this one AB cited in his complaining statement involves a self-promo/puppets. My use of 3rdOnion has been a way of trying to obtain fair consensus. perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.

Graywalls (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty simple - if you find yourself constantly editing the same articles as someone else, find a way to work with them in a collegial manner. AB was there first, and he's a generally polite person. Your comments towards him have a tendency to be snarky and rude. Can you commit to being polite?

The point is that whatever your intent, you're making the editing process for AB stressful. It looks like HOUNDING. What are you willing to do to change that? Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As are his towards mine. I have been being mindful to avoid making snarks. I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. I didn't think order of arrival made a difference. After all, if that played a role, then he'd been grandfathered over others in a ton of articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You keep implying I'm being paid for my contributions to Wikipedia, which I don't appreciate. You've also nominated several articles for so-called "run of the mill" venues, which were kept by the Wikipedia community, so perhaps you need to change your definition of "run of the mill". Also, there's nothing wrong with expanding an article after a deletion nomination, in an attempt to demonstrate notability. You seemed upset when I expanded a couple articles you nominated for deletion, which is odd -- most editors would say, "thanks!" and move on to other things. I don't claim ownership of any article(s), but I sure don't like them being tampered with or flagged for deletion unnecessarily. Regarding "admin shopping" -- we've already been over this. I was not threatening Deb, I was merely starting with them for help as the deleting admin, but I'd go to someone else for help if they were not willing to assist. What's wrong about this? I was just asking for help restoring a page into the draft space, which I felt was improperly deleted. This is not controversial or against policy. Yes, I've pinged specific editors on specific talk pages based on their editing histories and work on related articles. I don't expect editors to agree with me just because I've invited them to a discussion. Also, I won't apologize for asking AfD participants if they'd be willing to change their vote from delete to redirect, when redirecting is a solid option. I'm very tired of explaining myself and many of my edits to you. After the comments above, your suggestion is to take away my autopatrolled status? Give me a break. I've written almost 100 Good articles, several of which are specifically about Portland restaurants, local history and culture, public artwork, and other venues. I think I have a decent understanding of appropriate sourcing and notability criteria. I could easily go through your edits and cherry-pick tons of problematic diffs, but I'd rather we focus on the big picture here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I did in the past said I believed you might be a paid editor, but didn't believe it was frowned upon. It has not happened after but you continue to charge that I'm "keep implying". I don't know where your referencing to "threatening Deb" is coming from. I was referencing your comment that looks like you are admin shopping which to me looks like you'll just keep looking until you find one that will give you what you want. Changes you do not like referenced as "tampering" sure sounds like snarky way to exhibit territory of a sort; and referring to your own edits as "contribution" and referring to mine or others you don't agree as "tampering" is the big picture of the comment I left on your page regarding dismissive comments.

@Deb:. I am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on "concerns from others" you referenced here?

Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't remember exactly now. I might have been thinking of this or this. Deb (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh? User:Muboshgu retracted the warning and has since encouraged me to apply for administrator status. The interaction with Ss112 was just about creating new pages in the draft space vs. expanding existing redirects. Not really related to this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I said "might have been". What you're doing now is exactly what you were doing in our previous interaction and I'm not going to be led down the garden path again. Deb (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge you said "might have been", and I was just explaining those interactions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, Admin shopping, threatening, whatever. You're saying I was wrong to ask an editor who deleted a page if they'd be willing to restore. If Deb was unwilling to restore, then I would have gone to someone else. Getting a page restored is not a problem, and the page was properly restored. You're focusing on a very specific case when there's clearly a much larger issue here. Knowing your M.O., I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here. I will just let others take over from here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love to not have to interact with AB and I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff. Given the sheer quantity of his stuff, it would basically cripple me from being able to participate on Portland stuff. Since his articles are everywhere, perhaps and about a lot of other things, perhaps I could avoid him outside of Portland area/art stuff, and he could just avoid this area/subject.Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Knowing your M.O", does it surprise you that a pattern of comments like this reinforces me to develop a doubt about good faith? You, the complainant started this grievance and "I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here." seems like a line to avoid having to provide a detailed explanation. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I think this is a kind of stalking, but Graywalls probably believes it falls into the category of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is allowed; this isn't black and white. It's hard to understand how someone who's been here as long as User:Another Believer has can be so insensitive to the annoyance caused by repeatedly asking questions to buy time in order to avoid having to answer straight questions like this quite reasonable one from another user. I certainly felt harassed by Another Believer on 12 March, when he bombarded me with follow-ups in order to get this draft, which he hasn't touched since 14 March. I would suggest that User:Graywalls stays away from future interaction, for the sake of his own sanity. Deb (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Deb, You'd need to lay out a case for 'harassment' w/r/t getting the draft page restored. But, for the record, I do apologize if I came across too aggressive, truly. I haven't touched the March 14 draft because I've been a little occupied, and there's no requirement I work on the draft immediately. I've also been working on other pages (drafts and live articles) nominated for deletion by Graywalls, so that's been a major distraction. I merely wanted the original markup restored, which is not a problem. And, I totally agree, I would also suggest Graywalls stay away. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If it gets deleted, so what? I don't nominate things for deletion because of who created them. Things I have nominated for deletion are based on contents concern, promotional (for example, authored by the article subject, or its owner, executive director, etc. Even if something has been G11'd as promotional, it doesn't preclude others from re-creating the same article if it isn't substantially similar. Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I believed a page was wrongfully speedy deleted, and I asked for its restoration. I believe the topic is notable, and I'll expand the draft at some point in the future. I'm glad the original markup has been restored, so I don't have to start from scratch. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would indeed suggest we should avoid interacting, but not at the expense that I have to avoid pages in Portland area solely because they have been touched/created by you. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area; and I don't interact with articles outside these criteria that you have worked on. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, I'm glad you're open to avoiding me, but why are you bringing up art articles? We've been discussing Oregon, Portland, homelessness, and LGBT-related content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It overlaps with the area of topic you brought up in the opening sentence of your complaint. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was just noting your initial edits to the project. I do not watchlist these pages, nor am I particularly interested in graffiti. I write a lot about public art and sculpture, so thanks for clarifying. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several patterns of behavior that are interesting- and certainly graywalls can't claim ignorance to rules, they have come into editing over the past year showing substantial knowledge of how things work. And yet.. the patterns are there. Seemingly coincidental editing of articles, accusations of "admin shopping" and "pinging other editors to maintain ownership" come up over and over again. Congrats on having boorish behavior that stops just short of going over the line, I guess. tedder (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You do pickup a lot from reading a lot of conflicts that goes on here. I've been doing plenty of lurking. With my disputes intensifying with AB, I have been finding myself having to rely more and more on argument based on policies. The guidelines here says AfD arguments that appeal to policies are good. When I do that you say I'm "lawyering". I actually concur with you on the need to remain polite for the sake of maintaining peace around other editors and duly noted. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mainspace interactions by date of first interaction

22 Feb Portland Loo [29] 3 March Right 2 Dream Too [30] 3 March Portland, Oregon [31] 6 March Homelessness in Oregon [32] 6 March Homelessness in the United States by state [33] 6 March Overlook, Portland, Oregon [34] 6 March Outside In (organization) [35] 9 March AfD nom Turf War (Banksy) [36] 9 March AfD nom Dante's [37] 9 March Portland Mercury [38] 10 March Pioneer Courthouse Square [39] 11 March AfD nom World Famous Kenton Club (AfD) 11 March AfD nom Hawks PDX [40] 11 March Bit House Saloon [41] 11 March White Owl Social Club [42] 11 March Sunderland, Portland, Oregon [43] 11 March National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws [44] 11 March Oregon NORML [45] 11 March Dignity Village [46] 21 March Voodoo Doughnut [47] 31 March AfD nom Second Foundation (Oregon) [48] 28 March Cascade AIDS Project [49] 28 March Prism Health [50] 28 March Pride Northwest [51] 28 March Alberta Arts District [52] 30 March AfD nom Oregon Bears [53] 31 March Terry Bean [54] 1 April Ground Kontrol [55] 1 April Club Portland [56] 2 April CC Slaughters [57] 2 April LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon [58] 4 April Old Town Chinatown [59] 5 April Bradley Angle [60] 6 April AfD nom No Vacancy Lounge [61] 9 April First Unitarian Church of Portland [62] 9 April Nostrana (restaurant) [63] 11 April Escape Nightclub [64] 11 April Embers Avenue [65] 11 April O'Bryant Square [66] 13 April AfD nom Holocene (Portland, Oregon) [67] 14 April Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon [68] 14 April La Femme Magnifique International Pageant [69] 14 April Darcelle XV [70] 14 April Lake Oswego, Oregon [71] 15 April Willamette Week [72] 16 April Multnomah County Courthouse [73] 16 April You Are Here (sculpture) [74] 16 April Street Roots [75] 17 April Bud Clark [76]

• AFAICT, in each case above, Another Believer is the first editor and Graywalls is the second. I found no cases in which G was the first editor and AB was the second. In almost all cases, G is also the last editor. Meaning, the pattern is usually AB->G, or AB->G->AB->G, rarely AB->G->AB, and never G->AB or G->AB->G->AB. 8 out of 11 of G's AfD noms are of articles created by AB. Leviv ich 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd look carefully at the dates, though; in many cases there's a year or more between AB's first group of edits and G's first. Deb (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Deb, indeed, my impression is that this is true in most cases. I image this can easily happen when a new editor enters a niche area where there's already been a prolific editor editing before. "Second editor" in and of itself doesn't mean much. What made me raise an eyebrow is the prevalent pattern of AB->G or AB->G->AB->G, but not AB->G->AB, which suggests G continues to edit so long as AB edits, but once AB stops, G stops. The other thing that sticks out is that it's been like this for almost two months straight. I cannot imagine that G was not aware that they've been editing and nominating for deletion so many articles that were created by or primarily edited by AB. I can understand significant incidental overlap; I can't understanding not noticing this much overlap after this much time. Although nobody "owns" articles, at some point, one must realize they are effectively "hounding", even if it's unintentional, and if it is unintentional, one usually stops, even if they don't have to. Graywalls' comment above (I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff) is kind of funny because the only place they've interacted is in Portland metro area stuff. Leviv ich 18:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, but the area where they have interacted is - as you pointed out - the area where AB is complaining about G's edits. If that's the case, then perhaps the problem is not as widespread as is being suggested. G is presumably watching this particular set of articles and it's ringing alarm bells with him when he sees AB editing them. Deb (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Levivich (talk · contribs), gosh, given how prolific he is, then things in Portland having been touched by him at some point in the past is really likely high. I don't choose what to edit based on whose touched the article. After you posted your analysis, I decided to conduct a quick investigation on my own. Pride Northwest This is something I came upon from branching off from articles and categories. It appeared promotional ish to me and I start working on it. AB came rushing to it an hour and half later. How long ago did he work on it before me? Some 14 months ago. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue. Outside In I start working on it... Another Believer comes rushing a short while later... This too was found to be suspected undisclosed paid editing / connected contributor Street Roots I work on it.. AB comes rushing after the same day. This too is possible UDPE. Bud Clark I edit... AB comes rushing after the same day. So, seriously, who's following who now with the timing of matter taken into context? It's pretty ridiculous to keep AB in the loop simply from having touched it at sometime in the distant past. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition: Bud Clark. Sequence: GW-> AB (1hr 58 minutes later) ->GW. (if one is going to be include "touched at some point", then AW precedes me by an edit that occurred four years ago). I'm the one who feels getting followed around. Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, have you ever interacted with Another Believer under a prior account, as an IP, or otherwise, before your interactions with this account? Leviv ich 04:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I have not. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• This doesn't surprise me. Given that he's been on here for years (and I've been here a few months) his extremely high level of activity and the strong overlap in the area of interest, it's unsurprising he's already tread on them first. Had his activity not been so prolific and there's a pattern that my edits follow him, rather than topics, I think that makes for hounding. I'd also guess that his participation here is probably at the upper few percentile range. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neighborhoods_in_Portland,_Oregon. Go into a neighborhood, then pick an article within a neighborhood. The probability of running into an AB touched article is extremely high. Pretty much the same with a lot of Oregon related topics. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich, This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. You have a point, Graywalls, but I'm not worried about the articles I've edited minimally. You're not owning up to your actions fully, but you've clearly targeted articles I've worked on more substantially, and your pokes feel retaliatory even if that's not your intention. Also, you've wasted significant community time by going against consensus, dragging out discussions way longer than necessary, and going straight to AfD when redirecting was entirely appropriate. Only World Famous Kenton Club has been deleted, and even that article should probably exist, hence why I'm working in the draft space on a new entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• what you call "consensus" is moot as you often appoint yourself to arbitrate the consensus and declare "consensus has been reached" on something you're a party to the dispute; and you have used something like "3 agree with AB, 2 agree with GW, therefore consensus is with AB" but I feel that you're knowingly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS by counting numbers and emphasizing votes and disregarding argument presented and their validity in scope of guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Graywalls, Please. When 3 people say they don't like your image, and you keep adding it back to an article, that's going against consensus. I can point to other examples. You throw around abbreviations, acronyms, and policy pages often, but still seem to ignore editors' preferences. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• this is the example I had in mind. I call there was no "clear" consensus but you or I, as someone involved would be inherently biased in the determination; and this is not the only example of where you help yourself to the podium and arbitrate a concern you're involved in. I suggested 3-O or RfC(well after additional editors have become involved), but you were apprehensive to that. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side. "WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race." and after having personally seein Jonesey95 show sympathetic to your POV but I've not seen you invite Deb along even though she's been involved in a dialogue that involved both you and Joesey95 at the same time. Do you see me as combative with 3PO comments? One suggested advert tag wasn't warranted and something more appropriate should be used. They said they probably wouldn't use it, but it was more appropriate than the advert. (re: bithouse). Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Graywalls, You're grasping, and you can interpret this as me being unwilling to go into detail about specific editorial disputes if you want, but I don't feel a need to reply here. I will respond to other editors, but I'm tired of rehashing everything to you all the time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• How about you both agree not to edit any articles on Oregon for the next, say, six months? You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. :-) Deb (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Deb, That's absolutely not something I'd agree to voluntarily. First of all, I edit articles about plenty of other topics, but why should I stop editing articles about Oregon? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Because those are the ones you are having the issues with. Deb (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Deb, Obviously, but why should I be punished or restricted from editing certain topics? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I was suggesting a voluntary topic ban for a temporary period to allow you both time to cool down and forget your differences. If either of you objects, it may appear that you have ownership issues with these articles. Deb (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • No ownership issues, but I came here to identify a problematic editor, not to voluntarily stop editing articles about specific topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Deb, I don't think that suggestion is realistic. The issue here is GW is hounding and harassing AB. Why should AB be punished for GW's behavior? Also, not readily jumping to agree to your suggestion = ownership issues? That's a false dichotomy. --Kbabej (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Even if it were reasonable at a base level, 6 months is what we'd do for a sanctionable TBAN - it's insanely OTT. I personally am against it basically at all. Other than both parties not participating in it during the course of the ANI discussion, I feel it is unfair punishment of the innocent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary Break

Even though Reywas92 doesn't agree with the interactions that have gone on between us, he does share common point with me over the underlying issue about notability concerns. For as long as Another Believer has been here, he should have a good idea of notability requirements. If he feels I'm "hounding" because of AfDs and there are some comments in AfDs suggesting obvious concerns in common with my concern about articles on run of the mill places. There's bound ot be slight disagreements in the grey area, but there shouldn't be such a drastic idea as to what should be notable. If AfD ends up in "no consensus" that is not an indication that it wasn't called for.

AfD on Oregon Bears perhaps he ought to consider the absurdity of creating a bunch of pages on local dive bars, restaurants, every gay gar in town and so on. The fact our clash don't extend past the Portland area articles and comments in the AfD above is an indication that churning out pages on venues that likely won't meet notability is a major part of problem. By not creating those questionable articles, the amount of volunteer time that has to be spent dealing with them would be cut. I've already made commitment to politeness, however I admit to no wrong doing in nominating articles on legitimate notability ground. Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place. This AfD was not nominated by me, yet for the exact same reason that have got me to AfD such similar articles is an indication that I'm not selectively nominating them, because of who created the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sullivan%27s_Gulch_Bar_%26_Grill Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Both Oregon Bears and Sullivan's Gulch Bar and Grill just needed to be redirected to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, plain and simple. Or you could have raised your concerns on the articles' talk pages. I wouldn't have put up a fight for either. You're still focusing on specific editorial disputes and what you deem to be "absurd" topics like restaurants, gay bars, etc, which you think "likely won't meet notability". What you're failing to recognize is that most of the articles you've nominated for deletion have been kept by the community, after editors looked into sourcing, or redirected because the topics deserved coverage in some form and the pages served a purpose. I've created many quality articles about local gay bars and restaurants: Lutz Tavern, Nostrana (restaurant), Red Cap Garage, Rimsky-Korsakoffee House, Starky's, Three Sisters Tavern, etc. For you to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing w/r/t notability of local establishments is unfair. Sure, maybe I've created some stubs that should be redirected or deleted, but I don't think you're helping the project by questioning notability of every local thing you deem "absurd" or "run-of-the-mill". You're taking an unnecessary toll on the community. And, sorry to say, you're still focusing on notability here and not your behavior, specifically feet dragging, consensus ignoring, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See the CC Slaughters talk. I'm questioning the rationality, in general, of what you declare "consensus". Graywalls (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss specific editorial disputes here. That's a distraction from the larger issue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to end this

I made a suggestion above that both contributors take a voluntary break from the articles on which they interact. (This wouldn't of course stop User:Another Believer from working on drafts like the one that was so urgent on 12 March that it had to be created immediately but which he hasn't bothered with for several weeks.)

AB has indicated that he's not willing to take any break because he wants User:Graywalls to be punished. G hasn't said whether he's prepared to take a break. A few other people have been quick to disagree with my initial proposal but no one has suggested an alternative. If neither of the antagonists is willing to consider this compromise, I suggest this report be closed because it's just wasting everyone's time repeating arguments they've already had on their talk pages. Deb (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to get into an adversarial terms with you; but six months of avoiding the only area of articles I work on is excessive. Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. From what it sounds like. I don't see this grievance was made in a good faith given inflammatory language like "vandal", "troll", "tampering" that in general expressing diminutive and marginalizing contributions he disagrees with. Despite acknowledging he's been too aggressive at times, such actions don't show any willingness to make changes; while I have agreed to; and have been trying to maintain politeness which can be seen in the more recent edits. Listing out essentially every single page I have worked on and framing it as "articles possibly needing scrutiny" doesn't suggest he's trying to resolve problems rather than to project blames. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Six months was a suggestion, not a command. Three months would be fine. Deb (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on the alternative I just proposed before you replied? Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a practical alternative. There are other areas you can work on as well. Deb (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't come here to "punish" Graywalls. I came to identify a problem. And now Deb is suggesting we both stop working in a topic area, and Graywalls has suggested I stop working on Oregon articles while they be allowed to continue working on Oregon articles? What planet am I living on? I came here to report harassment, and if the community is not going to take this seriously, then I am quite bothered and disappointed. I've made my concerns known. Graywalls, you've not really owned up to your actions or volunteered to back off, but you seem to acknowledge some behavioral changes are needed. If we need to end this discussion, fine. But you need to know, editors are watching you carefully, and if you continue to drag your feet, ignore consensus, and act in a retaliatory fashion, I will report you immediately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the things this omits, and is especially evident both here and on AfDs, is what Levivich reported on for interaction patterns. It's hard to articulate how problematic it is when *every* response by *every* editor is responded to and challenged by the same person. This is asymmetric behavior, not "both of you are equally at fault". tedder (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion. I also believe that AB has aggravated the problem by his own insistence on having the last word. I've now made a constructive suggestion to end the problematic behaviour and you haven't come up with an alternative as yet. If you have a proposal, please make it so that others can approve or reject it. Deb (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused how AB is having the last word when Levivich's data shows that's entirely inverted. I'm not saying I have the right answer, but it's a bit of a fallacy to exclude opinions that don't have a better plan. tedder (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Tedder, I was a bit confused by this as well. I actually feel like I walked away plenty of times because Graywalls had to have the last word. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My personal experience of you, User:Another Believer, is that you like to have the last word - and you've just proved it - and will hang on indefinitely in order to get your own way. User:Graywalls is a lot newer than you are so, although I'm not condoning his behaviour, it may be that he hasn't yet learned the lessons that you've had time to learn. Deb (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate Deb's efforts to make a proposal to bring some kind of resolution here, particularly where the proposal is for a voluntary break and not an imposed sanction. One thing we haven't yet discussed is the possibility of closing this with a warning? Leviv ich 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Plans for future problem avoidance

this dispute really shouldn't have occurred in the first place. I should have done away with the abrasive comments in talk and summaries. That, I will avoid in the future. As long as AB has been here, verifiability is something he should have been familiar with. When there's a doubt about something, the requirement that a reliable source directly verify the claim is non-negotiable. In this case, there's no source directly supporting when the business opened up and shouldn't have turned into an argument over keeping inferred information that is not directly supported. Regardless of how people feel at the talk page level, this is something that shouldn't be overridden according to WP:CONLEVEL. I think that when problems of this nature arrives, it should go by the policy; and if we have a disagreement over the interpretation, we should research the noticeboard archives and ask questions there if answer can not be found. I have generally been happy with 3-O comment system. So, maybe for the next three months, we can both stick to ONE RR in regards to reverting each other, directly or indirectly (by asking others if they would make specific changes) and make use of third opinion rather than ping specific individuals to weigh in.

As for AfDs, I don't believe it's improper that I nominate things around Oregon in categories and neighborhoods listing when I see what I believe to be run of the mill. After all, if AfD determines it's notable, it has no impact on the article. I can agree on not going back and forth in the AfD debate and would like, in return from AB to not add a list of trivial calendar events, reviews from local alternative weeklies and such as soon as they're nominated to make notability determination more time consuming than necessary. Waiting for AB to comment. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, like Deb's suggestion, that's punishing AB for Graywall's behavior. Most all users besides Graywalls have stated their behavior is either stalking or hounding, neither of which should be acceptable. Why punish AB for Graywalls obviously targeting them? That makes no sense, and would deter AB (and possibly other users) from reporting harassment in the future. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, thank you for acknowledging your inappropriate behavior at Talk:Hawks PDX. I don't feel a need to comment here further about a specific dispute. Nor will I apologize for expanding articles you've unnecessarily nominated for deletion. Again, you're distracting from a much larger problem. Even Deb has said this conversation has devolved into specific disputes we've already been over and over. This seems to be your M.O. -- distracting and rehashing the same things over and over. What a massive waste of time. I will say it again, I don't appreciate your hounding or going against consensus, or your unnecessary deletion nominations, which take a toll on the community. If you continue to act out of line, I will report you. I am disappointed this discussion has not been more fruitful, but oh well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What were you trying to accomplish by this complaint? I don't agree that my deletion nominations are unnecessary. I can commit to politeness and modify how I say things but I'm not willing to avoid area of my interest (Portland area/some art topics) simply because you have been to it before. I'm talking about the way you attempt to reach consensus and how you determine consensus has been reached whose MO hasn't been restricted to the specific examples. I believe 1RR is something we can give it a try for a while, say a month or two. If I see some hole in the wall place while looking in Portland categories, that's a legitimate reason to nominate for AfD without any consideration to who created it. I'm not going after something because you made them. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, You seem quite frustrated when I expand an article after your nomination deletion, which is a perfectly appropriate reaction to seeing an article about a notable topic flagged for deletion. You've also done a great job not owning up to your retaliatory behavior. Fellow editors, I am more than happy to address any of your questions or concerns, but I am no longer interested in communicating with Graywalls directly. This disruption has very much negatively impacted my editing experience the last couple months. I've made my concerns known, and I've made it very clear I'm willing report any and all shenanigans moving forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I was only frustrated with the addition of long list of routine happenings with event listings and calendars as citations that only occurred after the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: @Deb, Graywalls, and Kbabej: Sorry, I'm not sure what happened here exactly. I think an edit conflict. But User:Deb's comment to User:Kbabej was removed. Letting all involved know. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (iban)

No editor above (besides Graywalls themselves) believes Graywalls ins't stalking or harassing AB. The fact that GW can't see that, or chooses not to admit it, is problematic. Stalking/harassing should be taken seriously, as it can push good editors off WP. What I'm proposing is simple: An WP:IBAN for Graywalls on articles that Another Believer has created or edited. There are literally millions of articles on the English WP. As Deb stated to both AB and Graywalls, "[Graywalls] "You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." There's no reason GW needs to be harassing and hounding a particular editor and their work. Indeed, they already stated they have other interests in graffiti. I'm sure there's more to be interested in as well. Out of millions of articles, avoiding one particular editor shouldn't be difficult, especially for such a new editor. This could be an opportunity into broadening their horizons and focus on different parts of the project, rather than engaging one person over and over. --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly didn't say that. Action may be needed but I don't think it's practical to make that kind of blanket ban. He could easily breach it without being aware of it. Deb (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deb, Above you said, "I think this is a kind of stalking" as well as "I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion." Sorry, but what "certainly didn't you say"? I am confused. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deb, I'm confused then as well. You've stated twice Graywalls has been stalking, as AB has shown. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure Deb didn't mean the stalking/hounding part. Deb did NOT say "[Graywalls] may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." What Deb DID say was you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. which was directed at both Gray & AB in the context of a voluntary stepping away. Very, very different than how Kbabej was quoting it. TelosCricket (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, understood now. Very helpful, thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant to apply her quote to GW, not necessarily that she said that exactly. Didn't do that well, admittedly. My apologies. --Kbabej (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Updated above quote to not distract from the proposal. --Kbabej (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Deb (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No way. This would be reasonable if he wasn't so prolific, but considering how much breadth he has in the things of my local interest, it would essentially allow him to claim dominance by grandfathered stake. Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to agree to this, Graywalls. I'm asking other editors if they agree this is how we should proceed. You've shown an inability to recognize the harassment and stalking you've done, so I didn't expect you to agree to something that would force you to change your harassing behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This is getting to the heart of what I've noticed. It's also problematic to allow an editor to hound another when it involves taking many articles to AfD. tedder (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just came across this discussion. AB is a passionate editor about the Pacific Northwest. See meta:Cascadia for evidence. Any remedies that would tend to extinguish that passion, or throttle AB's contributions unnecessarily, would lessen Wikipedia IMO. The one-way IBAN (on Graywalls) sounds reasonable to me. He/she can find other things to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging editors who have contributed to this discussion. What are your thoughts on this proposal, @Rhododendrites, Guettarda, Tedder, Levivich, and Nosebagbear:? And @TelosCricket: (Please note I have not left anyone out intentionally. If I have missed an editor, please ping them, or let me know, and I will.) --Kbabej (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Kbabej, sorry, I'm confused because IBAN says the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages, and the proposal as written is for an IBAN on articles that Another Believer has created or edited, which sounds more like a TBAN? Leviv ich 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Levivich My understanding of IBAN was that a user could not "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." But yes, thank you for pointing out that I am effectively proposing a TBAN and IBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Leviich - it's both a TBAN and a 1-way IBAN, I'd say. I do actually feel Gray has something that this would be a staggeringly large TBAN. I feel it would need some limitations. Perhaps articles posted on by AB in the last month? This would be a nuisance, but far less so than cutting off such a large realm. The normal 1-way IBAN limitations would also apply (user talk page etc etc). Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For such a new editor, I don't think this would be "staggeringly large". There are millions of articles on WP, and most people have varied interests. Why should harassment and hounding be allowed to continue just because AB has focused on PDX articles? Graywalls has exhibited a pattern of behavior that is intentional, hostile, and targeted toward AB. Again, I view this as an opportunity for GW to actually focus on other areas and contribute in a positive way to the project instead of becoming focused on following one user around. --Kbabej (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think the main issue is the way Graywalls has been treating Another Believer over the past two months:

Behavioral quotes and diffs

Graywalls' first edits [77] are a few days in September, a day in November, and a few days in January and February, almost exclusively to Mook (graffiti artist). Then in March they bump into AB at homelessness-in-Portland-related articles. They start removing content, merging articles, applying CSD tags, and nominating articles for deletion. On March 11, they're not yet extended confirmed, but make this comment on AB's talk page: When many of your articles have the same fundamental issue (lack of basic notability and obvious promotional intent hinted by tone, and participation by the businesses by the means of direct editing), I'd be wasting other editors' time to list them for deletion consensus building. So if you aren't ignorant of notability guidelines, you're gaming the system by trying to increase the work load as a deterrent to deletion. Again on March 13, they refer to AB as an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. How does a non-EC editor know about AB's "track record" after essentially editing in this area for a couple of weeks, when AB has 300,000 edits and almost 5,000 articles created? The other comments there, An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. and With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles., suggest a battleground mentality against an editor they just met. On March 30, GW suggests AB uses A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. (The whole talk page is worth reading.) And in this AfD: Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern. On April 1: At the request of the creator, who has been serially spawning articles of this nature... and again: You've been editing long enough and know better than that. April 2: You're plastering on things that are of anything remotely LGBT, including clearly non-notable organization. and again: Then stop creating poor quality articles in the first place and work on fewer and higher quality ones. Accusation of canvassing on April 4. On April 4, Tedder posted a note on GW's talk page cataloguing behavioral issues, which are different from (and worse than) those I just posted above. It's worth reading. GW wrote in this ANI I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. and I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. However, after Tedder's April 4 post... On April 9, another COI suggestion: @Another Believer:, you presented yourself as something along the line of editing expert. I'm looking through the edit history in this article and I see highly obvious self-editing flew right past you. With your level of experience, I would like to ask why you let it fly without saying a thing. On April 11: What a coincidence that those "better ones" you're referencing are taken by you, thus repeating my concern about your grandiose attitude towards others.The article doesn't exist to appease to aesthetics senses of Another Believer. First and foremost is the encyclopedic value. Secondary is the subjective quality. Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of your composition. Graywalls nominated No Vacancy Lounge for deletion. It was unanimously kept. During the AfD, AB expanded the article and added sources–basically a standard rescue. GW took exception to this. The AfD closed on April 13. The same day, Graywalls posts a 3PO request, in which he complained that additional sources were added and suggested rolling it back to the point prior to AfD nomination and working from there. That is, after nominating an article for deletion, and having it rescued, he suggested rolling it back to pre-rescue form–the state it was in when they nominated it for deletion. (To their credit, this part of the request was removed by GW in a subsequent edit.) On April 14, in response to AB saying they've expanded the article to add more sources, Those are things that should have been done prior to the article even being created, are they not? which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the article creation process (and suggests no WP:BEFORE searches are being done, and nominations are being made based on the state of the article rather than the state of available sourcing) On April 17, refers to AB's comments ...as manipulative, coercive and threatening that is trying to intimidate me into succumb to his way.... In addition to the above, see these entire threads: Talk:Hawks PDX#Business registration/business establishment month and year, WT:WikiProject Oregon#Calling other Portland city center experts, and Talk:Street Roots#Tag. The last one is from a few days ago. Finally, in this ANI, GW has continued to accuse AB of wrongdoing and called for AB to be punished in a number of ways: perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements. Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area;... Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue...This too is possible UDPE. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side.

• Per the above, I support a one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. My concern about a TBAN from Portland is that it misses the target, because I think Portland is just a proxy for AB. I'm not sure that it's necessary over and above an IBAN. Leviv ich 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you are implying that you don't believe Graywalls is a new user, I feel you should come right out and say it. Deb (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• No I’m not implying that at all, and it wouldn’t matter if they were or weren’t anyway. I’m saying GW has been harassing the first editor they had a content dispute with. It would make more sense if these statements I quoted came after years of disagreement, but GW went from zero to nuclear in no time, and kept it up even after a talk page warning, even during this ANI. Hence why I think an IBAN is appropriate. Leviv ich 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually G11'd Elephant's Delicatessen; because it looked very promotional; and there was a tell tale sign of significant editing by the business. I was shocked at the chain reaction that took on. Some have been saying how I continue to bring this incident back. When someone directly says " If you're not willing to help, I will find another admin who is willing to restore the page." While AB says I continue to "bring back" the past, the big picture is that a comment like this comes across as he'll just shop around until he gets his way. Is this interpretation unreasonable?

"Please stop. I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above." This is the instance which I was referencing when I said coercive and manipulative; because his statement comes across as ""accept my proposal.. else if...".

I do find his remarks, edit comments etc dismissive. I've shared that concern with him. And I am digging around for this discussion and it seems like I'm not the only one made to feel that way with his demeanor. this. This to me looks like the same back-n-forth that has been wearing me out, and possibly what Deb at one point describes as "haranguing".

this chattering says others are also finding his stubby articles a point of concern. And nominating those things for deletion because I actually believe something don't have notability isn't going after the PERSON who is making them.

and another back and forth

Obviously, interactions can not happen between us if one of us wasn't around. These interactions suggest AB has a confrontational tendencies with others who do not agree with his way. It's a mischaracterization to say I'm "treating him poorly" just because.

Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I support a 1way IBAN, 3 months seems appropriate. Again, IBAN covers the problematic behavior well, as it includes (preventing) deleting content and AfDs. Lev, I appreciate the work you've done reviewing behavior (again), as it shows a clear pattern. tedder (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutral - I won't argue against it, but I do believe there is fault on both sides and both editors have shown intransigency in getting us to this situation. Deb (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated response to request for opinion. I have to concur that I've found User:Graywalls problematic. It appeared to me that many of their edits ought have gone through TALK first, and that being dictatorial and argumentative, rather than collaborative, seemed the heart of the tension, both in my experience, and around other edits of theirs that I looked through in order to assess. AHampton (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

AHampton, I certainly felt harassed when you reverted your comments back onto my page in violation of policy on restoration after I acknowledged your message and left you message on your page to express my willingness to continue on the article concerns on the article's talk page. I felt further harassed when you demanded that I restore your content and threatened else if you're going to file a frivolous complaint here and you did not followup to say this was a misunderstanding, therefore it's assumed that you're maintaining your position. Graywalls (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is why it took me so long to weigh in. To quote another editor (above): you were as "snarky and rude" then as now. What do you think your TALK pg is for? I had intended, in fact, to be polite by addressing you individually, not on an article's TALK page, and because you were the main issue, so that was the place for the notes. Maybe you can't recognize polite, though. As has been stated (above): "Can you commit to being polite?" Can you? I'd say all of your issues here are a direct result of not behaving collaboratively, or even with respect to other editors.

FYI: As for restoring what you so hastily deleted from your TALK page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&diff=890679380&oldid=887367796I) — Unfortunately, I had been led astray about that policy by another editor, long ago, or I would not have... Quote: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages, especially in talk pages of other editors, and even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no." -Mardus 03:40, 26 September 2017, when all I did then was add another sentence to my own post, because I had forgotten to answer part of their question. (Maybe they'll turn up here and handily spout some other policy about that.) I didn't bother mentioning it then, because attempting to reason with you was a clear waste of time. Immediately deleting a polite note on your TALK page belies your aim at the time. AHampton (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In principle, what I wrote, still applies.

The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk.

• If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again.
• If it's something that another editor wrote that you disagree with, then you do not modify their text, and you will add your own disagreement.
• If it's your own text, and you want to fix punctuation, spelling, or grammar mistakes without changing the spirit of what you wrote, then you can do that. But in this case, us the <strike></strike> tags — like this — to show which parts of text you are no longer in agreement with — without removing what was entered before.
• But you should not delete what you wrote.
• Archival is quite another matter.
• If it's someone else's text that unsigned, then I think there is a bot or a template to append to that other person's text, that "this unsigned comment was added by (typically an IP address) at this time on this date."
• There may be some instances, where inexperienced editors might break formatting by mistake, in which case it's permissible to fix formatting or code. Most of the time, it involves indentation.

-Mardus /talk 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Idea", indeed. Despite what appears to be your decree of opinion, which is not here supported by any accompanying policy; Mr. Graywalls here had been quick to counter with actual WP policy, when I claimed that TALK should not be modified, per you. Incidentally, "The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk" never occurred and the only line from your text above that applies is "If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again." The rest is a grandstand. Is that your opinion, or policy? Your "idea" also runs contrary to the policy that I was told by an Admin who had deleted their own ill-advised comment in another discussion, at the suggestion of another editor. (Twice burnt, as it happened.) Since you answered so fully, yet without any policy to back up your opinion, and I have taken us off-topic due to a need to answer to Graywalls' "harrassed" statement, subsequent to my ascribing to your apparently unfounded admonishment of 2017; I will take this discussion to my own TALK page, reprint it there, and we can carry on, Mardus, aside from this discussion.)

Except do not use <strike>...</strike>; that hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s. The element is <s>...</s>: like this. Ping Mardus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

With that listicle, I did not reply to you, User:SMcCandlish. My current list very much expands from a short one-sentence "no-no" that I'd written before, and which was referenced in this Talk. You can consider it an evolution, if you so wish.

And now to «"idea"», which is called policy. Changing someone else's text in Talk is generously called 'disruptive editing'. And with regard to Talk, there's an entire section about behaviour that is totally unacceptable, which does indeed support my arguments that support my earlier statement, that Talk entries should not be modified. That section is clear, concise, and unambiguous. Exceptions are also listed, and they are not in conflict with what I wrote above.

An administrator can delete their own text, and that is because they are an administrator. Even if some might brand that as 'reaching' on that administrator's part, then most likely, the text was possibly prohibitive material, maybe a harmful post, or perhaps off-topic.

<strike></strike> still works, and there is no reason to only use <s></s>, as <strike></strike> is descriptive, and therefore very easy to understand in article source code. As is <del></del> -Mardus /talk 06:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I know neither what "listicle" means nor what most of what you've just posted refers to. I was making a technical point. It is not correct that that "there is no reason to only use <s>...</s>". See Help:HTML in wikitext, WP:LINT, WP:HTML 5, WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia, mw:Parsing/Replacing_Tidy/FAQ, meta:User:SMcCandlish/lint.css, WP:WPCleaner, etc. Every time you use invalid HTML on this and related sites, you are impeding our migration to full HTML 5 compliance, and creating work that other editors will have to repair eventually. (You're also wasting your own time, albeit a tiny bit at a time, since <s>...</s> is much shorter.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – I've noticed that over this past week, both editors have continued to edit productively, even in the same topic area, without "bumping into" each other, which is very encouraging. Waters seem to have calmed. Leviv ich 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, They've been editing more pages not on my watchlist, which has made my editing experience more enjoyable. I am still concerned about some of their recent contributions, but I am actively avoiding them and waiting for this discussion to close before I revisit some of the articles where we've disagreed in the past. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt Another Believer and I massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. I don't disagree that there has been mutual poking and jabbing here and there. After seeing how quickly AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. Things he sees as a major deal aren't necessarily a big deal to me and on the flip side, he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence. I don't believe my allegation of canvassing was evidence less, because Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Bit_House_Saloon. [[78]] and pinging others in this manner on the page itself is not a neutral way of involving others into editorial dispute. I don't think those discussions that clearly infer to me was presented in a neutral manner. Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, do you really think you are making your case by implying AB is a paid editor and then saying "I shouldn't accuse without evidence"? tedder (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I've shared my opinion back in March that I believed he's a PR professional after I've read the discussion here, but at the time, I wasn't aware sharing such opinion is discouraged so I retracted that opinion. I just provided explanation on how I felt he was shopping around for input non-neutrally. The comment you replied to wasn't stating or implying he's a paid editor. It was describing our editorial opinion differences which isn't saying, implying and isn't intended to be construed as implying he's a Paid-editor. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Support a 3-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. Evidence from Levivich is too much to ignore on stalking. starship.paint ~ KO 12:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support a 6-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. After reading everything discussed above, as well as coming across this diff where the first three letters in the word "Assuming" were capitalised, probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling.—NØ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  First of all, dogs cannot whistle. Second of all, I'd like to see even the slightest evidence that there's such a thing as a homophobic dog. An extraordinary idea, when you think about it. EEng 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment FWIW, I don't see homophobic overtones there, but rather a reference to assume in the context of "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me." In other words, that it's a bad assumption. No position on the rest of the debate, just thought I'd mention that. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • (ec):(Non-administrator comment) A wee off topic, but I feel it prudent to point out that the "ASSuming" was unlikely to be "homophobic dog-whistling". There is a saying that when one assumes, it makes an ASS out of U (you) and ME. Graywalls was probably referencing that saying. Still, calling another editor an ass isn't civil or the best way to be collaborative (imo). TelosCricket (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • simply addressing MaranoFan's remark " probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling" is incorrect and a baseless and uncalled for personal attack of accusation of making a bias comment. Graywalls (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Struck that part, my assumption (no pun intended) was because of the article being about a gay bathhouse. That said, I stand by my assessment of supporting a 6 month, one-way IBAN as I originally stated. I cannot in good conscience support calling other users an "ass", or whatever explanation you’re going to give next for using the word. Secondly, at least some of the AB articles you nominated for deletion (I’ve weighed in on No Vacancy Lounge) clearly had enough reliable sourcing to not be deleted.—NØ 07:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A digression about uncivil accusations like "dog-whistling" and "homophobic"

Having been through a recent censorious, pseudo-progressive, faux-liberal witchhunt (and a witness to another one a week later), I'm going to say this loud and clear – as an actual progressive and a classical liberal, not any kind of conservative: Any time you use the terms homophobic (or anything-else-phobic) or dogwhistle toward another editor here you are making a mistake. You are very definitely breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS, and it's very likely you're actually crossing the WP:NPA line. I'd be entirely supportive of editors who engage in this hyper-politicized fingerpointing being ANIed themselves, for topic-bans from whatever it is that triggers them to turn character-assassinating ad hominem and argument to emotion weapons against their fellow editors. None of us are fucking mind-readers. You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be (absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever), and none of us are in a position to make judgmental assumptions about such matters. This has been getting worse and worse over about the last three years, and it has to stop. It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors who don't seem to understand what WP:NOT#ADVOACY, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#FORUM, and WP:NOT#SOCIAL say and mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I just wrote what I interpreted. Clarification was given and I struck my comment, providing other reasons to sustain my vote for an IBAN. It’s not that deep. Please move on.—NØ 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I'm making a general point about politicized accusations of this sort, not one about you in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC) You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be. . . It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors Hmm. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Let's not employ an elementary-school level of logic, please. I wrote "absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever" for a reason. We have that kind of forthright statement when editors wear their political hearts on their sleeves with a bunch of a userboxes, or devote inordinate amounts of their editorial time to bashing other editors for "political incorrectness", in the same extremist activism language, over and over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC) There was some elementary (il)logic at play there, but it wasn't coming from me. Nice to collapse something you started, too. Grandpallama (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Comment Re: None of us are fucking mind-readers. You, I, and the next person have no idea what someone other editor's personal views on various socio-political issues might be (absent some kind of forthright statement on their user page or whatever), and none of us are in a position to make judgmental assumptions about such matters. This has been getting worse and worse over about the last three years, and it has to stop. It's almost entirely coming from far-left, activistic editors ... While I understand that this reflects what you experienced as a recent censorious, pseudo-progressive, faux-liberal witchhunt, but I would point out that the community CONSENSUS has not really interpreted this incident in the same way. Also, in spite of the above, what was at stake in that particular issue was not "mind reading". As WP:CIVIL wisely enjoins us to ask, "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?". Expecting contributors to take this principle into account is by no means to expect "mind-reading". Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Don't rewrite MfD history. The one on The Signpost piece concluded that the community had an editorial interest in suppressing to an extent (short of deletion) an essay some people did not like in The Signpost, as the community's own e-newspaper (i.e., a collective statement of the community). The MfD on the exact same material in its original userspace location concluded the opposite. In both MfDs, and in several other venues, various initial finger-pointers felt compelled to retract their uncivil accusations (particularly given that their interpretation of the meaning and intent of the piece was clearly and demonstrably incorrect). Zero of these discussions (MfDs, ANI, RfArb, another on meta) resulted in a consensus for censure toward me or any Signpost editor, despite loud activistic calls for it from one side of the debate. Nor was the other side weakly represented; it would take a long time to count up the number of editors who raised serious concerns about censorship and politically motivated harassment. Way more to the point, however: Your quoted "How would I feel ..." material applies, obviously, to exactly the kinds of nasty, politicized character-assassination crap I'm addressing above; the underlying principle is the very reason I posted what I did here. It cannot be magically okay, just because the attacker happens to be in your political camp, for someone to objectively be a flaming asshat to another editor for political reasons, yet for opinions you don't like to suddenly be considered a problem just because you and your buddies subjectively take offense at your own straw man construction of what it might have meant. See WP:KETTLE (also relevant are WP:YDOW and various other pages). Being an asshat to other editors is always a problem. The fact that the community has been lax (due to WP:BIAS issues – WP's dominant demographics are well-studied and independently documented) in enforcing this principle against leftists who attack right-wingers or (increasingly often) centrists and other leftists who have a doctrinal divergence from the aggressors – is a serious meta-problem that we have to wrestle with, sooner rather than later. It's ironic to me that I get way more flack from other alleged progressives (really censorious and thought-policing ones – an attitude neither progressive nor liberal under any sensible definition) for calling them on their bullshit, than I would ever get if I were a conservative offering a conservative response. No one is savaged more by elements in the left than someone who agrees with most of their ideas but "fails" to parrot every word of those elements' preferred doctrine. It's why the left is so weak so much of the time; it's like a wolf pack that hunts its own offspring instead of going after rabbits and deer. If you wonder how Trump and Brexit could happen, within living memory of the fascist debacle of the mid-20th c., there's your answer. The right don't do this; when they want a socio-political result, they focus hard on the values they have in common, and set their differences aside as something to maybe argue about later. The world is not going to change much until the left learns to do this. Back to WP: if WP doesn't learn to restrain instead of condone this behavior, its balance and credibility are going to continue to erode, both though editor attrition and the skew in encyclopedic content that will necessarily result from that attrition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• A one-way i-ban does appear warranted. Despite protestations, this would not bar Graywalls from editing within their preferred topic area, or even at the same articles as Another Believer, just the one should not revert the other or engage with that editor on the talk pages, since it seems to lead nowhere constructive. If this ended up being gamed, which seems unlikely, then a two-way i-ban would be appropriate, but the editor being hounded shouldn't be subject to an i-ban; that's a "blame the victim" scenario. PS: Compare their back-to-back statements above for the major attitudinal difference; one is what we expect and hope to see, one reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR:
  AB: "I am still concerned about some of their recent contributions, but I am actively avoiding them and waiting for this discussion to close before I revisit some of the articles where we've disagreed in the past."
  CW: "[We] massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. ... AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. ... he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence." (But did it anyway. It's like "Yeah, I know I shouldn't be trying to rob this liquor store right in front of a bunch of cops." See also Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 05:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  and he's already started pushing forward with his own "path forward" on No Vacancy Lounge. Basically, a 1 way would result in "editing under consent of Another Believer" situation where I can not revert him, but he can revert me. I think TWO way would be fair. ONE way would be reasonable if the complainant was a model editor within the scope of the conflict we've been having but I believe he's far from it. Graywalls (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Addressing this in a combined reply to your much longer post, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

New response by Graywalls, and comments thereon

Making a non-arbitrary break here, as this is really long and doesn't relate in much of its content to the "Proposal (iban)" subthread into which it was injected, but is mostly counter-accusation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

commenting on SMcCandlish, presumption here seems to be that the complainant is being single sidedly harassed. Regarding civility, there has been comments that the complainant played significant role in provocation. On the matter of civility, I realize I need to maintain it and at the same time, the complainant, in my opinion is just as culpable on this.

Civility: ridiculing comment/edit comments

• "like pulling a tooth here" which happened after I justified my edit to verifiability requirements and I take it as a snarky jab directed at me.
• facepalm dismissive/riduculing
• trolled dismissive.

Editorial:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snatch_Game_(2nd_nomination) canvassing concerns about the complainant surfaced from another editor.
• [[79]] On an article in which we feuded and there was a 3PO request which was deterred away due to this ANI has been pushed forward by the complainant to the way he wants it, including the insertion of factually incorrect statement like "in downtown Portland's Old Town Chinatown neighborhood." which isn't directly supportable by the source. Many of our editorial disputes are over different interpretation of what sources say.

"hound".. outside of Portland area where I feel HOUNDED by Another Believer.

• I said something on talk [80]and hours later [81] Another Believer is editing on article space.

The complainant asserted at some point he's tired of having my edits "pop up" on his watch list. Given the fact complainants have a large number of items on his watch list on articles he has touched at some point in the past, when other editors start working on a number of articles in an overlapping area, it's expected that such pop-up will happen, but his argument is that I am targeting him. Usually, we become involved in talk as a result of the complainant objecting to contents and editorial matters, reverting me and insisting that I take it to "talk". I'm made to feel like he's implying I need to seek "his permission" to work on certain things. Per the description in WP:WIKIHOUND, I am the one who feels getting hounded by the complainant in some situations. For example, this one, First Unitarian Church of Portland. I edited there, because I felt it is relevant to another article I was editing. The complainant came rushing immediately and objected to my edit, as he's done to many of my edits. I'm made to feel like he's exhibiting ownership to articles and lording over them in such a way I feel uncomfortable I'm consistently getting objected/reverted within a short time frame from the same editor, the complainant in this ANI. Here's an example of how the complainant acted when he did not get his way, and remarked how he was getting "trolled" which was remarked at someone else.

• I edit, about 5 months after a COI edit here AB decides to get involved less than a month later and I feel followed.

This diff is yet another example of the complainant reverting my edit on his subjective values, which seems to be favoring of creating more and more articles, while mine favors not creating a whole bunch of stubs. This is my own impression at this discussion as well as my interaction with him Talk:Bud_Clark#Bud_Clark_Commons. I feel this revert was imposing of his values on me. This is how I perceived he was implying this is my article, go make your own, going back to WP:OWN. I realize I wasn't a model editor, but the complainant's own behaviors certain exacerbated the matter. In evaluating this dispute his civility and tendentiousness of how he approaches editorial and contents dispute shouldn't be ignored. I'm editing some of these articles, because they're in my area of interest. What does the spirit of our policy say when the SAME editor, the complainant Another Believer comes rushing after, usually within hours and days of my edit to revert and demand discussing in talk first or to complain? Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And additional concern when I can't even participate in AfD discussion without having Another Believer following me around and making unnecessary remarks and continuing with his tendentious editing like thisGraywalls (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Are you seriously accusing me of following you around when you cast a delete vote with no assessment of secondary coverage on an article I created? Give me a break. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• GW is assuming that I'm presuming. I am not; I've reviewed the material and the discussions of it, and am agreeing with several others here that this is a unidirectional problem. I also said nothing about "harassed". I don't think this actually does quite rise to WP:HARASS levels; it seems more like a mixture of a WP:TE and WP:DAPE, with a dollop of WP:SPA on top. A two-way i-ban is not needed; if AB engaged in a demonstrable pattern of going around reverting GW, without clearly defensible cause on a case-by-case basis (or even having such defenses but doing it with enough single-mindedness as to be a WP:HOUNDING problem), that would be WP:GAMING the system for WP:WIN / WP:OWN purposes, and would itself be actionable grounds for a topic ban. I think AB is both smarter and more good-faith than that. Just the fact that GW is couching all of this in terms that smack of WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND, instead of in terms of dispute reduction/resolution and improving the encyclopedia, is itself evidence of a WP:CIR problem. I would take GW's concerns more seriously if there were clear evidence of AB pushing a personal viewpoint, injecting original research, falsifying sources, engaging in personal attacks, or otherwise acting either with bad faith or gross negligence – doing nonproductive or harmful things to the encyclopedic content or the community – but there isn't.

  To address some specific new GW points: AB responding, very concisely, to GW's enormous fountain of invective is not "following [GW] around and making unnecessary remarks and continuing with [GW's] tendentious editing". It's not hounding, and not tendentiousness, but entirely defensible and normal (even quite restrained) response to a whole pile of verbal abuse. As for diffs of GW's posts: "like pulling a tooth" is not uncivil; "facepalm" is not uncivil (we all have a right to describe our own reactions to things); asking other editors "Am I being trolled? Am I being unreasonable?", in expressing confusion and concern about another editor's very pointed interactions with oneself in particular is not uncivil. Moving on: re "I said something on talk and hours later Another Believer is editing on article space" – The sole purpose of the talk page for a WP article is to engage editorial attention to improving that article. GW complained earlier at great length that it wasn't reasonable for us to suppose that interactions of GW toward AB were any kind of unconstructive pattern, but just an innocent and harmless coincidence because they're both interested in the same topic area; it is thus farcically hypocritical for GW to claim "I feel followed" because AB edited the same article GW did within the same month. This is just getting ridiculous, wandering into an "all is well when I do it, but it's a crime if someone else does" fantasy land.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

• I strongly suggest that this be closed with a one-way GW→AB i-ban, quickly, before GW digs their own hole so deep that stronger remedies are required. Normally at this point I would recommend a topic ban, but GW has made it clear that they'll simply have no interest in participating at all if they can't edit Oregon topics, so try the lesser remedy first.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Agree. Let's come to a consensus. It's certainly not unanimous but it's fairly easy to see that there is a consensus being formed up above towards a 3-6 month IBAN. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it's clear there is problematic behavior and it's mostly in one direction. GW appears to be a skilled editor with strong opinions. Hopefully they can put their powers to good. For that reason I recommend a 3 month IBAN, then we can revisit if there are problems.

  I feel there's been enough discussion here to show good faith towards GW. If there wasn't a recognition of this it'd be easier to simply throw warning templates up and not deal with this, but... let's go build a wiki.

  Finally, GW (and AB to a much lesser extent), please don't reply and rebut in this section. It's a bit of a retcon but I'm trying to help draw this to a consensus, not litigate further. tedder (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  I second the request for silence from both central parties in the matter, per WP:BLUDGEON. The purpose of this forum is community input/review and eventual administrative decision, not furtherance of two-party bickering. If an idea, e.g. 1-way i-ban, is too much or too weak, others (without a vested interest in the outcome) will say so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations

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

---

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

User:Snooganssnoogans has a regular pattern of violating copyright on en.wp. I've added the most recent example uncovered first:

• On 26 October 2017 they plagiarized the BBC (here). After I removed the long-standing copyvio here on 18 April 2019; they restored a close paraphrase without in-text attribution in the subsequent edit, without any acknowledgment of the WP:COPYVIO.

• On 26 October 2016 they plagiarized the Daily Beast (here). This was drawn to their attention on the talk page here. Their reaction was typically aggressive.

• On 30 December 2018, they misattributed copyrighted text written by Harry McGrath to Elizabeth Teague ([82]) and reacted aggressively when I corrected their mistake.

Civility has been a chronic problem for Snooganssnoogans. Despite being blocked for WP:CIV by EdJohnston in 2016, their behavior has not improved. POV has also been a recurrent problem. On May 24, 2017 they were banned from making mass edits to en.wp entries at AE. This despite support from a number of like-minded editors, including a sockpuppet of Cirt (Sagecandor). (AE case)

• On 21 April 2018 they attacked other editors (1, 2) who sought to have their biased content removed. The RFC was unanimous § in rejecting their contribution as written.

• On 21 April 2019 they removed my attempt at getting them to reflect on their repeated violations of copyright law, calling this request that they follow WP policy "unhinged rambling" ([83]). A look at the history of their TP edit summaries show that they routinely engage in name-calling against editors who attempt to rein in their abusive behaviour. Snooganssnoogans will need to provide evidence that they've asked me to stay off their talk page, I have no such recollection of them doing so, but will do so now that they have asked (I believe) for the first time.

I believe that Snoogans should be indefinitely blocked for the copyright violations and civility infractions, though as soon as they recognize the problem with their behavior in an unblock request I would see no problem with their being welcomed back as long as they promise to follow WP policy. The block I am requesting is preventative, as they have shown no awareness that civility and copyright issues are taken seriously on en.wp.

Of course, perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps WP:CIV and WP:COPYVIO are not core policies. This request will help determine that. Thank you for your attention to these matters. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing a real copyvio problem here. Those of us that know Snooganssnoogans are aware he adds quotes from daily news stories on American political articles. It does seem very lazy to add quotes instead of paraphrasing however in Snooganssnoogans defence over the years they have run into problems with their interpretation of sources especially because of the nature of the topics and news sources used...thus the eventuality of just quoting has come to the for front. As for civility...its an ongoing problem with many editors and theses examples above are not outrageous in my view...more of a sign of frustration. --Moxy 🍁 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, civility is a big issue for snooganssnoogans, and has been for years, although no one seems willing to do anything about it. Natureium (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

After having the pleasure of discussing quotefarms with Snoog at Talk:2018 United States elections, I gave up and left the topic area. Leviv ich 18:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As for the purported copyvios: the first example (one sentence sourced to BBC – with the BBC as a cited ref) is just a case of close paraphrasing in one sentence, which can happen when one reads a source and seeks to summarize its contents. The second example (one sentence sourced to the Daily Beast - with the DB as a cited ref) is a clear copyvio, and I do not exactly remember the circumstances behind that 2.5 yr old edit - the text should of course be fixed and has been fixed. The third example is just an accident where one link was copied into the cite-ref generator rather than another (something I’m sure every prolific editor has done). After almost three years of stalking my edits (note that I’ve added a lot of content during that time[84]), this is the sum of what SashiRolls comes up with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Context for what's going on here: In September 2016, SashiRolls (SR) got topic-banned from the Jill Stein article for trying to add a bunch of fringe nonsense to the article and for being abrasive on the talk page.[85][86] At that point, SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article,[87] an admin, Neutrality, explicitly stated in Nov 2016 that SashiRolls's "edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project."[88] Another admin, Tryptofish, called SR out for vandalizing my talk page during this harassment episode.[89] During this harassment, I told SR to “stop following me around and leaving crazed comments on my talk page. Leave me alone, you sociopath.” [90] At that point, half of my talk page was full of SR’s rambling commentary and threats, and SR was stalking me across Wikipedia articles. However, because I personally insulted SR over his stalking, I was blocked for 48 hrs by EdJohnston. This is not an excuse for the civility violation (which I’ve already served my punishment for), but I was clearly provoked at the time (I was also very green as a Wikipedia editor and unaware of appropriate procedures to resolve that kind of situation). A month later, SR was banned for something unrelated.[91] However, the creepy harassment did not end there. SR continued following my edits, obsessively analyzing them and complaining about them on off-Wiki forums. On Wikipediocracy alone, Google shows 84 results for “snoog”[92] and 46 results for “snooganssnoogans”[93]. The overwhelming majority of these references are made by SR, and this does not count references on other off-wiki forums and other iterations of my username by SR. At some point, admins decided to allow SR to edit Wikipedia again. Of course, the tendentious editing resumed when SR came back. On the Tulsi Gabbard article, SR decided to block any and all changes made by me, and refused to explain why.[94] (Note that the Tulsi Gabbard is another page that SR stalked me to in 2016 only to indiscriminately revert me - this is his first edit there[95]) SR was informed by the admin Awilley that this was not an appropriate way to edit. When SR could not simply block things without explanations, SR instead filibustered changes to the article by filling the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior was erratic, as SR accused me and MrX of tag-teaming,[96] posted weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[97][98] and requested that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[99]. When SR was allowed to edit again[100], multiple admins and editors expressed the sentiment that this editor would be up to trouble again in no time, and that he’d be kept on a short leash. I think I’ve documented a long-standing harassment campaign that has culminated in this spurious request to have me banned over a copyvio of one sentence in 2016 and for telling SR to stay off my talk page (SR inaccurately suggests that I've never instructed him to stay off my talk page before). Would it be possible for an admin to please tell this editor to leave me alone and refrain from mentioning me again? It's been almost three years of this creepy harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It would not be inaccurate to say that Snoogans' biased writing on Ajamu Baraka was why I became an active editor in 2016. It would be inaccurate to say that I "stalk" them. I avoid them, except when they edit topics that interest me (generally anti-war politicians is where our interests intersect). As for the copyvio:

BBC text: Wikileaks itself fuelled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward for the capture of Mr Rich's killer and hinting that he may have been the source of the emails. (source: §)

Snoogans' text: WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails.

it is worth noting that the $20,000 is not in the source, which means that strictly speaking the source should not be used for what was added to mask the copyvio. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is 100% indisputable that SR stalked me here[101] (never mind all the other instances I cited). It was so brazen and blatant that an admin chastised him for it and explicitly characterized it as harassment.[102] That SR is lying about something so blatant and easily disprovable should put everything else in context (and is also a good illustration of what I put up with). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That content from a non-BBC source is also in there undermines your case that text is just being plagiarized verbatim and supports my claim that the text was written from memory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm... that was over two and half years ago. I did in fact see that edit in your list of contributions two or three months after I became an active editor. I was correct to try to get you to fix the grammar (singular verb / plural subject). Since you would not, I deleted it because I did not have access to the source to determine whether what you wrote was true or not: all that was obvious was that it was ungrammatical. You mentioned Tulsi Gabbard above. Those interested should feel free to look at your biased editing on that page. However, I don't want to distract from the straightforward copyvio problem documented in this thread... '27 of 33 identical words would seem to me to be a copyright violation. Perhaps it would be good for someone to lay down the law about this. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The language used in the BBC is identical to language used in many of the sources. The particular grouping and order of the language does appear to be copied from the BBC, but considering how much the same language is repeated in other sources I feel like this is being blown out of proportion. I am not familiar with the copyright policy though. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've been trying to stay away from wiki-conflict lately, but having been pinged, I feel that I should comment briefly. Please note that I am not an admin (nor do I play one on TV). I'm unfamiliar with what's going on at the pages in question. I've had positive interactions with Snooganssnoogans in the past, although I also realize that recent US politics (a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions) is a contentious editing area. As for civility, when I said this a few weeks ago: [103] (in the GMO DS topic area), SashiRolls responded with this: [104]. Maybe I should have come here complaining that "civility has been a chronic problem" for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trypto, you never did explain to me why you thought this quote was a useful addition to Jill Stein's BLP Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek. (source: §) I found that quite peculiar at the time. Still do, actually. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Since it has become a theme here, that diff is from about three years ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a WP:BATTLE by User:SashiRolls. I would suggest to close it without action or WP:BOOMERANG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls is going to eventually either get Snooganssnoogans banned or otherwise drive them off the encyclopedia, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Even banning SashiRolls didn’t help - they’ll just keep getting themselves unbanned. We have two options here: we can get rid of Snooganssnoogans and the problem goes away, or we can ignore it and let the harassment reach its natural conclusion. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, had Snoog been willing to accept that there was a problem we wouldn't be here. Following WP:COPYVIO policy I posted first on their talk page and had no intention of escalating until they were dismissive and insulting. I assumed they would say something logical and conciliatory after being caught red-handed. The next step listed at WP:COPYVIO for dealing with violators is ANI. I believe I have followed procedure to the letter: If a contributor has already been clearly warned of copyright infringement but carried on, you may want to seek advice from an administrator familiar with copyright policies or report it for administrator attention at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. You may also want to open a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. They were warned in 2016 on the page of an anti-war politician. They have continued (who knows how much, I've looked at less than 0.01% of their edits). Still, I gave them an extra chance. They chose not to take it. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, but ... did you really just start a thread on a user with 20,000 edits claiming that they have " a regular pattern of violating copyright" and then provide three examples in the last two and a half years? I think the phrase we reach for here is "you're going to have to do better than that". Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I did. 3 violations of copyright law that I have seen in a sample of perhaps 150 edits to mainspace that I've studied carefully enough to compare with sources is a 2% copyvio rate. I have been encouraged not to investigate further because that would be considered "stalking". That's convenient. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If you investigated further and actually made a case for something you posted at ANI I'm pretty sure no-one would complain about it. As it is, it just reads like "here's something I lazily threw together about an editor that I don't get along with". Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, in the last few months I've improved 4 articles to the point where they were included on the front page of Wikipedia with me as the #1 editor (François Rabelais, 2018-2019 Sudanese protests, 2019 Algerian protests, & Yellow vests movement). On none of those pages have I engaged in copyright violation. Many of these pages involved reading sources in several languages. One of the pages should not have appeared on the main page (Rabelais) because it was based on an erroneous death date. I have dug into archives (well, ok, just went to the library ^^) to verify that information for en.wp. Please watch who you are calling lazy: it seems to me it should be reserved for the person who doesn't bother to rewrite what they read. As Rabelais says (in all caps): DO WHAT YOU WANT. I'm done here. If others want to dig into the Snoog's edit, I'm pretty sure they will find more of the same. However, I have been quite clearly told not to go out of my way to investigate the power-users after having been blocked for exposing the Cirt / Sagecandor affair, which I recall you getting involved in. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the good work you do here, and I'm not calling you lazy; I'm saying this is a lazy report, because it is. If you're going to make a case for a sanction against another user, you need to make sure it's pretty watertight, and asking for a copyvio sanction against someone and providing 3 diffs in 30 months is definitely not that. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment/Boomerang: I don't really know either of the two editors here, aside from just seeing them around. But reviewing this thread and the diffs, I think a boomerang may be order. This is sort of ridiculous. A "2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors.

This is either obsessive frivolity, or some sort of retaliatory effort. And Sashi Rolls, your sarcastic comments about admins (presumably) warning you not to Wikistalk the reported user are not helpful. Just stick to the facts. The current examples you provided are not suitable for any sort of administrative action, as far as I can see. This is a statistically normal result, especially when quoting sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors. It definitely should be. I would say a 0% copyright violation rate is all that's acceptable for veteran editors. Natureium (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Further on boomerang: It's worth keeping in mind that SashiRolls was previously indeffed as an AE sanction: [105], and was given the opportunity, about six months ago, to return to the community under what is essentially WP:ROPE: [106]. We may indeed be deep into boomerang territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang. This reads and feels like a bad-faith revenge attempt and is laughable on its merits. Even the comments about "We'll see if these are core policies or not" are a dare to do something. --Jorm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang - This report seems clearly filed in bad faith, especially considering how SashiRolls has persistently gotten into conflict (and possibly harassed) with Snoog. The civility issues may be of some merit, but ideally not on this bad-faith thread. Nanophosis (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's important to take a look at Talk:WikiLeaks to see the context of the claim of copyright violation. It seems like it might be an excuse to remove text in order to push a POV. I don't think it's fair for SashiRolls to complain about civility issues when they have themselves been uncivil:

  ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories".[107]

  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• As an English teacher, I have occasionally had the unpleasant duty of giving failing grades for similar copyright infringements on assignments, though I generally give students the opportunity to redo their work since nobody else risks being penalized because student papers are not published. I did not realize that people were not even warned for copyright infringement here. I assumed the policy was taken as seriously as it in education (where in principle you can be failed for an entire year for a single occurrence). My apologies for bringing a stricter set of standards to en.wp than what I apparently should have. However, I will not apologize for bringing Snoog to ANI; their incivility is notorious and gets under a great many editors skin (cf. User:Snooganssnoogans or any of their 52 noticeboard pages). If I am to be blocked for the "crime" of following procedure, then I guess I'll find something more productive to do than collaborating on front-page entries. With regard to the new accounts piling on, there's not much I can do about that. Regarding KB's decontextualized quote, this was written because people were defending the repetition of "conspiracy theories" in three consecutive sentences (in a section titled "conspiracy theories"). To apologize for that I would have to apologize for being a writer. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Every act of incivility has context. I can't speak to Snoog's incivility, but their context must be considered as well. Note that I added a link to Talk:WikiLeaks where the context of your statement, the current copyright issues, and incivility can be evaluated. You have not addressed the concerns about your behavior. Instead, your comment feels like passive aggressive blame shifting. This is an example of uncivil behavior. I understand you feel piled on, but you have not helped yourself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing you've done warrants any sort of block, although a suggestion to avoid continued conflict with Snoog or, at worst, an IBAN may be proposed. You definitely do good work here, and I want to make clear that my previous comment is not an endorsement of a block. Nanophosis (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Of course it's taken seriously here, when it's spotted. This is not anything worth sanctioning or even actionable, though. A copyright vio of 2% in 150 edits is effectively null, especially considering the sorts of articles Snoogans edits; much of it is likely quotes. I'll admit I didn't delve deep into it beyond what you posted, because prima facie, this is a frivolous request. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up their alleged incivility, as this wasn't the basis of your request, and honestly makes me think this request is more about a grudge, and was filed in bad faith. I don't "know" either of you, but I am familiar with your editing habits, as I watch many of the pages that both of you happen to edit. Snoogans certainly makes sweeping and opinionated statements about various subjects, which probably isn't kosher for article talk pages in some cases. But they rarely say anything directly about editors, especially a specific editor. WP gives some latitude in this area, and I'm not sure if it's actually "incivility". And the community is well aware of the meatpuppetry, canvassing, and the effect that conspiracy theories have on the traffic and editing in these subject areas. I'm not sure why you put "conspiracy theories" in quotes. Maybe we're not on the same page here, and I'm just not following you, in so far as what specific point you're trying to make here.

And there's no point in preemptively engaging in apologetics to justify what seems to be a request without merit. Sashi, I don't know you, and I honestly don't know your motivations or your mind. But acting like a martyr here is not helpful. Do you honestly think this ANI request has substance beyond "Snoogs is snarky"? Or the original premise this was based on? I'm really confused as to your motivations here; this is one of the flimsiest cases I've seen brought here by a veteran editor, and you seem to be trying to change the subject when it's been pointed out.

I'm not suggesting a block, though I'll of course assent to the community consensus. Mainly because I'm not sure a block would fix this sort of behaviour. At the very least, a ban on filing cases in ANI and a one-way IBAN might be warranted. Honestly, I'm just not sure why you thought this was a good idea. It's rather transparent this is a personal matter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang: a frivolous report and battleground mentality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is neither a frivolous report nor do I have a battleground mentality. I am focused on building an encyclopedia. Whenever I have to interact with Snoog I put on "emotional armor" because I know they will accuse me of being "unhinged", "batshit insane", "tiresome", a "sociopath", that my questions are "excruciating" "pointless" "quibbles", etc. Let's take one example from Tulsi Gabbard, whose talk page I think should be required reading for anyone wanting to know how Wikipedia really works. As most people probably know, she is a representative from Hawaii running for president. On 12 February, her BLP contained the word Syria 47 times, which I hope people will agree is a bit excessive. On 13 February, Snoogans edited her BLP in order to add 12 more occurrences of the word (+2 in the edit summary), so that if you search the following link to the state they left the article in, you will find 61 occurrences of the word: §). Taking a look at the "syria trip", "counterterrorism" and especially the "foreign policy / syria" section should be enough to convince anyone that there is something quite unhealthy about these editing practices. Whole sentences were repeated twice in the same paragraph, for example, three times in the article. There were also a few specific inaccuracies in that text, such as the claim that al-Qaeda & Al-Nusra were exclusively "Syrian terrorists" which I had to correct since they had duplicated it into two different sections. Since that time, the BLP is much somewhat improved.

They have started an RfC now, I see, and have started off the discussion by saying "I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions)." In order to decide whether this was "excruciating" or "pointless", I encourage anyone wanting to weigh in here to take a look at the Tulsi_Gabbard#Syria section, which is still more than exhaustive but is now better written than what you saw in the above link... because I fixed it. Needless to say, I have not participated in the RfC, as I believe the well to have been poisoned. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can't handle reading a paragraph, this might not be the website for you. Leviv ich 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite a fair point, and I apologize. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans' version of events is pretty much exactly what I have observed, starting with the Jill Stein article and onward. SashiRolls has some sort of obsession with Snooganssnoogans which results in all manner of disruption. This vexatious complaint is yet another example of harassment. SashiRolls even started to stalk me a couple of months ago here. Note the wacky interrogation, which I took to be a be an attempt to harass me shortly after similar interactions on talk:Tulsi Gabbard:

• "I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary."[108]  
• "A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed."[109]
• "Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon."[110]
• "By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style"[111]
• "More to the point, it's always good to ask who is doing the stirring. I think I'll unwatchlist this page for a few days and !watch other people play. Go, SnooX!"[112]

This is a continuation of the same type of behavior that resulted in SashiRolls being indeffed in 2017.[113] - MrX 🖋 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

To those editors bringing up Sashi's indef from 2017, as well as those who may not know, let me share more details there. SashiRolls was blocked for continually bringing up behavioral issues from a former administrator using a sockpuppet to evade a topic ban, put in place to prevent exactly the type of issues Sashi was identifying. Nearly each time Sashi brought up the issues, commenting editors attacked Sashi, allowing the socking former admin to continue editing in violation of the topic ban for several more months, and earning Sashi an indef. Since returning, Sashi has been a valuable content contributor, and a net positive to the project. In the presented diffs, Snoogans does appear to have run afoul of copyright violations. I think the simple thing would be for Snoog to acknowledge that some editors take issue with that, and strive to make sure it doesn't happen again. No boomerang. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr Ernie. All I've asked is that 1) Snoogans be required to take the comments concerning civility, POV, and copyvio on-board, 2) apologize and 3) promise not to do it again. (Of course, others could quite legitimately think that this is far too soft.) A friend that I mentioned this recent ferkluffle to sent me another example of sloppy editing where Snoogans seemingly got really confused. This is the paragraph from the Syrian Civil War section of Seymour Hersh's BLP that they added a couple weeks ago:

Politico's Jack Shafer described the story as "a messy omelet of a piece that offers little of substance for readers or journalists who may want to verify its many claims."

References

The only problem with this is that, in fact, Shafer is talking about an article about bin Laden, that has nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. So in the end the first and third sentences of the new paragraph Snoogans created refer to articles about bin Laden, not Syria, while the middle sentence (which Snoog pulled from preexisting text in the article) is the only one in the paragraph that is actually about Syria. I've looked at this pretty carefully and just cannot understand how or why that mistake could have been made. The irony is that in that sentence Bellingcat is accusing Hersh of sloppy journalism (perhaps correctly, I have no opinion on that). All I know is that that paragraph's topic sentence is sourced to articles not about what Snoog's text claims they are about, and the "smoking gun" quote they found in Politico to end the paragraph is not referring to Hersh's reporting on Syria either. It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems. @Snooganssnoogans:, could you explain this mistake? I would object ahead of time to those who would say this is a "content" issue that we are seeing just too many sloppy edits for this not to be considered behavioural. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very simple: In a large edit covering critiques of Hersh's journalism on both the killing of Bin Laden AND the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, one sentence critiquing his Bin Laden story ended up in the paragraph on the Syrian Civil War. Why on Earth is this being brought to this noticeboard rather than just fixed on the article like any other editing error? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is a good example of the unhealthy and disturbing obsession with me: that this editor is talking with and working with other editors to find dirt on me. And after three years of this creepy stalking of nearly 20,000 edits, this is the sum of what this editor could cobble together? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So, by pointing out a mistake a friend pointed out to me, I am a creep? One does wonder if there is much hope for improvement regarding WP:5P4. I would really like to see less toxicity at Wikipedia. Also, I did mention this on the talk page of the entry, along with another potential concern that does not involve you. I saw you fixed the final sentence but not the topic sentence. Why didn't you fix the topic sentence as well? You are still saying that a 2015 article in WaPo criticized a piece published in 2017. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I would much rather deal with an editor who is being honestly uncivil than one who is passive aggressive and makes me feel manipulated. You just created two straw men. Snoogans accurately described you as talking with another editor about him. Your friend wouldn't have pointed out Snoogans' mistake to you if you hadn't spoken to your friend about them. I can't say whether your behavior was "creepy" or problematic, but I can say that you've misrepresented the complaint. You state: It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems. This is not why you're at risk of being boomeranged. It is your underlying behavior which I have witnessed for only maybe two days. There are two other editors on Talk:WikiLeaks who I find far more disruptive, but that's another story. If you want to help yourself, start by owning your own problematic behavior rather than continuing it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

What?! This is a public website; Snoog's mistakes just like yours or mine are a matter of public record. I have been blocked from this site before -- for over 500 days -- because of machinations to protect a defrocked admin socking. A couple of the same people involved in that affair are here now (Trypto, MrX, more indirectly Snoog). Why would I not speak to my friends about this? It just so happens that I have friends who know that this contributor is (AGF) careless. I mean, sure, if you want me to cuss at Snoog I could (though that would get me blocked pronto). I prefer to be diligent and stick to the facts, both in this affair and in my contributions to mainspace. I'm getting a little tired of the harassment/2-bit psychology from you Kolya. Have we met before? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we have not met. I see that you are continuing to not address your behavior and are instead shifting the blame onto me. I may leave it at that because I see that I'm not getting anywhere and there are others who have known you longer than two days. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that would be best. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie correctly points out that SashiRolls did indeed get caught up somewhat unfairly in the antics of a serial sockpuppeteer, which was the proximal cause for the indef block, and that the major reason that the community decided to lift the block was because of that unfairness. But no one should come away from that thinking that the consensus was that everything else was OK. Rather, as can be seen in my earlier link to the unblock decision, there was significant concern over battleground-y conduct, and an explicit warning that the unblock came with a short WP:ROPE.

Setting aside the wall of text over content disputes, the first question here is whether there is sufficient evidence presented to require admin intervention directed at Snooganssnoogans. No there isn't.

But the reciprocal question, raised by multiple editors, is whether there is a basis for some sort of boomerang. SashiRolls was warned about future conduct when the block was lifted. Since then, based on information in this ANI discussion, he has engaged in battleground behavior in two topic areas under Discretionary Sanctions: Am Pol, and GMOs. And the very filing of this ANI report is clearly battleground conduct over a content dispute in Am Pol, possibly accompanied by a personal grudge. Snoogans has commented here in an appropriate manner, whereas SashiRolls seems to be throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks. I'm not seeing a net positive there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone puzzled as to why Trypto is talking about rope may want to read the guide.

This is just a reminder that, every so often, it's good to laugh rather than to call people "tiresome" or "grudge-y". (On the battle page mentioned above, it is even suggested that when battlers call you names, you should not respond in kind.) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who is puzzled by that probably doesn't know what WP:ROPE is about. The reason why I'm talking about it is because it's relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang. In my view, a highly experienced editor is effectively asking for a boomerang when you're told explicitly by an admin to stop harassing an editor, and then you come back and file an ANI report on the same editor based on 3 copyvios in 3 years. It doesn't matter how much time passed in the meantime. The vengeful ex doesn't get to say, "But officer, we dated 3 years ago!" Or, "But officer, the last time you caught me me harassing my ex was 2 1/2 years ago!" When you're told to stop harassing someone, you stop harassing them forever. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang: an utterly frivolous report per MrX and R2D2 and others. Three copyvios in nearly three years, at least one of which would better be described as a close-paraphrase of brief content. Regarding civility, I would characterise interaction as "sometimes abrasive meets often snarky", so take your pick as to which is less constructive. Snarky is more in evidence in this ANI. Word of advice Sashi, don't bring frivolous ANI's, and you won't have to spend "time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at" you. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

More diffs

• No boomerang for Sashi and no boomerang for me for posting this:
  • At MS-13, back in July 2018, Snoog posts on the talk page "... article should cover Trump's rhetoric about MS-13, and outline all the falsehoods ..." In December 2018, they add to the lead that "The gang is a core component to Republican Party messaging ... Republican politicians, President Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13. ..." and like an 8k section with the heading "Republican Party discourse". If someone reverts all or part of that, per WP:BRD, Snoog should be seeking consensus on the talk page, but instead it's revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor, revert a 5th editor and 2RR and 3RR, revert a 6th editor, revert a 7th editor, revert an 8th editor and 2RR, revert a 9th editor, revert a 10th editor, revert an 11th editor, revert a 12th editor, revert a 13th editor (2RR), 3RR with the edit summary "restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page: "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study"; to another editor: "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article..."
  • At The Wall Street Journal, adds negative information, adds "The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters ...", and to the lead: "The editorial board is known for promoting fringe views on scientific matters. ...". Then months of revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, 2RR, 3RR, revert, 2RR, 3RR with the edit summary "stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content", revert, 2RR. To be fair, a few days ago Snoog started an RfC at Talk:The Wall Street Journal and as of now there is unanimous support.
  • Last month at Republican Party (United States): 1RR, 2RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR
  • Last week at Dan Crenshaw: removes "... Crenshaw argued for working and partnering with the Mexican government to reduce illegal immigration to the United States ...", adds "Crenshaw said that climate change is real but that there is a 'very reasonable debate going on' about the extent to which human activity contributes to it ... (the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change)." and "|In 2019, Crenshaw voiced opposition to HR 1, legislation introduced by Democrats to make voting easier.]]"; and adds "... Crenshaw defended Trump's proposal ...". Then revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor. On the talk page: "Stop whitewashing."
  • At Talk:Wikileaks: "... your obfuscatory fringe version ...", "You are also violating WP:BRD ...", and:

  Why is it so difficult for you to obtain consensus for your edits, either through talk page discussions or by seeking community-wide input through a RfC?
  — User:Snooganssnoogans 13:52, 17 April 2019

  • A recent EWN report against Snoog, based on different diffs than those above (at Candace Owens going back almost a year) resulted in no action. Leviv ich 05:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Again, like I explained at the spurious EWN filing where I was seriously being accused of edit-warring for removing BLP vio text that claimed that Sarah Silverman supported the transnational crime organization MS-13 (seriously): when you edit pages that deal with conspiracy theories, fringe content and falsehoods, you end up reverting a lot. In most cases, editors are not regular, do not bother at all to engage on the talk page and do not cite Wikipedia policy. The WSJ article is a good example, as IP numbers repeatedly edit-warred out the disputed content, only for me to start a RfC as soon as regular editors started removing it, and the RfC has of course unanimous consensus with eight votes after 3 days. You suggest that my edit summary "Undid revision 893037220 by Victor Schmidt (talk) the content is sourced in the body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Science. stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content)" is some kind of egregious civility violation, yet I was thanked by the regular editor whom I reverted for this edit summary (which explained what was going on). It's the same with the Dan Crenshaw page, where an editor removed Crenshaw's views on a major piece of legislation without any justification, I started a talk asking for reasons for the removal, stated that it amounted to "whitewashing", the other editor never bothered to respond and some other regular editor restored the content (that's how it traditionally goes). The "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" is literally in response to an editor who admits to not reading a study, yet who still went ahead with writing inaccurate text summarizing the contents of the study (and who was threatening to edit-war his summary into the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps that editor objected to your calling their attempt to improve the article whitewashing and chose not to engage with you? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Furthermore, it's important context here to clarify how Levivich and I know each other: Levivich sought to remove long-standing content out of the 2018 United States elections by falsely claiming to have a consensus[114][115] and then by brazenly removing content that was closed as a consensus via a RfC.[116][117] That's how I know this editor and how this editor knows me: I sought to keep long-standing content in the article that adhered to RS coverage whereas the other helped to edit-war the content out and replace it with poorly sourced rubbish. My version was of course approved in a RfC, and even then, the other editor sought to remove it. Again, what I'm I supposed to do when someone (in this case, Levivich) literally removes "consensus" text: let someone force out this consensus text? Start another RfC whose result this editor will ignore? Or should I revert it and thus be guilty of "edit-warring"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's time to give up the "long-standing content" line. As the diffs posted above demonstrate, you add new content, edit war when anyone tries to change it, then eventually claim it's "long-standing content". What you're supposed to do instead is follow WP:BRD, even if you're reverted by an IP editor. Leviv ich 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Should I have started a second RfC after you removed text that had just been declared "consensus" in a closed RfC?[118][119] Is this seriously the burden that I need to shoulder? It is not feasible in the slightest that I start a talk page discussion every single time that I revert someone (certainly not when it's consensus text) and it's certainly not something that other editors do. If you disagree with the consensus reached in a RfC, I'm pretty sure the burden falls on you to start a talk page discussion or start a new RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  You are expected to shoulder the same burden as the rest of us: to not edit war, to edit collaboratively, to follow WP:BRD, etc. I posted diffs of your recent editing at MS-13, The Wall Street Journal, Dan Crenshaw, Republican Party (United States) and WikiLeaks–leading right up to this past week. Your responses have been about my editing at 2018 United States elections–from January and February. The difference is that I followed BRD at that article; I didn't edit war; I took it to the talk page after I was reverted. The editing history and talk page of that article speak for themselves (as does the RfC closing statement). You, however, routinely ignore BRD and edit war, falsely claiming you are restoring a "longstanding version", or that the editors who disagree with your edits are "whitewashing" or otherwise pushing POV or being disruptive. There is nothing about you or the topics you edit that justify an exception to the rules of orderly, collaborative editing. That you can't seem to see that is why I think a short topic ban from AP2 may help. Leviv ich 16:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I'm looking at your diffs. In this MS-13 nonsense, looking at your first diff [120], I see Snoogans reverting a user called BreakingZews. It should probably be noted that BreakingZews was soon after Topic Banned from AP2 in this thread [121]. The next diff in your list is this one, [122], in which an editor tries to insinuate that the Democratic Party might be supporting MS-13. Do we need to talk about that, or do you already understand how ridiculous that is? Seriously, is that your argument against Snooganssnoogans? If that's the best you can do, then you deserve that boomerang. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: What you refer to as my "first diff" wasn't the first diff, so let me break it down further in hopes it will be clearer what is going on:

1. Snoog adds 9,174 bytes of new content to MS-13. Under WP:BRD, this is a bold addition. It is not a revert of anything or anyone. It is before BreakingZews edited the article.
2. Over the next four months, 13 different editors changed or removed part of that 9k passage. Each of these is a BRD revert, to which the proper response is discussion on the talk page. Instead, in each case, Snoog reverted the revert, reinstating their original bold addition, sometimes multiple times. I linked to each of those in my long post above.

Do you think this is acceptable? Why does it matter that one of those 13 editors was topic banned? Leviv ich 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the very first one of those editors was topic banned from AP2 soon afterward. The next edit seemed to be trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory (that Democrats are possibly working to promote MS-13) when Snooganssnoogans reverted them. Edits like that should be challenged. We need more editors reverting edits like that, and we need fewer editors trying to get those editors topic banned for it. How long a text needs to remain in an article unchallenged before changing it, as opposed to reverting changes to it, becomes the WP:BOLD action seems like a less important issue, one that we're unlikely to find a consensus on here. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And the other 11 editors? Were they all trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory? Leviv ich 20:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, since the first two were without merit I stopped looking. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here's a TLDR version of #More diffs with just EC accounts at MS-13: Snoog added 9k to the article, then reverted NortyNort's edit to the language, as well as reverted David8302's edit, reverted Tigerboy1966's edit, reverted Rich Farmbrough's edit, reverted 84percent's edit, and reverted Niteshift36's edit, with the justification "...restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page, Snoog wrote to Rich Farmbrough "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" and to Niteshift36 "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article...". Leviv ich 00:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

One of Levivich's examples is edit-warring on the WSJ page to remove climate change-related content. Every editor who removed the content was an IP number[123] (as soon as regular editors removed the content, I started a talk page discussion[124] and a RfC)[125]. Three days after the start of the RfC, there are seven votes in support of my version, with one vote against my version. Despite this consensus, the IP numbers are back removing the text.[126] If I now restore this long-standing content which obviously has consensus support, should I expect Levivich to count that as an example of edit-warring? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I posted so many is so that you couldn't get away with cherrypicking one or two and excusing them. 13 editors at MS-13, ironically–they weren't all IPs. They weren't all vandals. They weren't all new editors. There are even more editors once you factor in the other articles I posted. If you think it'll help, we can ping them all, and ask them if they're "real" editors or if they're the kind of editors we can ignore. Leviv ich 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Update: I pinged some of them, we can ask. Leviv ich 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm a real person. My edit was correcting information which wasn't supported by any of the three sources Snooganssnoogans cited. I figured it would be a non-contentious edit, as all I did was change the term "focused on" to "mentioned" (because, as described in the edit summary, Snoog's sources either did not use the term "focus" anywhere, or they were in direct contradiction by saying the focus was on healthcare and other issues). It was a surprise to see it reverted. From this short interaction with him or her, it appears to me that Snooganssnoogans is trying to push a POV and is uninterested in truth. 84percent (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• This set of diffs is more convincing the the first one.The extensive POV edit-warring and incivility is a huge problem. He editwars without even attempting to provide sources. A claim such as "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." needs a source [127] and I can't believe after being told that by other editors he continues to add it back in without a source. That Republicans cited Joe Biden's past support of delaying judicial nominations until after an election as justification for their opposition to Merrick Garland as reported by the new york times is "fringe" [128] does not even make sense. You can't just label things "fringe" because you disagree with them and only present half the story. Just take a look at the page user:Snooganssnoogans and you can see he's WP:NOTHERE. What kind of legit editor keeps a list of 50 or so mostly off-wiki criticisms of his editing? He is here to improve content or just to make more outrageous edits to draw attention to himself? That a single editor could have received that much negative attention really makes Wikipedia look bad. Why would anyone be proud of this?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (1) The text "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." is sourced to the Associated Press, FactCheck.Org and ProPublica (in the body of the article)[129]. Furthermore, the text is entirely consistent with the state of the academic literature, and consistent with language used on Sanctuary city and Immigration and crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• (2) There are a number of peer-reviewed studies that characterize the Republican move as unprecedented (cited in the body of the article). The so-called "Biden precedent" that Republicans cobbled together was both misleading[130] and ultimately something that one Senator at one time remarked rather than acted on. So it is indeed fringe to rebut peer-reviewed assessments of the move as unprecedented with political rhetoric from partisans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are valid points... that should have been raised on the talk page after the first time you were reverted. That your bold addition was "correct" isn't a reason to ignore BRD. Leviv ich 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not valid points. 1. The sources provided, while critical of President Trump, do not actually say "no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." 2. I don't care whether you personally think that citing the "Biden rule" is misleading, sure its open to debate whether circumstances were different then, but that doesn't make it "fringe" (and note that the source doesn't use that work either).--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You're now just flat-out telling falsehoods about the sources (this is an extremely good example of the kind of time-consuming veto tactics that one frequently encounters on American politics pages that relate to conspiracy theories, fringe rhetoric and falsehoods). (1) AP: "It’s inaccurate for Trump and his administration to assert that weak immigration enforcement is leading to “unchecked” crime, including from the “vile gang MS-13.”"[131], FactCheck.Org describes Trump's claim that "The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Admin. allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S." as "distorts the facts" and cites as an MS-13 expert literally saying "Gangs do not flourish because of weak immigration policies."[132], ProPublica likewise rejects the assertion,[133], NBC News: "there's no evidence that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, foster crime or gangs, and authorities have said sanctuary policies actually help them fight crime."[134] (2) "Fringe" as in contradiction to mainstream academic scholarship (which is all cited in the article in question). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

1. I'll concede that the sources actually say that weak immigration polices do not lead to gang activity, but they do so without much proof. The AP article says "Several studies have shown that immigration does not lead to increased crime." without even citing those studies. An intelligent reader would first ask, whether those studies came to the conclusion that immigration as a whole (including legal immigration) doesn't lead to increased gang activity or that specifically illegal immigration (what Trump was actually talking about) doesn't lead to increased gang activity? Then the next question would be, are there also other studies that came to different conclusions? I'm not saying the conclusion here is wrong or right, just that it needs better evidence. 2. The source was written by "mainstream academic scholarship": Not true, it was written by a reporter, his bio is here So it's basically an opinion piece, which is fine and the author makes the argument that circumstances were different in 1992, which is also fine. So, to be clear there is nothing wrong with this as a source, but to say that anyone who disagrees with this particular reporter or any other for that matter is "fringe" is disingenuous and inflammatory. You seem to have a view that intelligent people cannot have disagreements and therefore anyone who has a different view that you is "fringe" and this type of mentality should not be accepted here.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) RS are not required prove things. Especially not when RS are just describing an obvious and apparent research consensus. Since you're interested in learning more about the relationship between Immigration and crime, research shows both that (a) legal immigration does not increase crime and (b) illegal immigration does not increase crime. (2) I'm not referring to the PolitiFact article as "mainstream academic scholarship", I'm referring to the "mainstream academic scholarship" cited in the Wikipedia article (i.e. the mainstream academic scholarship that you want to rebut with "But Republicans say otherwise"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The only reference to scholars is in the NPR article which say "Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)" 1. I don't' see anything about the Biden rule there. 2. Nor do I see anything that categorizes Republican views as fringe. All is says is they are doing the opposite of what scholars "urged" them to do.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There are four academic sources cited in the body regarding the blocking of Garland. Please read more carefully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this find the mystery source game with you. Why don't you just provide the academic source that asserts that citing the Biden Rule is a fringe view?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule" (why would they? it's a faux rationale). They describe the blocking of Garland as "unprecedented", a "culmination of this confrontational style," a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms," and a "classic example of constitutional hardball." The addition of the "Biden rule" is to rebut these assessments by making it seem as if the move was not unprecedented and just normal everyday politics (that's the "fringe" part). This chapter is not cited in the Wikipedia article but it specifically addresses the "Biden rule", effectively calling it BS.[135] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule"", so what you're relying on is WP:SYNTH.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm relying here on is WP:FRINGE. We don't add fringe arguments to articles to rebut mainstream academic scholarship just because they haven't been specifically addressed by academics (i.e. we wouldn't say "Some scientists say human activity contributes to climate change. Others say [insert inane arguments for why humans don't contribute to climate change]"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are just labeling something fringe because you disagree with it. What theory, fringe or otherwise is being pushed here. It is not a theory that Biden wanted to delay judicial nominations until after the 1992 elections, that's true. It is the opinion of Republicans that this set a precedent to oppose the Garland nomination. It is the opinion of other people that it did not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and an opinion??? The underlying facts are not in dispute, the dispute is over how to interpret them.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

References

*No boomerang. I was drawn here by my mention above. Snooganssnoogans did, in fact, add a lot of material to the MS13 article, specifically in the lead (not a lede). The material has been removed or challenged by a number of editors and his constant reversion with the claim of 'it's long-standing' is, in my view, dishonest. When it was pointed out that his version spent over half of the lead discussing one issue in a very POV manner, his "solution" was to just fill the lead with more info instead of addressing the undue weight issue. I can't see where he is trying to work towards consensus on that article. No comment on the other articles that I'm not involved in. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking Snoogans' initial statement

Pants sycamore

This has all become way too long, as usual when you have to fact-check Snoogans. But it does need doing since unfortunately it is always "feasible in the slightest" for Snoog to type out screeds full of adverbs and adjectives "every single time" they talk about everyone's behaviour except their own. Therefore, I would like to briefly point out 3 of the verifiable lies as well as a dubious half-truth in their initial statement:

1) SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article

Anyone clicking next on the link Snoog gave above would see that first he reverted me without correcting his two subject-verb agreement errors, and then I corrected the errors in the subsequent edit and walked away from the page and never edited it again [136]. I did not "revert [him] nilly-willy", but precisely once after politely trying to get them to correct their own error by leaving a message on their talk page. Verdict: pants on fire

2) I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying... deleting positive things from her page and curiously "massaging" some negative wiki-text which was sourced to a long-since deleted blogpost. So, contrary to what he stated above, what angered him enough to call me "batshit insane" & a "sociopath" was not my correcting his agreement errors, but my calling out his misrepresentation of a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read "I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent.) So concerning their description of the reason for their block... Verdict: pants on fire

3) Concerning Neutrality's comment about the trivial episode mentioned in #1, Snoog has obviously not seen fit to include my response to it which pointed out how trivial it was to be complaining about me correcting a grammatical error. People can find that response by clicking next from the provided diff. Neutrality's original complaint was made but was unwarranted. The only communication I've had with Neutrality since returning was to thank him for a good edit he made on a page I principally authored. Verdict: half truth

4) Concerning AWilley, I'm surprised they haven't commented, since Snoog has completely misrepresented their position: @Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Verdict: Pants on fire

Fact check evaluation: Four Pinocchios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)

(1) You stalked me to a page which you never edited before and which you had zero reason to ever encounter only to remove my edit in its entirety (which was a summary of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal).[[137]] That you're still BSing about this and can't cop to stalking me to this page is beyond belief. Do you seriously think anyone is buying it? An admin literally described it as part of an intentional campaign to harass me and drive me of the project.[138] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) You're asking us to believe that you happened to make your first edit to the Tulsi Gabbard page shortly after I edited the page, and where you coincidentally happened to revert my edit in its entirety, because you watchlisted the article in anticipation that some bad people would start editing the article? And you did all of this at basically same time that you stalked me to other articles and filled my talk page with incoherent and threatening commentary in what an admin described as a harassment campaign?[139] Hard to believe. In particular, given that you can't even admit to the most brazen and blatant stalking. This is beyond the point (your creepy harassment) but I removed poorly sourced content and added RS content to the Tulsi Gabbard page. This[140] is the edit in question (so readers can judge). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(3) Why on Earth would I include your ranting in response to an admin warning you not harass me anymore? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(4) That's an extremely misleading and deceptive recounting events. You're completely misrepresenting my interaction with Awilley. After describing how you indiscriminately reverted all my edits on the Tulsi Gabbard page and refused to explain why (holding the page hostage), I asked him/her "whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this", to which Awilley answered, "Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work."[141] Then later, after you were informed by Awilley that you couldn't block things without explanation, and after I spent ten days trying to converse with you on the Tulsi Gabbard page (during which time you filled the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM rambling and casting of aspersions), I asked Awilley "is there seriously no way out of this?", to which Awilley gave the response that you just quoted.[142] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

1) are we still talking about your error on Reconquista?

2) Why do you neglect to mention that it was your first edit ever to Gabbard's page? By all means people are welcome to read your initial edit and my subsequent improvements to the page and my TP edits concerning my revert of your edit. (Cf. BRD)

3) There are lots of reasons. Again, are we still talking about your grammatical error on Reconquista? It's fixed, get over it.

4) I think people should investigate your representation of this matter. @Awilley: prefers to avoid drama, but it is true they did reply "ugh no" to your one-sided presentation of the matter on your TP and shortly thereafter thanked me on the same page for filling in the missing gaps in your story. I cited their last comment on the matter, after you'd been pinging them fairly regularly. My impression was that they wanted you to understand that they did not wish to be your muscle. That is a very respectable position, IMO. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... I both criticized SashiRolls for mass-reverting and gaming the BRD rule to hold Snooganssnoognas's edits hostage with talkpage discussion, and I chided Snooganssnans for essentially failing to write for the opponent. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Well then, we will have to agree to radically disagree on the "mass-reverting and gaming" charge, which is nonsense. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker, by providing evidence of a grammar correction I made in November 2016. A newish editor, below, wants to call into question whether I had the Tulsi Gabbard article watchlisted when you made your first edit to it in November 2016, though I've explained my reasoning above for doing so. Digging back into it, I remember that the exact date was probably closer to around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign, because by then I was pretty aware that there was very strong partisanship on Wikipedia. (At the time I didn't yet know that the CCO of the Clinton Foundation was a WMF donor & contractor though)

On 22 September 2016 13:45 I made some edits to Haiti-United States relations. Snoog, you made your first ever edit to that page on 22 September @ 14:34 (less than an hour later) to revert my edit with the ES "bilateral US-Haiti relations nothing to do with Clinton Foundation which is a private entity".

First, one does wonder how you found that edit so quickly without having the page watchlisted. Second, this ES also deserves a Pinocchio/pants on fire fact-check rating: the first of several articles added as a source was a Politico article by Jonathan Katz which Politico had (and has) tagged as "Clinton Foundation," and which includes a picture captioned "At left, workers walk through the $300 million Caracol Industrial Park campus in the north of Haiti last month. The three-year-old park—a key project of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state—was intended to have thousands more jobs by now but is far behind initial projections" [143] Four hours later you still hadn't opened discussion on the Talk Page, so I did so at 18:25 on 22 September 2016. WP:BRD?

I've edited quite a few articles on Haiti and have never seen any evidence of your presence in that area of Wikipedia. How did you happen to find that obscure article Snoogans? Did you have it watchlisted? If so, could you explain why? If not, who was "stalking" whom, in fact? Out of curiosity: would you agree that a foundation's CCO being a donor and employee-contractor of the WMF should have no bearing on whether we include RS descriptions of their activities? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Just maybe it had something to do with your 13:22, 22 September 2016 edit on Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Haiti where there is a link right there to Haiti-United States relations. The question is, how did you find this edit by Snoogans which perfectly fit your narrative, and without noticing the obvious explanation? It took me all of five minutes to verify what happened. Secondly, what do you mean by "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks KB. I had forgotten that I'd added that link. I ran into this again when I had to dig up the diff from his TP to show that Snoog was misrepresenting the reason for his block. I saw: "Not sure why you're following me around, but..." and a request for him to rewrite what he didn't like) It's funny how he could remove something which required hours of reading for me to prepare for the encyclopedia within 45 minutes of my adding it. But that is a question about bias not about "stalking". You are correct. I notice though that you didn't correct your misstatement below about whether or not I reverted JBL. Could it be that you made a mistake? How did you make that mistake? Why haven't you corrected it? To answer your question, I'm not sure exactly which day I added TG's BLP to my watchlist, all I know is that it was well before Snoogans' started editing it, probably closer to the end of the primaries than to the date of the general election. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so when you said you thought you watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign", that was a mistake too? It is unclear at this point. You are now suggesting you may have watchlisted the article around the end of the primaries? Please ping me next time when I've made an error so I'm sure to notice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain. Snoog followed me to the Daily Mail article on Christmas Day to revert a sourced contribution I made critical of en.wp process during the first RfC about banning the DM. (It was and remains their only edit ever to the page). They eventually retracted their position when I pointed out they had fought to use the same source they were objecting to as non-RS to post negative POV about Jill Stein during the 2016 election. Let's be clear: I am not advocating for the Daily Mail or for Jill Stein by pointing this out. I am advocating for NPOV. Let's also be clear: I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit: actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it). Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, you have been repeatedly told to stop making baseless personal attacks against other editors. Most recently you have attacked me, [144] after I corrected the one small error in my documentation of the dishonesty in just one piece of your statements. [145] You are now again making the baseless accusation that User:Snooganssnoogans has been stalking you. On Christmas Day 2018, you two were participating in a discussion at WP:RSN #Media Bias Fact Check where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit in response to Snooganssnoogans. [146] I am curious how you are able to find these supposed occurrences of stalking without noticing their context within your editing history on the same day. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As Mr/s Butternut knows, their link above does not lead directly to the edit in question. Only by following the sequence of edits did Snoog find the edit they reverted. If you are so concerned about honesty, you really should be accurate in the research you did in the last two hours. It's true that I had spaced that 4 months ago I made a comment about the use of Media Bias/Fact Check on the Daily Mail. See also the use of the Daily Mail on Wikileaks. (the article where the initial copyvio that started this thread occured)

Once again, allow me to repeat... I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit: actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it). Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I empathize with Snooganssnoogans' use of the phrase "incoherent ramblings" to describe your behavior. Your above comment has no substance and serves only to distract from the merits of my criticism. Snoogans reverted edits which you had made to WP:Daily Mail on the same day that you sent him a link to WP:Daily Mail. I can't make any sense of your statement. Here is the editing history where you were reverted by Snoogans and User:Aquillion [147] Regarding your last comment, I am discussing the accusations of stalking, which you personally requested that I investigate, and which are as you stated: "another matter entirely" from the actual edits, so when you change the subject to the edits themselves you are distracting from what you asked me to discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Any merit to your statement above, as below, is undermined by your deliberate misrepresentation. Above you say you two were participating in a discussion [...] where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit, implying that it is the same edit I mentioned above, which it was not. If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable. Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits. It is worth noting that on the Daily Mail page 1) I did not engage in edit-warring but let Aquillon, who you just canvassed, Calton, Snoog & Neutrality have their way. 2) WP:BRD states that when you revert you should start a TP discussion (technical foul) 3) by their own subsequent admission, their revert was not justified on the basis that both Snoog and Aquillon had claimed ("random academic", "obscure figure", Forbes op-ed is not RS) (shifting goalposts).

Twice now you've misrepresented your opposition research (conducted minutes beforehand) in ways unfavorable to your opponent. I am quoting from memory (from 2.5 years ago and 4 months ago) and I'm doing much better than you as far as accuracy goes. I did have TG watchlisted before Snoog showed up there and before Volunteer Marek supported Snoog without any participation in the discussion; I did not revert anyone neutral in the discussion about the deleted blogpost sourcing Snoog's rewrite of the wiki-text. Incidentally, the "Leftward Journey" article you mention below was also a dead link when I returned to the page. I dug the correct link up, because I have no problem "writing for the enemy". Snoog on the other hand, isn't very good at that as this example shows. (They are claiming what they've written is "long-standing content" when in fact they had changed the "long-standing" text without discussion. That should remind people about what was said above (in the "more diffs" sections) about the 13 people they reverted at another page I was not involved in. You have denied you are a sockpuppet, so I will have to assume (according to wiki-rules) that your behavioral similarities to Cirt (note the blue drama ice-cap in the graph) are just a coincidence, and that you really have only ever made 341 edits to mainspace (note the blue drama ice-cap in your graph. Note the lack of blue drama ice-cap in my graph. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about you accusing Snoogans of stalking you to WP:Daily Mail, which I have shown did not happen. You state "If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable. Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits." You didn't just remove the Media Bias/Fact Check link, you also removed the following line which was sourced from The Guardian: "Support for the ban centred on claims of 'the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication'." [148] Snoogans must have then looked to see that the article at that time included inline attribution to The Guardian along with a Forbes op-ed which they objected to. Their edit summary includes "The Guardian is RS, so no need to attribute". [149] I'm not going to argue further about your bad faith or at best strange inferences. If you want to discuss who you think I am you can invite me to your talk page, but the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with me. I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing in those graphs, but I don't appreciate the backhanded accusation of sockpuppetry. You invited me to correct what you felt was Snoogans' copyright violation [150]; here at ANI you have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate. Snoogans clearly has conduct problems too (which seem well investigated by others), but like I said, an editor who is being honestly uncivil isn't my biggest peeve. I don't want to clutter up this space anymore, so please invite me to your page if you have personal concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As you conveniently don't mention, were your theory true, they would have been satisfied by clicking next just once as I restored the sentence in the very next edit. Let me suggest that you go do something useful for the encyclopedia as I have done this evening. You haven't made a mainspace edit in at least 4 days. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If you would stop making false statements and accusations I wouldn't feel the need to participate here any longer. There is a pattern here of you either assuming the worst intentions of people or of you outright lying. You did not restore the sentence you deleted without changing it. You changed the sentence to "Support for the ban centred on a competitor's claims about "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". [151] Note that you added the word "competitor's". Snoogans would only have had to click "next" one more time to see that you added inline attribution to The Guardian, [152] which they disagreed with. [153] There is no merit to your accusation that Snoogans stalked you to WP:Daily Mail. Please let this go. Please stop making this personal about me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough I added a word. I didn't notice. You win. Bravo. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You're demonstrating a battleground mentality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since we seem to be creating subsections

It looks concerning to me when editors are explaining their reasoning by posting little animated faces expressing scorn, or giving Pinocchio ratings to what other editors have said. Looks battleground-y to me, like maybe the reasoning would look considerably weaker without the visual embellishments. And it sure looks like the exporting of a content dispute to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This very much seems battleground-y to me and I seriously wonder about the rhetorical skills involved in posting Pinocchio ratings. This is sad.--Jorm (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I show you a ton of recent diffs of an editor edit warring with over a dozen other editors across multiple articles to keep their own bold additions in, and what "looks concerning" to you is my use of a smiley? Now that is sad. Leviv ich 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. I wouldn't, however, call it a smiley – more like a snarky. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking SashiRolls

SashiRolls claimed above: "I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying...". Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the DNC on February 28, 2016[154], while SashiRolls' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard was not until November 11, 2016[155], the day after Snooganssnoogans' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard[156]. On Novermber 11, Snoogans said on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard "you're just here to revert my edits whatever they happen to be.", to which SashiRolls responded: Look, I'm watching your edits for bias, you know that, especially concerning politicians like Tulsi Gabbard."[157].

SashiRolls reverted Snoogans' edit which was supported by two other neutral editors, as User:Joel B. Lewis wrote:

You are simply restating your a priori position as if it were the result of a discussion that hasn't happened. So far, two neutral editors have weighed in; I have expressed skepticism of your position and V.M. has reverted you. I strongly opposed inclusion of long, mundane quotes from press releases; if you want to write something proper using secondary sources, go ahead, but you haven't done that. I am also skeptical of your position on the older stuff, though I haven't thought as much about it yet. I am going to revert to the last version before the personal attacks broke out and we can continue to discuss how to rewrite it. --JBL (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Full discussion here.

Snoogans' edit was restored by User:Volunteer Marek, which SashiRolls reverted[158], and by JBL, which SashiRolls reverted[159].

SashiRolls claimed above that Snoogans "misrepresent[ed] a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read 'I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird'). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent." It is reasonable to think the language "read weird". The word "initially" feels somewhat taken out of context in this paragraph which ended the section:

Her father, Mike Gabbard, is a staunch anti-gay marriage Democrat (formerly a Republican) who is the State Senator for Hawaii's 19th District. The familial connection, and her previous stance,[22] initially caused voters to doubt the sincerity of her support for LGBT causes.[123] Snoogans' edit

SashiRolls later deleted the last clause, which they had found to be negative[160], because the source was "no longer active", when they could have instead just added the archived source. Notice that they did not actually remove the citation or the other text using that citation. Search for "Expression" magazine:[161]. But they didn't just delete the text sourced to the "no longer active" link, they also removed the preceding reference without explanation in their edit summary.[162] The sentence, which was then without any citations, was later removed.[163]

• Boomerang: dishonesty. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

1) My choice of words was incorrect, in retrospect I should have said "when your name pops up on my watchlist" rather than "I am watching your edits".

2) You are correct that I was mistaken about the watchlist date, it would have had to have been later. You are not correct about the substance. I added TG to my watchlist because I knew her BLP would get spun and did not edit it until it started being done.

3) I reverted only Snoog & VM because neither discussed (Cf. BRD). NB: This was Volunteer Marek's first edit ever to the article, just as it had been Snoog's. When JBL asked me to rewrite, I did. I did not revert JBLewis. Could you correct your statement above saying that I did or provide evidence of it, please?

4) At the time, I did not know about archived links. I did try to find the blog but did not find it because it had been deleted. A blog is not an RS.

5) I need to get to my day job. I would like to be working on more pressing things on en.wp but find my time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at me. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: that is some class detective work from someone who has been active in Wikipedia only since January 2019. I'm not for dismissing diffs if they're the posted by the "wrong person", but given that this topic area has been plagued by sockpuppets (Sagecandor, Dan the Plumber etc.), it would be nice if someone like you left advocating boomerangs for someone else. --Pudeo (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was quoted: that one comment is an accurate but not complete summary of my observations of that interaction; both editors were acting in difficult or otherwise less-than-ideal ways. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• Incivility I have not looked at the copyvio claims, but I found Snoogans response to be extremely incivil, and did not give the appearance of either AGF of having good faith. I have not met with this type of response since the guy who quoted Julius Caesar then accused everyone who objected of effectively being illiterate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC).
  

  Calling someone illiterate is just about the worst kind of personal attack. After all, it's not a person's fault if their mother and father weren't married. EEng 08:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, FFS, now everyone in the office knows I'm not working... GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Leave it to EEng to attempt to diffuse a situation while blaming it on his illiteracy...and I mean that illiterally. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just to be clear: this editor is referring to my response to him. "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study rather than add your own OR description of its contents and then threaten to edit-war your false original research back into the article?"[164] does not seem like a horrifically inappropriate response when someone inaccurately summarizes a study (which was freely available through a google search), admits not to reading it and then threatens to edit-war that inaccurate description of the study back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  True, it's not horrifically inappropriate. Horrifically inappropriate would be something like "it's probably cancer", or violent imagery involving sandpaper and hot sauce. But I think we should aim higher than "not horrifically inappropriate". Leviv ich 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  There are two problems with your responses to me on that page, and your previous revert without starting a discussion. That is that they were both wrong and and rude.

  I did point out AGF to you, but your next response was as bad or worse. I think it quite reasonable when a reference takes one to an abstract with a paid link to the full paper, to take the abstract at face value. Moreover the abstract did agree with the paper when I found a freely accessible copy.

  The paper allowed a significant claim to be reasonably present in the article, albeit one weaker than that which was there. The other two references, from newspaper columns, merely stated "no evidence" for a contrary position, and should have been removed, or moved to support that which they actually did.

  I know you want (and I think introduced) a stronger claim, which may very well be true, but it simply isn't supported by the sources.

  This was really the only change I was intending to make to the section, and it seems unexceptional, whereas your response came across ass both ABF and WP:OWN.

  Looking back on the history of the page since you introduced the changes there seems to be a lot of dispute over them, on the basis of WP:UNDUE and (though not expressed as such) WP:COATRACK. I have not formed a firm opinion on these issues, but there certainly seems to be a case to answer, and some of this material might well do better in other articles.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC).
  

• Just to follow up, accusing me of adding "OR" and "threaten[ing] to edit-war your false original research back into the article?" is egregiously incivil, not to say demonstrably wrong. By posting my conclusions before reinstating my version (which I have still not done) I was inviting dissent, in the event that you or someone else had something constructive to say. Had I wished to edit war, which in 15 years editing I don't believe I have ever done, I would have simply made the change.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC).
  

  The text sourced to those studies was introduced by another editor. I added the weaker claim ("no evidence"). I would never add sources to an article which do not specifically refer to the subject of the article, even if those studies are obviously pertinent to the subject of the article. But if those studies are in the article, they better be described correctly. Furthermore, all the studies make causal claims and the study which you did not initially read explicitly says that these studies used causal inference methods, not just correlation. Studies in top journals in the social sciences do not just do correlation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that everything has been settled...

At this point, I think that it's becoming abundantly clear that nothing is going to be settled about this, here at ANI. So here's a thought. I'm pretty sure that all of the point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint and so on is within the American Politics topic area of Discretionary Sanctions. So to all the editors who are rootin-tootin sure that the other guy is evil incarnate, how about you STFU? Team Boomerang, Team No-Boomerang, Team Pinocchio, Team Pants-on-Fire, I'm talking to you. Give a DS alert at the talk page of anyone you are pissed off at, if they haven't gotten one for Am Pol in the last year. And then go to WP:AE with it. I've heard that they have word limits there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• support Govindaharihari (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think Tryp is right, except I'm not sure if AE is the best venue. Leviv ich 22:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm not sure if AE is the best venue either. This seems like an issue of both editors' conduct unrelated to the topic areas. After I did my best to accurately describe SashiRolls' behavior [165] I was personally attacked,[166] and when I complained about being attacked I was again attacked. [167] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Also not sure if AE is the best venue. DS notices are the best way to move forward, absent additional escalation. However, as the articles are controversial (all AP-1932 is), I must ask: do notices regarding discretionary sanctions really address the root cause? I beg to say no, not entirely. I'd honestly also support IBANs for both, in lieu of DS notices. Look, it's pretty clear to me that these two are like oil and water: they don't mix well (or at all), and anything about one complaining about the other invariably spirals out of control (see above sections), and it's mighty apparent to me that the best way to resolve any future conflict is to lay out some hard and fast rules now (i.e. IBANs). For the sake of a more genial community, DS sanctions just don't go far enough, and I don't want to see this being repeated next month or in six months or whatever. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Since there seems to be some misunderstanding about what WP:AE is, I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, this is largely about user conduct, so any dispute resolution venue below ANI is unlikely to resolve anything more than what we see here. (It might be a good idea to propose a two-way IBAN here, although that can create problems with a "first-mover" advantage. But if someone wants to create a subsection just below and propose that, please do so.) At the "top" of the dispute resolution ladder is WP:RFAR, but there is zero point in going there, because there has already been an ArbCom decision on modern American politics. That decision means that Discretionary Sanctions are already in place. Putting Template:Ds/alert on an editor's talk page does not constitute a sanction; it is only a formal informational notice that DS exist, so the editor cannot claim that they were not aware. Once an editor is officially "aware", they can be taken to AE, where uninvolved administrators are empowered to take decisive action if justified. There, there is no threaded discussion, and each editor is held to word and diff limits that largely prevent walls of text. There, as here, boomerang applies, but the discussion is much more focused, and the results can be quite strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Some data-driven analysis: I think an ArbCom case is warranted for an editor whose red line (# of reverts) frequently exceeds their gold line (# of talk page edits) if admins are unwilling to take action on the mass of civility / POV / copyvio evidence presented here. If someone is making more reverts than talk-page edits, they are definitely not respecting WP:BRD and would seem to be frequently edit-warring (which does not require going beyond 1RR or beyond 3RR). (See their graph, which establishes this pattern based on neutral data.) I have contributed significantly less to AmPol since returning and as a result my green line (# of main space edits) is way above my yellow line (# of talk space edits). My redline (reverts) has always been negligible (which is normal for most contributors). (my graph) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you initiated this ANI report, and you like the idea of a new ArbCom case, WP:RFAR is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Snoogans' WP:IDHT response to my TP request that they stop with the copyvios. I do not like the idea of a new ArbCom case (I gather you and MrX like ArbCom cases and have been involved in GMO and AmPol1 respectively), I like the idea of the multiple contributors who have commented here being heard. SS promising to respect WP:BRD,taking more care to ensure their their contributions actually reflect the sources they are citing, and treating other contributors with respect would be an excellent end to this ANI report, especially if they followed through and tried to bring their redline and POV into line with the expectations WP:HERE. Incidentally I just rewrote the nothere section of that essay to make it (a lot) easier to read and less redundant and rambling. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Tango, pudding, insert clichés here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. I take it, then, that you no longer wish to have anyone sanctioned by an admin, and that you will be satisfied if everyone commits to editing cooperatively, rather than as a battleground. I'm saying "everyone" because, as they say, it takes two to tango. And, to use yet another cliché, the proof in the pudding will not rest in any promises here, but rather in editor conduct going forward. Personally, that sounds good enough to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a hawser not a thread! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

My initial statement was that I did not want Snoog to be perma-banned but to be sent a clear message that they needed to prove they had heard (through an unblock request) the concerns in the thread. They have shown no signs that they have heard the legitimate complaints above. According to the essay often used as a block reason: someone who is "here" exhibits an ability for: Self-correction and heeding lessons: When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. I didn't mess with that section. I'm not sure you could point out any evidence of that above, despite the many mistakes highlighted. I've streamlined the !here sections "Consistent agenda pushing" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" to make them easier to understand. You might want to take a look at them yourself, to see if there is anything needing improvement. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I still think this needs to be closed, but in any case, you need either to drop it or to demonstrate that you want to do something more than just filibuster here. If I understand correctly, you just massively re-wrote WP:NOTHERE so that it would make your point. You seem to be trying to stop the discussion here from being closed, but when you said that the situation requires a full ArbCom case and I pointed you to where you could file the case, you suddenly changed your tune. And you have shown a remarkable lack of interest in taking your complaints to WP:AE. I think it's becoming abundantly clear that you are the one who is WP:NOTHERE. Somebody please close this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This thread, as Atsme illustrated has become WP:ROPE. The rope ends here. I am not holding up decision. As I said before, DO WHAT YOU WANT. Jimbo isn't going to swoop in and close it for us. I would suggest just doing something sensible. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I filed a request for arbitration. After looking into Cirt's sock that SashiRolls insinuated that I was I found that SashiRolls' behavior towards me was the same as what he has been blocked for in the past. I felt this needed to escalate above AN/I and it looked like no one else was going to do it. Snooganssnoogans' conduct seems like a whole separate issue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I've responded here and will update iff the behavior continues. For the moment, just a policy reminder:

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." (source) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:Snooganssnoogans from my interactions with them on various articles is a very passionate and bold editor who needs to cultivate better social skills with others and take the time to read what others have written. All of us, at one time or another, have a need to improve our social skills and interactions with others (including me). My frustration with this editor is that they completely ignore and disregard talk page discussions about controversial edits and frequently borderline edit war. By way of example, the article Brexit has been flagged as POV and a variety of editors, me included, have been attempting to resolve the debate, only to have this editor come along and revert any edits they disagree with like a bull in a china shop without following through on WP:BRD and participating in the discussions and completely ignoring consensus, which is very frustrating. For almost two months I and others have attempted to add the "remain" viewpoint to the article with valid and cited content, but this editor will blindly revert it without considering the opinions of other editors or even participate in a reasonable way in these discussions, which is somewhat disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Somebody please close this. Nothing more is going to come of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Very loud {{{{{YELLING}}}}} resonating in an echo chamber....will one of our trusty admins PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD? Well, actually it's no longer a thread, it's a hawser - and it may well be longer than any of our longest articles! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls: battleground mentality and personal attacks

This AN/I discussion appears to be the best place to continue to discuss User:SashiRolls's conduct, rather than the arbitration request I had made whose contents I will mostly repeat here:

My dispute and observations of SashiRolls' conduct occurred in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans. This conduct is unrelated to content. SashiRolls has demonstrated a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: as in a previous arbitration request concerning SashiRolls, he is continuing same exact behavior as in previous blocks: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem. As can be seen in their unblock request from December, this pattern has been ongoing for years.

My short experience with SashiRolls can be understood by reading the short thread in the above AN/I discussion for Snooganssnoogans where I react to SashiRolls' false accusation that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him, after Snooganssnoogans first made accusations of stalking at SashiRolls. The thread can be found by searching for the text "6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain." and reading all of my links and diffs there.

Another example of SashiRolls falsely accusing Snooganssnoogans of stalking can be found at the above AN/I discussion beginning at the line "5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker".

In summary, SashiRolls made false accusations that Snooganssnoogans was stalking him, intimidated me and accused me of being a sock and a liar [168] after I researched some of his accusations against Snooganssnoogans which I found suspicious. After researching the sock who SashiRolls insinuated that I was, (Cirt), I learned of SashiRolls' past history/behavior and I feel the way he treated me in our short interaction shows he has not changed. I know that my behavior in my four months of active editing has had problems, but I feel like someone has to take action, and I hope this won't boomerang on me because I have only just learned about WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTHERE. I intend to improve moving forward by avoiding wikidrama.
After I made a request for arbitration SashiRolls made more accusations against me [169] which seem similar in nature to what commenters in his above referenced December unblock request have described as conspiracy-theorizing about other editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I turned this into a subsection of the above larger thread. Pinguinn 🐧 23:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my intention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: IBAN between Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls

I'm withdrawing the proposal. I never felt strongly about it, but just thought it would be worth suggesting. I think the arguments against it are solid, and I think it's best to bring this to an end and have everyone move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Snooganssnoogans and SashiRolls are placed under a two-way interaction ban.

• Comment as proposer: This ANI section has been hanging here for a long time without really going anywhere. It seems to me like these two editors would be better off steering clear of each other, and it would save the community from further drama between them, so I'm proposing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Snooganssnoogans has not commented for a week. If you don't like this ANI section, suggest closing it. wumbolo ^^^ 23:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did, quite some time ago. But no admin closed it, and I felt that if it's going to just sit here until a bot archives it, it might be useful for me to propose something to resolve it. But I would have no objection to making it instead a one-way IBAN that only restricts SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be more useful to drop the stick and let the bot archive this thread. As someone wisely said elsewhere, the community is clearly not interested in imposing any sanctions against anyone here. Leviv ich 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Tryptofish & Kolya Butternut trouted & possibly banned from drama boards

I eat trout. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

where this comes from

• Comment as proposer: Every time the flame has gone out in this thread, one of them has come to light it. I also notice further chattering on talk pages where the harassment continues... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Menu: Fish, butternut and sashi rolls? Sounds delectable but will an admin please salt it and make it go away?? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please close this

Per what Atsme said just above, would an uninvolved admin please close this entire thread? The one thing that seems to have consensus is that it's past time to close this down. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support closure of this thread. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian

• Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rigel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arianewiki1 is being subjected to continued personal attacks and ignoring policy (even when pointed out to them) by Lithiopsian, whose current post here[170] is problematic.

These current issues stem from these two reverts on the star Rigel here[171], which I reverted again here[172] and discussed why on the talkpage here[173] and on their talkpage here.[174][175]

They again reverted these edits under an IP[176], justifying this is the edit summary because they were "uncommented reverts" (which are no required, as I advised them under H:FIES and H:ES.) Under this same revert, they state "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets." LightandDark2000 again revert Lithopsian's edit here[177], which was restored by Lithopsian here[178], admitting they were the IP "not a troll, just me not logged in, re-instate."

This is blatant omission of using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. (Stated as badsock in Sock) There were previously warned about this here.[179] Worse, they previously likely used again an IP before (151.230.13.97) as badsocking.

Also Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1[180] saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish."[181] is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack. I've explained my uncontroversial reasoning here[182], which has not be refuted (hence consensus.) Lithopsian making unfounded statements that Arianewiki1 "...abuse, and threats to individuals"[183] without evidence is clearly vilification. I feel this isn't true. I've never threaten or abused anyone in these current disputes.

Frankly, this behaviour looks like avoiding scrutiny and degrading/dismissing/undermine others who dare to question them.

Two examples are:

1. In the discussion on their talkpage here[184] Where they said "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation.", but when I modified the text to "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.", they reverted it, removed my correction, then claimed the whole sentence was then not needed. When given the reference showing it does have a variable star designation, they say instead of admitting the initial statement was wrong, their response becomes: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1."

1. Another discussion on the Rigel talkpage here[185], which do not have significant differences except more cite sand the statement "Depending on the stellar mass mass and composition of this initial red supergiant, Rigel may execute a number of so-called blue loops, caused by variations in energy production occurring in the shells.[74]" According to Lithopsian this is all 'fantasy' as justification for reverting it, but bizarrely when you read Blue supergiant star it says "Depending on the exact mass and composition of a red supergiant, it can execute a number of blue loops before either exploding as a type II supernova or finally dumping enough of its outer layers to become a blue supergiant again, less luminous than the first time but more unstable.[6]" Extraordinarily, Lithopsian cites this same text here.[186] so they are reverting my material based on "revert the whole fantasy explanation of supergiant evolution, based on a book about red giants."[187] when they've already endorsed and cited the exact same Maeder (2001) themselves on the Blue supergiant star (Rigel is a blue suergiant star) article. [188]. Perhaps some of this could be reworded, but Lithopsian repeatable using various tactics to remove everything and point blank refuses to discuss it.

Their edits, apparently, seems to superior to others regardless of the facts in front of them - even if they've already been shown to have made incorrect edits or endorsed legitimate cites.

I do feel they have now show a pattern of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior, and which they have been previously repeatably warned about disruptive behaviour here[189][190][191] Regardless of the PA, it is plainly evidence of disruptive editing. Furthermore, the back-up response by Attic Salt here[192] is clearly grave dancing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK unless they were evading a block. I'm not sure why they were editing logged out but it doesn't seem to have been a clear attempt to evade scrutiny, perhaps they were using a different device or don't trust the device they are editing so always log out after editing. (To put it a different way, there's little difference between a clearly declared edit from an IP, and an edit from a Lithopsian-alt account.) Of course, the edits from the IP will be treated the same as the edits from the account, so 3RR violations etc could be a problem. That said I'm not seeing a bright line violation either, 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert and it's also been about 2 days too. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I consider it very bad practice to refer to yourself in the third person in these sort of complaint, it seriously harms your complaint suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously. It makes it sound like you're pretending you're only a third person interested observer when you aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also HTF is this [193] gravedancing? No one has been blocked or decided to leave wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I hate to pile on more but.... I have some agreement with your view that a lot of the stuff in the Rigel talk page raised by Lithiopsian in the thread were you complained about gravedancing, concerns user conduct rather than ways to improve the article, and so should be dealt with on user talk pages and not the article talk page. But while I still agree with that, having looked at the talk page it doesn't seem that Lithiopsian is the only one. I'm seeing a lot of comments from you which also concern user conduct and not ways to improve the article. I.E. pot, kettle, black much? The more I look at this, the more it seems to me to be not something for ANI. All of you need to cut out on the personal chatter, put aside the animosity and whatever differences and disagreements you've had and instead concentrate on how you can improve the article. Use whatever form of WP:dispute resolution you need if you can't resolve this by yourselves. None of you should want this at ANI, since don't be surprised if you are the one who ends up blocked because of it. (And to be clear, this is directed at everyone in the dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: "If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK ", but how do you know if they are the editor or different sock? LightandDark2000 Illegit explains that.

The gravedancing was by Attic Salt not Lithopsian

As for pot, kettle, black, Well the full statement is "The only thing that is right is this statement: "…because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world." Pot . Kettle. Black." but Lithopsian is also imposing the same interpretation of "right". Pointed out above.

The reason why there is a problem here is Lithopsian refuses BRD. When they say: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." How do you get consensus then? I've attempted to change the text again to avoid edit warring, and I have followed such changes with extensive info on the article's talk page. If they knowingly don't respond after a while (a few days), then it should be OK to reinsert the text. Expecting the edit summary to "explain" the change is not engaging in consensus building. (I mat have this wrong, but that is how I interpret policy. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Um I never said that the gravedancing was by Lithopsian. I was fully aware when replying that it was by Attic Salt. WTF does that have to do with anything? The point is that there is no way this can be considered grave dancing. They are simply agreeing with what someone else said in an ongoing discussion which in part is on article content.

And I still fundamentally disagree with you about socking. If Lithopsian says the IP is not them it should be blocked for impersonation not for socking. If they say it is them and it is them, then it's not a problem since they've already said is them and so they're not try to evade scrutiny or otherwise use logged out editing as a way to get around restrictions. To be clear, this means they're not "suggests they are multiple people" nor are they "give the impression of more support for a position" nor "editing while logged out in order to mislead". Those can't apply when the edit was clearly disclosed as coming from the same editor, just like with an alternative account. If you disagree, please explain clearly how a clearly disclosed edit as an IP violates some aspect of our socking policy. You still haven't and nor has LightandDark2000.

Remember that while the general suggestion is that people should edit from both accounts to confirm it is them before starting editing with an alternative account, and we may sometimes block an account if it's uncertain, this is done to protect other editors not for socking reasons. If I start an account "Nil Einne (public devices)" and don't do so it doesn't make my alternative account illegitimate. Heck in this case, even if I fail to specifically mention on my talk page the existence of the alternative account, I question whether this is any significant violation of our WP:SOCK policy. At most, what should happen would be someone would mention on my talk page "hey you should mention it on your userpage" and I will say "you're right" and do so. I don't think it's worth getting into details on what would happen if I refuse to do so in a case like this.

Also I think you're missing my point about the pot kettle black thing. I don't really care about your arguments over right or wrong since you haven't given me a reason to care. I do care that editors are misusing article talk pages to engage in petty squabbles between themselves over user conduct. So you have a point where you said "The rest of this response is quite unacceptable, and really should be made on User talkpages but not here." (Well I'm not saying the rest of the response bit is accurate, but some of that content definitely seems better suited for a user talk page, or no where.) The problem is a quick read of the article talk page shows they're not the only one of doing so. You seem to be well guilty of it as well.

The key issues that you still seem to be missing is that ultimately we deal with user conduct issues here on ANI and our willingness to spend time analysing a complaint is going to depend on a lot of things including our perception it's worth it. In this case you're not giving the impression that your complaint is worth a cent since you start off with foolish referring to yourself in the third person, you then complain about socking for a clearly disclosed edit from an IP (to be fair the previous one was not but the time between edits was so short it's not really an issue) and you top that off with the silly grave dancing comment. If we then actually have a quick look at what's going on in the talk page, it becomes clear that you are right, there is way too much personal commentary that belongs either on user talk pages or nowhere. Except you are guilty of it as much as any other editor.

And I now find from the comment below that you are refusing to use edit summaries. While you're right there is no clear requirement to do so, and in fact it's far better to open a discussion on the talk page then to try to discuss via edit summaries, it's still often helpful to do so. Especially when making major edits. I mean heck even leaving a edit summary like "see talk" will tell editors there is a discussion on the talk page they may not be aware of. Completely refusing to do so does you no favours. It gives me even less reason to think any one editor is at fault here. Instead a bunch of them are causing problems. It's possible that these problems are severe enough to suggest multiple editors should be blocked (i.e. including you) but frankly I can't be bothered looking into it in detail.

To be it a different way, the best way you can ensure any complaint is taken seriously is to be on your best behaviour. If another editor is really a significant problem, you countering by also behaving poorly rarely helps. Instead try to be an exemplar of perfect behaviour. Yes I understand it can be hard when another editor's behaviour is very poor, and in fact I'm very often guilty of behaving poorly in response to behaviour I perceive as poor, I do understand that I should try and avoid it. Since to an outsider, it just means it's easy to miss the other editor's poor behaviour.

This means discuss, use edit summaries, don't misuse article talk pages, think carefully about whether your complaint is dealing with actual issues etc etc. If you are having problems coming to consensus, even if the other editor is only engaging in limited discussion, remember that ultimately if you have consensus they're going to fail so do consider using forms of dispute resolution if necessary, even if you feel the other editor hasn't given an adequate explanation for the problems, but it is clear they still disagree with your changes. Over time, if an editor keeps rejecting your changes, but consensus is always against them, and they keep refusing to engage in any real discussion you should be able to build up evidence to open a good case. (But please for the love of everything, don't refer to yourself in the third person!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A few final comments. Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [194] so any impersonation issue is not an issue. Note that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with LightandDark2000 thinking the IP was someone trolling/impersonating rather than Lithopsian. As I indicated before this is a risk people take when they don't properly declare. Any doubt was cleared up by Lithopsian. Yes it is slightly more confusing than it should be, but it isn't a socking problem since that's to do with editing in a way where you are trying to hide you are the same editor in circumstances where it isn't allowed.

Also while looking at the talk page, I uncovered that Arianewiki1 had a 1RR and further was unblocked with the proviso they should walk away if an IP starts editing disruptively. I've read the details briefly but frankly they don't matter much. If Arianewiki1 is worried that Lithopsian editing from an IP would require them to "walk away" they should clarify this with Ritchie333 since I'm certain it was not the intention that it would apply here.

As for the 1RR, while appreciate Arianewiki1 may feel this places them at a disadvantage, ultimately as I indicated before, the best way you can ensure your edits survive is by ensuring they have consensus. Also since there being no justification to revert simply because of a lack of edit summary came up in relation to the block, I'd implore Arianewiki1 to ensure they aren't violating WP:POINT by refusing to use edit summaries.

Earlier when I said that if you keep finding consensus, the obvious flipside if you frequently find your proposal lacks consensus. And especially if there is consensus against your proposal. In that case, it appears that you've misunderstood what the community expects and you need to learn what it is. Remember that we are volunteers and no one should be expected to teach you. It's understandable if someone keeps proposing stuff which doesn't improve the article, that other editors may get frustrated and bored of explaining why. I'm not saying this is happening here, I have no idea. I'm simply reminding that you should always be prepared to accept that perhaps you're the one in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow. This is a nightmare. This recent response about are all about me and not the issue in the ANI. What is are saying that it is OK for an editor to refuse to engage on talkpage, and revert anything they disagree with, but if I do not write an edit summary, which I am not required to provide via both H:FIES and H:ES. (A lesson that was used to enforce the 1RR.)

Saying that "Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [195] so any impersonation issue is not an issue." is plainly wrong. They must of used the IP address to declare that, and plainly it was done for other reasons. I clearly cannot revert again under 1RR, so they are either doing it to either entrap me or look like they are reenforcing consensus. My only choice was to go back to the talkpage, which I did, and explained my position.

Again, regardless of my rights or wrongs, is it acceptable that: " Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1 saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack." I you require consensus, how do you actually achieve that then? Where have I attacked an editor to such a degree that I have to "get use to it."? Is this normal editing policy? Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion on this at the moment, but it doesn't look good. First off, socking (including the use of IPs in this manner) is never a good thing when content disputes are involved. Secondly, editors need to respond/engage in discussion when there is a clear disagreement on edits, and consensus needs to be taken into account. Ignoring said consensus or continuing to restore the same disputed version(s) of an article is counterproductive, and even disruptive. Now, I'm not all that familiar with the current content dispute, but if Lithopsian continues to avoid the discussion (at the article's talk page), this could easily escalate into full-scale edit-warring. (I made one revert on the article, assuming that the IP was a troll or an LTA sock, but apparently, that wasn't the case.) My point is, all involved editors need to engage in discussion instead of blindly reverting or attacking each other. Circumventing the discussion process is harmful, and is definitely grounds for sanctions if this kind of activity continues. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of discussion, I'd like to point out User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. To me, that raises questions about WP:NOTHERE, since it precludes a major avenue of communication. I briefly participated in the discussion on Rigel, but left once Arianewiki made it clear they were going to be involved in a big way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: there has been alot of discussion on the talk page - walls of text even. Trying to negotiate with Arianewiki1 is very difficult. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I will just note that I have interacted with User:Lithopsian on a number of occasions and never had an issue with policy, civility, or content decisions. The editor has been and continues to be a most useful and helpful contributor to Wikipedia. OTOH, I am going to avoid posting my opinion on Arianewiki1 due to WP:CIVIL and the desire to avoid a massive time sink. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of posters have noted WP:NOTHERE issues and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [196] and the attitude displayed at User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. Is there a general feeling that community action (such as a requirement to always use edit summaries and a 0RR restriction) is warranted at this point, if the user's 1RR restriction isn't adequately preventing the disruption? Neither option really directly addresses the editor's behavior towards other editors (which is, I think, the core of the issue), but it'd be a start. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation: Sorry VQuakr. I stopped writing edit summaries after reading from an admin Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[197] Aother was Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I felt I got into trouble for one edit here: [198], saying "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." and said: "I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.)" I stopped edit summaries so I didn't do this again.

Silk Tork advised me "Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem." To correct this, like on the Rigel article, I now properly discuss or explain the problems on the talkpage before reverting. (This explains "Future comments and discussions will only be placed on article talkpages or on my or other talkpages."[199] I've stated this in User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries

If it is required to write edit summaries again, please advise, as recent experience and policy says I don't have to do that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:FIES H:FIES that you just cited states right at the beginning, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit". Your conclusion from that that you will never write an edit summary again shows, at best, a severe lack of judgement on your part. To be clear, for editors with the judgement and/or good faith to be able to tell when edit summaries are warranted, they are optional. I believe they should be mandatory for you in particular, because you have exhibited a severe lack of at least one of those two essential ingredients. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, but how does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? When they say: "This is getting tiresome. When I attempt to discuss content with you, then I get accused of violating any and every policy going, acting in bad faith, am met with walls of words that are almost impossible to follow, and you maintain your bizarre interpretation of the subject in the face of any editor who dares to disagree. When I don't engage then I'm accused of violating any and every policy going and being "vindictive". Whenever it looks like you can't batter every other editor into submission on an article, you try to pick them off with threats and warnings n personal talk pages. Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it. But just one final time: I'm not modifying your edits because I'm being vindictive, or because I'm trying to game the system, or because you forgot to dot some imaginary i or cross some obscure policy t; it is because you write a lot of rubbish."[200] and choose to ignore me. Is this acceptable response or WP:PA? Forcing me to write edit summaries will not solve this, and they'll revert anything, regardless if there is an edit summary or not. An editor on 1RR will be trumped to those on 3RR. If I slip up, I'm dead.

Also even if H:FIES is true, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: budding consensus is that to "fix the ANI on Lithopsian", we look at you. If you are uninterested in common sense or suggestions, relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries are WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but there must be balance too. If Lithopsian is happy to make reverts but intends not to discuss it, we have a problem. Also WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." I'm doing exactly that. WP:CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. On 1RR, I have too. Again, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. I am following the "...relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am worried about this recent statement of "…and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [201] . How is this disruptive exactly? I explained how the User could avoid issues (they were not explained), I said "... I'll respect your wishes." and advised a solution "to avoid all my edits." The response: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."[202] I don't think I implied (and certainly didn't mean) to bargain anything, and was only a way to reduce the angst. I had no knowledge for the reason for this request.

It is also interesting to mention this User. An example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[203], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[204], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[205] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[206]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Yet 10 days later, they want to ban me from their talkpage? (There are other examples of overwriting context with their interpretation for the sake of grammar. (e,g. Western world versus western world, discussion here[207] other context problems are discussed here[208] or here.[209] This suggests extensive use of talkpages to solve editing issues. If there is any attitude here it is from frustration is the dismissive tone. Reading their response here[210])

Another is getting accused of "Revert errors introduced. Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments." [211] I replied that this was "... petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity."[212] What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument." Is this another example of "general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only does Arianewiki1 not use edit summaries, he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, Arianewiki1 rather regularly harasses other editors -- see my talk page (which is about 50% aggressive contributions from Arianewiki1 [213]. And to top it off, when I banned him from my talk page, he quickly felt the need to continue with his provocation: [214]. Attic Salt (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what this means: "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit." ? How is this done? Please present evidence of this behaviour with links. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

See edit history: [215]. No Section indication, no undo indication. Attic Salt (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information…" I haven't removed nor deliberately removed anything at all. Clearly, an omission doesn't mean removal. If I "undo of a previous edit" it is tagged 'Tag: Undo' by the system.[216] (I've made 16 undos in 468 edits, the majority were for vandalism, since 30 January 2019.) According your edit summary[217] "Complete blanking of edit summaries" So how is this done? Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how you are doing it. I'm just saying that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary, along with your own description of your edit. That's what most of us do. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt? What policy is being violated by removing the "default" info from edit summaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is an ANI, where the accusations have to be backed up with difs and facts. Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." is false statement, and worse there not provided any proof that I'm doing that. Further saying: "... that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary... That's what most of us do." is also false. The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us." You've also said "no undo indication", but your own earlier given link here[218] does have all the tag:undo e.g. here[219]. Consider kindly striking (out) these wrong accusations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: Not the person you're asking, but I'll observe it's not a question of a strict violation of policy, just obnoxious behaviour making life difficult for other editors. The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, I'll suspect Arianewiki of being disingenuous (my AGF burned out a while ago). Starting with their second edit in 2008, their edits had those markers. Maybe they have indeed changed to making all edits as raw edits to the article and never touching the undo or section header edit links, but I suspect it's more likely a strategy to keep reverts from showing up in their edit history as such (and generally, make an analysis of their edit history excruciatingly difficult). The question is not whether they have made a specific rule violation at this time, as much as are they here to collaborate on an encyclopedia? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In saying "The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. " Editors of course matter, and I see any declaration that they don't matter - an inference not fact. (I've explained my reasoning above.)

Then saying that "As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, ", but I said "The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us."", which says the exact opposite. I am unsure what Attic Salt is saying, but they claim that I am somehow "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." Does Attic Salt misunderstand that I cannot actual remove this information because it is generated by the operation system that I have no control over?

If there is any strategy here, it is for me to avoid edit warring at all costs, because if I do, I won't be editing here. With individuals applying other pressures by refusing to discuss issue on talkpages and claim: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." or now want to "ban" users from their talkpages, appears as alternative strategies to make my demise certain. Two examples here[220] to make even the simplest edits survive take this to a new level difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

While I think concise and informative edit summaries are essential, people should realize that Arianewiki1 is not necessarily removing *any* automatically generated text. The text generated depends on how you got there. If you just "edit the page", almost nothing is generated. -- Elphion (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt. You've made a false accusation, which you should retract. You should consider the principles under etiquette Principles of Wikipedia etiquette, especially "Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so." "Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so." Edit summaries, especially, are not the place to do so. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already restated the "Edit summaries" 'problem' here[221] to remove the angst. As explained above, I now use the talkpages, and won't revert edits, but do try and reword them if necessary. Concern is why. Attic Salt has ignored any reasoning, but still won't back down using any lack of edit summaries. e.g. Here[222] saying "Note: Arianewiki1 is still not using edit summaries" or "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" to me here.[223] They have been advised: "WP:PARTR, and know: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." They also have been advised about WP:EDITSUMCITE recently here. (This appear under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section, and highlights the level of effort to 'discuss' even simple changes, finally admitted by them against the simple evidence[224].) I will consider their advise in due course, but they are seemingly using a lack of edit summaries as a kind of weapon to justify reverts, when policy is specifically against such actions. How a false accusation is not redacted by them, especially in an ANI, is shows more about issues with reverting of articles than missing edit summaries. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Policy recommends the use of edit summaries; systematic disuse of them is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. By your own omission. It is recommended NOT mandatory. e.g. Policy you point too says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring." I've said above. PARTR says: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." This is avoid edit warring. This is following policy. It is not disruptive if edits are being discussed on talkpages. Regardless, some etiquette is clearly needed to be followed.

Again. How does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? They have categorically stated they will not engage with one user on talkpages, and now Attic Salt thinks it fine to somehow "ban" Users from their own talkpage.[225] Do they have legitimate complaints or is it a tactic of avoiding scrutiny? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Article edit summaries mandatory for Arianewiki1

User:Arianewiki1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:VQuakr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Proposal: Arianewiki1, in addition to editing restrictions in place as of September 2018, is required to use a reasonably descriptive edit summary for all article-space edits. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion when enforcing this restriction with regard to occasional omissions of edit summaries.

This user quit using edit summaries in January 2019. Systematically avoiding edit summaries entirely is inherently disruptive. As evidenced by [226], they have no intention of voluntarily following normal editing practice regarding edit summaries. This refusal to voluntarily follow best practice is, in my opinion, a symptom of a broader WP:NOTHERE problem that others have mentioned in the section above. But. Sometimes treating the symptoms can address the root cause, and it is my hope that a consensus here will make clear to Arianewiki1 that this is a collaborative environment and they are expected to work with, not battle with other editors. If nothing else, this proposal will help editors understand what Arianewiki1 is trying to do in article space and facilitate both communication and review of their contributions, without placing any additional undue restriction on Arianewiki1's ability to edit. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I've explained multiple times in my reasoning (above) and I had already modified my User page here[227]. I've honestly answered every claim made against me on this, and have followed the guidance of admins and the policy on edit summaries. It cannot disruptive if edits are being discussed on talkpages. e,g. In recent edits on Crux, Horsehead Nebula or Rigel shows that although I don't have edit summaries but have properly explained and used edits on the talkpage (like) here, [228] and here[229] and here Rigel example, respectively, are all surely satisfactory. Surely this show working in a collaborative environment?

Another example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[230], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[231], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[232] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[233]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Policy and admin advice is clear:

• WP:NOTHERE says "Be bold in these cases, revert these edits, provide edit summary and for complex cases request administrator attention. Alternatively, if you are confident and have good dispute resolution and collaborative skills, attempt to solve minor conflicts at the article’s talk page."
• H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
• WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)."
• CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war."
• WP:PARTR says:"Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." (I have experienced several issues SUMMARYNO )
• Policy says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring."
• Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[234]
• Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I'm starting to feel HA by them. I cannot recall when VQuakr had any issues with edit summaries with me before this. By saying to me: "...help editors understand what Arianewiki1 is trying to do" means what exactly? I am mostly using talkpages to avoid accusations of edit warring. I have a good knowledge of astronomy, all the involved editors here interacted with me, and my edits being reverted can be resolved on my or the article's talkpage.

It comes down to this. Edit summaries are recommended but NOT mandatory. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tigraan (especially) STATEMENT : This open wording "Arianewiki1, in addition to editing restrictions in place as of September 2018, is required to use a reasonably descriptive edit summary for all article-space edits. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion when enforcing this restriction with regard to occasional omissions of edit summaries." is plainly casting aspersions. The Summary[235] says: "Edits with summaries 3,765 · (81.3%)" and between March 2013 to November 2018 have exceeded this average.

Regardless of my 'current editing restrictions' , which has no such limitations, how is this relevant? Furthermore, I have also 45 watchers[236], who have so far not seen it necessary to curtailed or remove any of my editing privileges. There are no excuses for this behaviour expressed about my block restrictions, which seems more to me about the allocation of misbehaviour (looking for some fatal flaw) than towards edit summaries.

On the 1RR restriction I don't feel safe (get it.) This is especially with their upfront advertising of my current restrictions by VQuakr. This current situation plainly defies: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." WP:PA Advertising my circumstances is being used as a weapon here. VQuakr's actions IMO is an overstretch and contrary to policy. My greatest fear, actual, is waking up one morning and just finding my privileges here are removed from a simple unknowing mistake, I'm ancient history. If VQuakr 'complaint becomes validated and affirmed, then good faith means nothing.

Note: I'm currently using Safari 7, which enlightened editors might understand why edit summaries don't work and are prevented. To discloses the reasons any further is outing, which is against policy. Embarassed. You bet ya. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. You are not a victim here, and your attempts to play one from your OP onward in this thread haven't helped you. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• As little as I appreciate interactions with Arianewiki1, I guess pinging editors you quote is a decent thing to do. I will comment for what I hope is the only time.

Regarding my quote: That diff says that lacking an edit summary is not sufficient as a reason to revert an edit. It does not say not having an edit summary is fine. It certainly does not say that not leaving edit summaries, ever, is fine. I am not entirely sure Arianewiki1 is aware that going from "X is not encouraged" to "you should do anything in your power to counter X whenever it happens" is a logical error.

Arianewiki1 went from "edit summaries are mandatory and lacking one justifies revert on-sight" (see what the diff above replies to) to "I will not use edit summaries since they are not mandatory". While both attitudes are misguided (but fixable), going from one to the other with no intermediary step is quite inconsistent. My interpretation of that attitude is that they care about the guidelines only insofar as it prevents them from doing what they intended from the get-go, and will (try to) respect the bare minimum letter of the rules but completely ignore the spirit.

I highly doubt out-of-the-box Safari 7 prevents the use of edit summaries. If it actually does, it's a problem for the technical WMF guys; if it does not, and Arianewiki1 tweaked their browser in ways that prevent using edit summaries, it's a problem for Arianewiki1; in either case, it is not a problem for the community to deal with. (Also, maybe WP:Outing prevents other people from giving the details of your browser configuration (since arguably it's personal information), but it does not prevent you from disclosing your configuration.)

Furthermore, bringing up the 1RR restriction is not a personal attack. If you believe it is, point to which of WP:WIAPA it matches, or how it is an "insult" or "disparaging".

Finally, one could argue that the proposed restriction ("must add edit summaries") is too vague, lacks a clear bright line, etc.; however, the community can impose pretty much any editing restriction it sees fit, and that one has a clear purpose (as opposed to, say, requiring to not use the letter "e" in edits to the mainspace). I agree with VQuackr that the lack of edit summaries is a mere symptom of Arianewiki1's inability to discuss and collaborate with others on Wikipedia; I disagree with the idea that forcing their use will change much. (Except as a WP:ROPE tactic, or a stepping stone to an indef, but I guess that's the part you're not supposed to say out loud.)

I believe we are firmly in WP:CIR (or WP:THERAPY maybe) territory, but lack the time and inclination to present a case since there is no clear-cut incident (that I am aware of) but instead a lot of time-wasting squabbles. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I (Neonorange) use Safari under iOS 12.2 (and previous versions snce iOS 7) for the majority of my edits here. A slot for an edit summary is provided. The latest version of text editor/MediaWiki/PHP7 can display, while composing, the entire edit summary at the same time. Earlier versions had restricted display space while composing, requiring horizontal scrolling, especially when changing an IPv6 edit. Perhaps the behavior of Safari on Apple OS differs. Neonorange (Phil) 20:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed

• 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.130.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.188.44.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP hopper has a long history of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Admin Black Kite recently blocked IP 175.137.72.188 manually for 1 month,[237] but clearly, the IP hopper is not willing to cease this WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern. NB: These are just 5 of his IP's. Same target articles, same geo-location, same POV, same narrative (pro-Indian), trying to come across as separate users, etc. There should be many more IP's. Whoever operates these, he/she is clearly on a single purpose mission and trying to put wool over everyone's eyes. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

These IPs are all from Kuala Lumpur but I don't yet see enough evidence that they are the same person. 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a month by User:Black Kite but they have not continued to edit since their block expired. (Also reported at AN3 back in February, with an explanation of their editing pattern. Out of all the IPs listed above, only 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs) is currently active and I am not quite seeing a case for blocking them. If we are sure this is a real problem, it might be possible to semiprotect a dozen articles. An interchange at an India-related noticeboard does suggest the IP could be pushing a POV. In the last month or so, it is possible that two of these IPs could be the same person, editing one after the other: 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs) (editing from April 14-17) and 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs) (from April 17 on). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I just became aware of this. I'm going to bed, but will post something in the morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there might be two persons here - one clothing-obsessed and the other doing art & architecture. Or is that just a screen? I have been seeing these for months. Generally-accepted art history is all a European conspiracy - that's the line. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me make a preliminary observation: there are two sets of IPs: a larger one from Malaysia, and a smaller one from New Jersey/Delaware. They have appeared on pages in which Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) has been in conflict with me, all taking his side, though I'm sure there are other pages as well. Highpeaks himself once indicated that this IP from Jersey City, New Jersay, now banned by Drmies, was being used by him. The pages (including their talk pages) on which I've encountered these IPs are these: Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia. I will make a more detailed post later this weekend. There are also red-linked new users, that had quickly sprouted in the instance of a vote: here, here (now blocked), and here. Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is a recent example of a newuser who is battling in Highpeak's support. Whether all this is meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, or a spectacular conincidence, I can't tell. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

man, you seem to have got a lot of grudge against highpeaks, now accusing me of being his puppet, this is not the first time you have accused him of something, previously being towing a hindu buddhist agenda, indian nationalist agenda etc and now this. if mods are little bit concerned about your behavior they would take action. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Example: Kurta

• • • After a gap of some years, and after posting a talk page message for the lead author of the page, Malikhpur, I made my first recent edit to the page on: 6th April 2019
    • Later the same day, after my edits were completed, Highpeaks35 appeared to change "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" and our back and forth began.
    • On 17 April 2019, 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (in Malaysia) appeared on the page to edit war with me over "Indian subcontinent".
    • On 19 April 2019, 63.143.237.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (in Union City, New Jersey) joined in over "Indian subcontinent".
    • On 21 April 2019, 2600:1002:b102:4e39:4dda:65bd:e2eb:3dd0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in Wilmington, Delaware joined in over "Indian subcontinent"
    • 22 April 2019, 2600:1002:b12c:4ac5:5c10:1d47:c2c2:68c8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from Mantua, New Jersey) joined battle for Indian subcontinent

• Talk:Kurta
  • • 11 April 2019, 202.188.53.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) made a post critical of my edits
    • 13 April 2019, 202.188.44.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia) made a semi-neutral post.
    • 15 April 2019, 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) joined the fray
• The IPs in this instance are a toxic presence, holding up progress, and relentlessly dragging the article back to reflecting their favored POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark, can you please look at this non-sense. Look where Fowler&fowler is now stooping to? Stating me and Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) are the same person? Please check our locations, editing styles and log-ins, that can easily state we have nothing in common. I edited thousands of articles in Wiki; and I tended to follow Hammy's work. Mainly copy editing it. Please advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

I am saying no such thing, but rather than Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is himself an example of an IP from Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, with such contributions who after his last edit as the IP, appeared by his own admission as Hammy0007 on a page in which you have a dispute with me. He fits the pattern of IPs who have appeared on pages in which you and I have locked horns. I have no idea who the IPs are, but there's a pattern. I'm laying out the evidence for the powers-that-be to examine, not making any accusations. Several of these IPs have already been banned, so there is something going on with these IP addresses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, all of your recent edits of Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia are result of you stalker me. There are diffs that users can see who edited first in recent history. Who started causing trouble at each article? Pilaf and History of domes in South Asia are examples of articles I don't see you ever edited. But, you appeared once I edited it. You are the stalker. I don't know how you are getting away with these non-sense. All you do is bicker and edit-war. I at-least have 100s of articles I recently edited without any edit war or conflict, but all your recent edits are just that, POV pushing, bickering, and conflicts, not WP:Compromise and constant attacks close to WP:NPA. Our edit histories speaks for itself. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Notwithstanding the irony of the last line, are you serious that F&F is stocking as well as stoking you? FWIW, I concur with F&F that this needs a detailed look for the coincidences are too spectacular to be exclusive of meat-puppetry. ∯WBG^converse 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, yes, I got the spelling wrong once, but I clearly wrote "stalker" on the later sentence(s). But, now fixed in both. You did not have to be "fresh" and frankly insulting. Also, to think I will stay up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from a completely different timezone is probably the most asinine thing I ever heard. I have a life besides wikipedia, like work and family. Staying up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from another country, sorry, not happening. Believe what you want to believe. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

I will leave the judgments to the experts, but meatpuppets do not have to be in the same time zone. I will note that there are New Jersey/Delaware IPs as well (see above); there is also a range of addresses which have been blocked, one of which you yourself used in January 2019: see here and the next edit. It may not mean anything, but the evidence needs to be explained in light of the POV pushing behaviour of the IPs, explained not by you but by the WP experts. You obviously are innocent, unless, and until, proven guilty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately, I can only do so much. If the Wikipedia community does not care about the reliability of its content, editors such as Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and now Hammy0007 (talk · contribs)—recently registered from the IP ranks of Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, which is the topic of this thread—will run riot on Wikipedia, promoting their peculiar brand of India-POV. Both have been warned by admins. Highpeaks35 has already been blocked by TonyBallioni (see here) with request to "take on board the concerns of Vanamonde93 in his AE report." The AE report closure is summarized: "I've blocked for 1 week as an AE action per BMK's diffs of personal attacks within the conflict area. Hopefully this time away from the project will also help them consider the other concerns that have been raised here. If it continues after the block expires, a new AE report can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)" (See here) Vanamonde's AE report, see here, begins with, "Frequently, though presented as minor corrections, these edits have NPOV implications (they may or may not be violations of NPOV, but they do alter the POV of an article); .... There are a number of others, among which the unifying pattern is a tendency to add "Indian", "Indian subcontinent", or "Hindu", as descriptors for specific objects and customs. This, in and of itself, is concerning, as it appears to be subtle POV-pushing concealed by laconic and misleading edit-summaries," and ends with "In sum, Highpeaks has for several months now demonstrated an inability to use sources with the rigor necessary for a contentious topic, and an inability to work collaboratively, which required administrative intervention." Will someone on Wikipedia tell me if the mayhem that is being caused on just two pages: Kurta and Shalwar kameez and their talk pages, during the last two or three days, demonstrates that any lessons have been learned. I am tired. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006. But this is an all time low. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I must say that there is a troubling pattern here. Lots of WP:OR (what's this about zero slits and side slits?) and then there's this obvious content or POV or both fork History of domes in India. If you can't get your viewpoint into an article, seek WP:DR, don't just create a fork. I recommend a topic ban on South Asian history for Hammy0007. I'm reluctant to impose a ban on @Highpeaks35: but they do need to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the fork given their history of substituting India for South Asia in a wide range of articles. About the possibility of sock/meat puppets, perhaps an SPI is warranted. Fowler? --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I was not aware forking was an issue. I wanted to make a compromise, that is why I reverse the domes article version here and commented "bringing it to User:Fowler&fowler's version. Now, improve the article." Also, Indian domes have enough material to have its own article, as Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate, and Mughals are within modern-day India. Regardless, I don't have strong feeling for that article, as my main edits were copy-editing, as the diffs will show. I will not edit those articles for the time being until dispute is over. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

• A few quick notes:
  • I have indeffed Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing under both the current account and the IPs listed in the original report (I am convinced that they are all one person; can spell out reasoning if needed).
  • I don't believe Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and the Hammy0007 are socks per se. But they were clearly tag-teaming to edit-war against Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) over multiple articles, which is troubling especially given the past history between Highpeas35 and F&f. I am not taking any admin action at the moment but if this type of battleground conduct continues, IBANs or topic-bans are not too far off.
  • I have redirected the newly created content/POV-fork History of domes in India to History of domes in South Asia. Whether the main article needs to be expanded, renamed, re-scoped, or split should be discussed on Talk:History of domes in South Asia.
  • I am skeptical that a rangeblock of the Malaysian IPs is needed/feasible but if the user returns (or other IPs, "now accounts" crop up) just ping me and I'll be happy to block the individual IPs/accounts or protect the affected article.

Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks @Abecedare:. @Highpeaks35:, and I'm looking at the link about forks from Hammy's talk page posted by Fowler below, you need to be ultra careful going forward. Any further attempt to use India in place of South Asia will lead to a topic ban of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RegentsPark As for topic ban on Hammy, it will likely serve little purpose, as Hammy will go back to becoming just another IP from Subang Jaya Malaysia, just like the new user, 1337 siddh (talk · contribs), who appeared on Wikipedia to support and vote for Highpeaks, and then disappeared. As for Highpeaks, as you obviously will have seen, on Hammy's talk page, Highpeaks is very much aware that forking is an issue, why else would he also be feeding Hammy to change the name of History of domes in South Asia to History of Indo-Islamic domes, and then later attempt to do so himself here, and only after create the fork? The main issue for me is that Highpeaks35 he is exhibiting some of the same behavior that was described in Vanamonde's AE report, as well as warned about by you. There is "Indian subcontinent" everywhere in the new article History of domes in India, in most cases, the result of a simple change from "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" or "India." He was doing the same on the Kurta page earlier today: See here, for an example of how ridiculously unencyclopedic a WP page begins to look when POV pushers, by hook or by crook, top load the article with their POV; contrast that with the original Oxford Dictionary of English, Cambridge Dictionary, and a scholar's citations. The behavior continues unabated. See here for example, or here, more generally here, and ending with Kautily3's post addressed to both Hammy and Highpeaks, urging them to stop. I am looking into SPI, but, again, Highpeaks35, in my view, is violating the spirit of Vanamonde's AE report. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yo, I have commitments in real life rather than involving in a stupid edit war here. Didn't know you would stoop to calling everyone as sockpuppets of one guy.

1337 siddh (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

How in the crowded hours of that glorious real life you received intimations of an obscure talk page conflict on Wikipedia is the million dollar question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Abecedare: for taking admin action against Hammy0007 (talk · contribs), and thank you, both you and @RegentsPark:, for warning Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs). I hope he understands that a return to the behavior of concern, which is described fairly clearly in RP's post, will lead to more punitive action. If the others who have weighed in here: @LouisAragon:, @EdJohnston:, @Johnbod:, and @Winged Blades of Godric: agree, perhaps some uninvolved admin could close this thread. I won't bother with the SPI now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with a close, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Socks or students?

After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2 resulted in blocks of multiple accounts, an uninvolved user User:Yassie claimed that the blocked accounts and IP are all User:さえぼー's students and are not sockpuppets (diff, diff, diff). In her unblock request (or IP block exemption request, I guess), さえぼー said, "You are blocking the [w]hole editathon in Japanese Wikipedia" (diff). Subsequently, the accounts got all unblocked by User:Bbb23 and User:Premeditated Chaos. As User:朝彦 mentioned (diff), User:さとみよ is indeed listed as a participant of さえぼー's edit-a-thon in the Japanese Wikipedia (diff), so unblocking さとみよ seems pretty reasonable. However, it is unlikely that the other accounts are さえぼー's students; she later admitted that only さとみよ is her student among Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2/Archive, further adding that she doesn't know anything about the other accounts (diff). Except さとみよ, the accounts that were confirmed at the SPI case need to be blocked (again) from editing the English Wikipedia. 153.230.50.237 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are any of the accounts currently vandalizing Wikipedia or editing disruptively? I'm inclined to wait until actual malice occurs before blocking any of them. Indeed, I'm uncomfortable with the initial blocks as somewhat lacking WP:AGF in the sense that none of the accounts demonstrated actual malice or disruption. None of these accounts showed any signs of being used to harm Wikipedia when they were blocked. --Jayron32 14:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32 has essentially summarized my position for me. Use of multiple accounts (if it was that) is not disallowed, even if odd, unless the behavior falls under any of the criteria at WP:BADSOCK. None of the accounts appeared to be engaged in disruptive or deceptive editing, so I unblocked them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is not the first time - and it won't be the last - that such an SPI is filed. Nor will it be the last time that a class of students is blocked because of the report. I disagree with the conclusions of Jayron32 and Premeditated Chaos that there was no abuse. The mere fact that so many users/accounts are collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks. My only regret is that this happens in the first place when it could be so easily prevented by declarations on the students' userpages with a link to their instructor or coordinator. I unblocked all the editors who had contributed to en.wiki yesterday, and my understanding is that PMC completed the process with the no-edit accounts that were blocked, for which I am grateful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Wait, what? "Collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks"? I can't... I don't... I... WHAT?!?!? --Jayron32 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The mere fact that so many users/accounts are collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks. This is such a shocking assumption of bad faith that I'm having trouble believing you said it. Apparent newbies collaborating and learning how to edit, while not making problematic edits, is so disruptive that the only thing to be done is block them all and be done with it, with zero communication? That's not how to assume good faith.
• Nobody ever talked to a single one of these accounts. Not one time; I checked their talk pages (bot-generated Teahouse welcome messages do not count). Nobody ever asked them what they were doing, who they were, can we help them understand how to edit here better, nothing. Nobody even warned them that their editing might be seen as disruptive! So as far as they know, they made some edits on Wikipedia and suddenly got the banhammer for no particular reason, and as far as you're concerned per your talk page they're "lucky" you bothered to unblock them. That's a really unhelpful attitude on the whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I believe Bbb23 meant collaborating in the tag-teaming with a motive sense, and not the usual collaboration. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's correct. I'll make one more comment and then let others continue their pillorying of me. First, I treated this as a socking case. My check determined that all of these accounts were socks. I don't typically then ask one or more of the sock accounts, oh, btw, what are you doing here? Hindsight is nice, but one must look at my behavior at the time. Second, the comment about "lucky" was after the the editor yelled at me for not acting quickly enough, even though, as soon as I saw that message and another by the other Japanese editor, I went as quickly as I could to unblock the users.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you didn't ask, how did you know the accounts were being used against policy and deserved being blocked? What in the behavior of the accounts indicated that the accounts needed to be blocked? Mere collaborative editing cannot be enough. --Jayron32 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" is one of the criteria for a block at WP:SOCK. This is one of the reasons why people are encouraged by WP:SHARE to label their account when it could be construed (or mistaken) as sock puppetry. Ideally, people organizing editathons should tell people about this before they're unleashed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• (EC) I can in part see things both ways here. I agree that maybe this could have been handled different e.g. speaking to the editors first although I'm not sure whether our checkusers should spent a great deal of time on that so I do wonder who would do it. But I also agree that multiple undeclared accounts editing the same article is prima facie evidence of WP:SOCK violation. Editors are allowed to have undeclared multiple accounts, but it's rarely acceptable to edit the same article around the same time with them (discounting minor accidents). "Collaborating" is the wrong word to use here. If these accounts are the same person, then there is no "collaboration". It's one editor editing the same page with multiple accounts. If these accounts are declared then that's generally fine, in fact I just spent a long time arguing amongst other things, that it's silly to complain about someone editing with an IP when they specifically declared in the edit summary that they were a named editor. But if the accounts are undeclared, even without talk page comments or reverts, there's still a strong risk of confusion about how many editors are involved or how much support there is for something. So if evidence existed that these accounts were the same editor, than that's IMO automatically a probable sock violation. And the only real defence is "despite the evidence, these accounts are all separate people" or "sorry I made a mistake, I will either restrict myself to one account or declare the connection if I use multiple accounts to edit the same article" The question of whether there was sufficient evidence to run the check in the first place as well as whether the evidence based on CU data etc was strong enough that these were the same editor I consider separate issues which I won't bother to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but we need to start from a place of "these accounts are all separate people" as our default assumption. Multiple accounts editing together is prima facie evidence of an edit-a-thon. When we have competing and reasonable explanations of an unexplained situation, it is incumbent upon us to err on the side of "not blocking" until such time as the actual situation comes clearer. In this case, there was nothing in the edits of the accounts to indicate they were doing anything wrong: they weren't introducing vandalism, they weren't edit warring, they were just editing. Blocking them was not imperative, there was no harm coming to any part of Wikipedia from the things they were doing. Prima facie evidence of disruption is disruption itself, not "I don't know what is going on here". If something looks weird, we investigate if it is just weird, but not harmful. This was clearly in the "weird but not harmful" camp. --Jayron32 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. I'll make one more comment and then let others continue their pillorying of me." If you don't want your admin actions to be criticised, don't make admin actions. I attended an editathon where ten people using the same IP all created accounts and put an article in their sandbox. Andrew Davidson and RexxS have attended several. Let's have some actual details about what the accounts were doing - if it was blatant vandalism, spam, political polemic, say that, then we've actually got something to block for. But just for sharing a couple of accounts - well I'm glad my kids aren't interested in editing Wikipedia as I'd probably get checkuser blocked otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• OT: I find the mention of Standford prison experiment in your essay woefully mischaracterizing, as the experiment has been proved to be definitively flawed and has barely been replicated. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Regular organisers of editing events are continually finding better ways to work so that they avoid running into problems like this. I remember having several eminent members of the Royal Society of Chemistry blocked because somebody had spotted multiple new users adding {{New user bar}} to their user pages at more or less the same time under my direction. Fortunately Harry Mitchell was present and could unblock while I carried on working with the rest. It provided an interesting talking point for the RSC anyway. People make mistakes and I'm sure Bbb23 will consider the possibility of an editathon the next time this sort of situation turns up. I sincerely hope さえぼー isn't put off by what happened and will encourage their students to write something about "taking part in an editathon" on their user page at an early stage in future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Do keep in mind that the participants in question never meant to edit anywhere outside Japanese WP, so it will not make sense to have them edit the user pages in English WP and every other major projects for that matter. (They could, however, make a user page on Meta so that it will function as a global user page. Whether that action is an easy one for a newcomer to follow is an open question for the editathon organizers. What's Meta? Why do we need to edit a different site? Wall of foreign language (English) text... Easily puts off newcomers.) (Also, I apologize for editing an archived page earlier.) 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• IMO a meta page is well worth considering. Yes it may be slightly confusing, but surely the purpose of any edit-a-thon is to help editors with parts of editing which may be confusing to them? Given what I said below about the dominance of English and the English wikipedia is IMO for better or worse true, I would say this is especially the case for edit-a-thons for projects outside en.wikipedia. In other words, it seems quite likely a reasonable percentage (say at least 10%) of these editors are eventually going to edit some other project most likely the English wikipedia so teaching them slightly about global accounts and meta seems well worth it. Note that I'm not saying they need to post in English. It would be fine for them to post in Japanese (or whatever) on meta perhaps with a suggestion if they can write it, it it may be helpful to post in English since as I expect many of them will already appreciate, it's the language most likely to be at least partly understood by a diverse range of different people. Edit: As also mentioned below, seems to me even more imperative for any edit-a-thon which has translation as part of their goal. And yes, this does definitely include any edit-a-thon translation articles to English. And for that matter, I'm not saying general English edit-a-thons shouldn't do it either. IMO they should also. Especially when it's expected a reasonable number of their percentages speak a language besides English. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• See also my comments below dated 07:49 Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a section to WP:How to run an edit-a-thon, suggesting that before the edit-a-thon organisers contact an admin who's generally online at the edit-a-thon time/day and/or post a notice somewhere appropriate (WP:AN? the Teahouse? Is there an edit-a-thon central?) that they'll be doing this. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit-a-thon organizer did post that kind of notice - on ja.wiki, because that's where their editing was intended to be. For whatever reason, a number of the participants or other people at their university edited en.wiki at similar times, prompting the SPI. It's not anyone on en.wiki's fault that we didn't know beforehand that there was a ja.wiki edit-a-thon - I don't think anyone can be expected to be aware of edit-a-thons in every language. But in my opinion it is a problem that we (as a community) didn't attempt communication with anyone from the group before moving to blocking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the dominance of the English language and the dominance of the English wikipedia it seems to me a mistake for any edit-a-thon to assume that their editing activity if large enough, is going to be restricted to their language wikipedia unless they're absolutely sure almost no on in their edit-a-thon speaks English. Edit: I see also the organiser of this edit-a-thon is involved in the translation wikiproject. Assuming the edit-a-thon had at least some aspect of translating English language articles to Japanese, this seems even more reason why it would be a mistake to assume there would be no cross-wiki editing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

When I posted the above I was under the assumption most of these accounts came from the highlighted edit-a-thon. I now believe this is unlikely. But one additional point. Remember if someone never edits English wikipedia, then then them being blocked here is not an issue. I mean if they are visiting, sure the block notice is not the most welcoming thing but still it doesn't in any way hinder the ability to participate in the edit-a-thon. In other words, precautions to try to reduce the possibility of problems outside whatever wiki is their target are not so much to protect the edit-a-thon but because we want them to have a welcoming and productive experience elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Yes, but we need to start from a place of "these accounts are all separate people" as our default assumption." As already said, that is IMO a separate issue I'm not interested in discussing. My main point is that if Bbb23 felt there was sufficiently compelling evidence from the data it was a bunch of people operating one account then it's wrong to say there was no disruption. It almost definitely was disruption. So hence I fundamentally also disagree with "If something looks weird, we investigate if it is just weird, but not harmful. This was clearly in the "weird but not harmful" camp." since as I said before, by definition this is not just weird. In fact it is harmful if it was one editor operating multiple accounts. I consider this an important point which was and is IMO being missed by all this talk about collaboration etc. If this was indeed one editor operating multiple accounts there was no collaboration going on and it was harmful. If people feel it's not, I think they need to change our socking policy since IMO it strongly supports the view that one editor operating multiple undeclared accounts to edit the same articles at the same time is by definition harmful and well worth of a block. Now the question of whether there was enough evidence either to run a check, or to conclude that these were all the same editor based on the check and other data is a relevant and interesting one but it's not something I'm interested in discussing. If people want to discuss that they are welcome to somewhere in this discussion. But I don't consider it relevant to what I said since I only wished to comment on that one specific issue. Frankly I'm not even sure why there's any reason to suggest that it isn't harmful. It just seems to me a needless distraction when there are other things which could be discussed like the aforementioned issues of whether there was enough evidence to run a check or whether there was enough evidence to conclude it was one editor. In fact as I also said, I think more communication from someone may have been helpful, which no one seems to really be disputing although as I said, how we should go about this is also something worthy of discussion. Should CUs do it? Clerks? Someone else? So yeah, it just seems pointless to me to focus so much on something which WP:SOCK seems clear enough on, one editor operating multiple undeclared accounts to edit the same articles at around the same time is not something which is weird, it's something which is harmful and well worth of a block. Nil Einne (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• "It almost definitely was disruption" how so? Point to the diff that shows malice. Just one from this group of editors. --Jayron32 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that a group of students gets blocked because no one here knew that a bunch of accounts were in fact likely run by different people. Anything would have been helpful--a note on a user page, a note on a user talk page, an edit summary (I looked at a bunch of diffs and saw none). So we have a bunch of accounts who appear to come out of nowhere, edit the same or similar articles, and in addition we have a bunch of accounts that haven't edited anything at all. All of those things can maybe be explained, could have been explained, but weren't, so if Bbb comes to the conclusion that there's a sock master here who created a bunch of accounts including a whole lot of sleepers, that is not unreasonable: many of our socks operate this way. In addition, many of our socks and masters do make edits that individually are not disruptive but add up to autoconfirmation, for instance; many of our socks and masters create a whole bunch of accounts only to use them weeks or months later from different ranges that are CU-blocked for past sock activity and are blocked from account creation, so that the master can operate sock accounts from those ranges since now they can log in. It's unfortunate and preventable, but I can't find fault with Bbb for doing what they did. I am sure that most of the folks running edit-a-thons do a great job with a. announcing what they're doing (on the relevant wiki) and b. teach new editors to announce themselves and provide edit summaries; that this didn't happen for this group on this wiki is not the CU's fault. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Short version: My conclusion is most of these accounts are indeed operated by one person. Normally in a consecutive fashion, sometimes an account is kept probably because of what they want to do. Only 1 is an unrelated student of the class, with 2 or 3 others also unrelated editors. But I'm not seeing a clear enough violation to block. Especially as I think the editor is trying to avoid overlap of articles.

Long version

Have to admit I didn't read the first post when first replying as it wasn't relevant to my main point (although it did relate to my secondary point of discussion so I should have). Looking at it now, I agree with the IP that there's something weird going on here and it doesn't look like most of the accounts are related to the specific class outlined or if they are in a very indirect way. I don't speak Japanese but from machine translations it seems they are listed on that page and also they can obtain credit for their work. So it seems fairly unlikely there are that many who's accounts haven't been identified. Further, I looked at the winter 2018 page and they also don't show up there. It seems to be a small class so also wouldn't account for the numbers here. Further quite a few of these accounts have no edits to the Japanese wikipedia or anywhere besides here. The only accounts with undeleted edits here are User:Mnsch1 User:Blbld User:Pnnst4 User:0011ns User:Jlndrws0 User:Dnshppr User:Clndrgrl as well as User:Jmsstrt User:Untr0 User:Dbrkrr The obvious thought is that these might be new Musashi University students who got interested in editing recently for some reason, perhaps in part due to the start of semester 1 [238] and communication with the students take part in the highlighted class. But there's something else strange. The accounts from Mnsch1 to Clndrgrl all have a specific pattern. The account is created then makes a bunch of edits over a day or two, and then disappears/stops editing. (I sorted them by date.) The edits are often (likely) beneficial gnomish edits like improving reference style (replacing with templates or adding more details to a template), particularly the first 4 accounts seem to be mostly this. The later two accounts are more along the lines of adding Japenese interwiki links for terms in articles, and some rewording or local links. The similarity of edits especially fixing the refs seemed a bit weird and I wondered if there could be another class with some minor component of teaching people to edit wikipedia at Musashi University but having noticed the dates, I changed my mind only reaffirmed by what I saw latter. I now believe that the accounts are one person creating multiple consecutive accounts. First thought was could it be because they forgot their password? Well the number of accounts is quite high and the lag between Blbld and Pnnst4 is very short. So for that & other reasons I think privacy or not wanting all their edits to be linked is more likely. I'd also note that the edits are all mobile web edit tagged. And after looking, I found a similar pattern at Ja wikipedia. The accounts User:39age2 User:Lbnlv User:Brebth User:Chrky0 User:Rdndwht User:客地区梧桐 User:感寺位 User:Cmmcl User:かにくん all seem to show a similar pattern of editing for a short time, generally with gnomish edits, as mobile web edits and minimal overlap. The pairs Lbnlv+Brebth and Chrky0+Rdndwht do have some overlap, but otherwise it seems similar. IMO this is another suggestion it's not someone who keeps forgetting their password but changing accounts regularly. (Not sure why the overlap, whether they wanted they kept the different accounts because of what they wanted to edit, or maybe more likely they simply forgot which one was the current account.) One difference in Ja is I think some of the accounts lasted a bit longer than the ones here did although it's still only a few days. I'm aware it's easily possible some accounts were not picked up especially on Ja since they may have never created one here. Another sign is that where I machine translated, the edits often seemed similar to what I saw here. Notably 客地区梧桐 and Cmmcl seemed to be the same changing ref into template. (39age2 seems to be mostly intrawiki links, seems to be similar but I did see at least one interwiki wikilinks [239] and ref improvement [240].) Before I looked at Ja, I identified Jmsstrt, Untr0 and Dbrkrr as different here given the length of time they edited with significant overlap. Jmsstrt and Untr0 also each created a draft which they moved to main space. I later noticed that Untr0 and Dbrkrr also had some Ja edits. Dbrkrr's edits are particularly interesting as they are gnomish mostly adding interwiki links. All 3 also edited with mobile web edit. All 3 edited Otohiko Hara article which Jmsstrt created. This seems to be the primary overlap that I noticed. While these could be another editor/s, I'm inclined to believe they are all actually the same editor as the gnomish one. The way they kept these 3 accounts is IMO more evidence they're doing this for privacy or similar reasons rather than forgetting their password or whatever. While the overlap is concerning, I'm inclined to think perhaps it was an accident, managing that many accounts can't be easy. I.E. they recognise that it's a bit dodgy to be editing the same article, especially one they created, with different accounts and are trying to avoid it where possible. For that reason, while I still strongly believe what I said above, I think we should let this editor be. Well someone can still approach them but if they don't reply, we just leave it. The lots of consecutive accounts is weird but not really a clear sock violation per se. (I mean it could be considered an attempt to avoid scrunity and I guess some may be unhappy with the interwiki wikilinks but I'm personally not feeling it. The possibility these were sleepers whether for vandalism or paid edits did occur to me, but frankly the pattern and the fact some of them don't even have 10 edits, makes me think this is unlikely. (Of course since they've been spotted we may never know.) I appreciate there's no way to be sure I'm right, theoretically, it could simply be a large number of people showing such a pattern. But I strongly believe it's something close to what's going on. (The most likely mistake I would have made would be that some of the accounts are another editor who uses the mobile web editor and only edited briefly. Especially with the Ja ones since I didn't look at edits for all accounts.) Note that User:カホコ and User:Mutou seem to be old editors on Ja (well not much editing) inadvertedly caught out. User:Snsanatorium has no undeleted edits anywhere. User:さとみよ the one identified as a student I correctly guessed was the student because their editing pattern seemed different. (I did recall the student had a non latin alphabet name, but doubt I recognised it and believe I only noticed the lack of mobile web edit later.) From all I've seen, I'm fairly sympathetic to the IP and Bbb23 and whoever opened that SPI. IMO they were right to be concerned by what they saw even if my ultimate conclusion is not to block any of them. Ultimately while it might not be a clear violation, anyone doing what this editor seems to be doing should expect they might have problems, especially when they aren't ultra careful to avoid overlap. I do also have sympathy with the 3 or 4 (depending on the what's up with the no edit) accounts who are probably unrelated and were blocked, including the student. Although it probably wouldn't have had much effect on them other than the surprise to see the block notice.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's a very thoughtful and detailed analysis, Nil. I appreciate what went into it. Thank you for that. --Jayron32 16:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is not the first time innocent editors are blocked and will not be the last time. I think it is pretty obvious that the blocks took place due to the lack of any local documentation, and I do not see editors disagreeing with that point. So, what are we trying to get at here? I have seen admins with worse lapses of judgement having their ANI thread closed with "ArbCom is thataway", so if that's what we are getting at here, so be it. Dragging someone through the mud because they did their task just makes no sense. If Jayron32 or PMC have major issues with Bbb23's conduct, both of them know what to do. Keeping this ANI thread for a back-and-forth justification where either party does not understand the other's standpoint is just detrimental to SPI's image and the work we do (as evidenced from Ritchie's essay) — and while, I do not mind critique, there is a fine line where that turns into disrespect of the work that volunteers do on this project. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we know what to do. What we do is, we say "I think you made the wrong decision here". We both did that. I'm not sure what else you want us to do, saying "I disagree with what you did" is exactly how we do things at Wikipedia when someone does something we disagree with. --Jayron32 16:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  I am not saying you don't. I'm saying you know what to do next as well. If ADMINACCT has been infringed, the only one with any authority is ArbCom and the time for community admonishment/sanctions has been shown to elapse (by this now somewhat stale thread). So either it's "let it be" or "AC is thatway" — that's all I said. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  Some of us are quite capable of carrying on conversations with others without running off to mommy to demand that someone is punished even if we disagree with what they did. ArbCom is not at all appropriate here, and I don't know why you feel the need to bring it up. Simply telling someone why you disagree with what they did, and why you wish they had done something differently, is all that is needed in cases such as this. --Jayron32 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  That's great, then this thread has fulfilled (or outlived) its usefulness. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure anyone would claim that it hasn't. --Jayron32 12:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

After final warning

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

So this was rejected at AIV (makes sense, edits are not clear vandalism), so here we are. This user violated WP:SYNTH after final warning with this edit and this edit. The source cited says nothing of the team breaking up at all, yet that's what the user put in the articles. Was previously warned for removing maintenance templates, adding unsourced content, adding unsourced content and adding unsourced content. Has not responded to talk page messages since his first one. StaticVapor message me! 01:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I added reliable sources in the edit. IDK what's wrong? I picked the reliable website. I didn't break any rules, nor did I vandalise the article

HygorHubner (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@HygorHubner: Well, removing maintenance templates is breaking the rules...--BoothSift 02:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is that multiple times you have added unsourced content or you have cited a reliable source, but the content you add is not in source. That is called WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR. I have dropped a few messages on your talk page, linking to pages such as WP:V AND WP:NOR and you have you to respond till now. StaticVapor message me! 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? I didn't remove anything. I just added stuff. I didn't delete anything! Jeez...

HygorHubner (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: I think there is a misunderstanding. Hygor is confused as in what he did wrong and StaticVapor is trying to explain, but not doing so in a way that Hygor would understand. @HygorHubner: What Static means is that while you may have added unsourced content, your edit may violate a rule that we have that is called: "Synthesis of published material", "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of feudsthe article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." --BoothSift 02:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean I did drop them multiple messages before this, and they did not respond until now. StaticVapor message me! 07:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• So I unarchived this because I did not receive an administrator response. I do not find the user in question responses satisfactory and I'm not just going to let this disappear. StaticVapor message me! 19:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• The problem here is that things like "feuds" are being presented here as facts, when they are clearly fictional, and only sourced to web sites that routinely present such fiction as facts. We wouldn't put up with such content about topics such as history, medicine or genuine sports, so why do we do so about this topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• So that is the problem? Not everything outlined above about behavior and lack of sources etc.? No the fact "feuds are presented as real" is obviously why this ended up at ANI. Focus on the actual issue please. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Intense arguments about kayfabe baloney get people who are not wrestling fans really irritated. HygorHubner has not edited at all since replying here four days ago. The situation is stale. What the heck do you expect administrators to do right now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Clearly I expected a short term block or a stern warning for violating Wikipedia policy after a final warning. StaticVapor message me! 22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor, this editor got raked over the coals four days ago and hasn't edited since. It would be an abuse of administrative powers to block them four days later. As for a "stern warning", any editor can issue a warning, not just administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think "raked over coals" is not even close, one user not including me responded and only explained what WP:OR was. I expected a block around the time of posting, I didn't expect a block now, just a response from an Admin and hopefully a message to the user I made this posting about. I know anyone can issue a warning, I just did not want the user to feel as if it is just me attacking their contributions and just making stuff up. They seem to not have bothered to click any of the links to WP:V and WP:OR (until now hopefully) that I have given them. So I had hope that another voice telling them that what they are doing wrong would stop future behavior. StaticVapor message me! 22:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) None of those problems would exist if we applied the same standards towards kayfabe in articles about professional wrestling as we did to other fictional topics. It all stems from treating fiction as fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well technically it is "making up fiction" based on info that does not exist in the source - that's not unique to pro wrestling. But you know I am glad you enjoy your little soap box moment, as misplaced as it is in this discussion. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• What is obvious to anyone apart from obsessives is that nearly all of the sources used in our articles about professional wrestling are unreliable, so complaining about one editor's lack of reliable sourcing is just silly. This whole topic needs the same sort of focus that we recently had on porn actors to eliminate the routine acceptance of sources as reliable when they actually peddle totally fictional bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: Your comment about kayfabe literally has nothing to do with this issue. We are discussing a disruptive user, not the subject the article falls under. StaticVapor message me! 17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• You are still off topic Phil Bridger and trying force in something that is irrelevant. Since Pro Wrestling is under a "General Sanction" you should be aware that disruptive editing can result in admin action. If that is the bug in your ear find an appropriate venue to do something about it. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• The user changed the article of a tag team saying they we're broken up and disbanded. Yet the source they used said nothing of the sort. This is the issue. I had to clean up multiple articles due to this incorrect information added. This user already received a final warning due to other disruptive edits, that I linked above. So do we do nothing about disruptive users anymore just because they have WP:ANI flu? StaticVapor message me! 22:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. What disruption would be prevented now by a block if the user has not edited for a week? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• @FlyingAce: Yes I know. See my responses to Cullen328 above. Also if I was a newer user I might have got WP:ANI flu too, why does that immediately make the issue not matter? All I wanted was an administrator to comment on the inappropriate behavior. A warning to the user that isn't from me, is not too much to ask is it? It is disheartening seeing these types of responses. StaticVapor message me! 07:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• @STATicVapor: I see your point, and I am sorry that you have found this disheartening. It seems that HygorHubner stopped editing after Boothsift posted a simple explanation of the issue above, so if we are to AGF we could think that HygorHubner chose to move on after being shown what was wrong with their edits. In this case, there would be nothing left for us to do.

I could be wrong, of course, and it could be a case of ANI flu as you mention; but we would not know until the user starts editing again. If this turns out to be the case and the edits resume, you can open a new report and refer to this one; there would be no need to go through the whole warning cycle again, IMO. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Amin marin on Deaths in 2019 page

The mentioned user is adding deceased persons to the Deaths in 2019 page, but doesn't put them in alphabetical order per the page instruction. No reaction to my intial advice or subsequent warnings on the user talk page.

Diffs that the advice/warnings refer to:

1. [241]
2. [242]
3. [243]
4. [244]
5. [245] (first warning)
6. [246] (second warning)
7. [247] (third warning)
8. [248] (edit triggering this ANI report)

In hindsight I realise that using the vandalism warning template wasn't ideal from my side, as the additions are not vandalism per se. However I was not aware of the other templates and I was frustrated as the erroneous additions have continued. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the user has zero edits in Talk, User Talk, Wikipedia, or Wikipedia Talk namespaces. May be they do not know that they have a talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter Aren't registered users automatically notified by e-mail when they have posts on their talk pages? Meanwhile, this behaviour continues, so something needs to be done. I don't think it is a language issue, becuse the user is adding good content to other pages which indicates a suitable knowledge of English. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried a personal non-template message directed to them? Use their editor name and make it personal. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I started by leaving a normal message on their talk page. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of leaving litany of "warnings" about mere ordering, it would be better to use that time and correct the alphabetization. As per as I can see their edits are clearly sourced and that's what is required by policy. If they alphabetize, fine, if they don't, then fix it. Actually I found the barrage of "warnings" more unconstructive than the edits in question. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Having to fix almost every single entry by a user is getting very annoying. People should adhere to the instructions. Fixing and pointing the user to the procedure is what I normally do, and normally they improve. In this case it has not happened. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Marbe166, it is quite possible that this editor's first language is not English, and also that it does not use the Roman alphabet, so alphabetical order wouldn't be quite such a simple concept as it is for you. I too find your vandalism warnings much more unconstructive than anything that User:Amin marin has done. Just live up to our claim to be a collaborative project and collaborate with an editor who provides sources (which is more than many do) by putting the entries in the correct order. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that knowing the alphabet of the language in question is an absolute minimum requirement for editing. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that recognition of when an editor is making good sourced edits that just need a bit of help with ordering is a minimum requirement for editing. Knowing an alphabet in order to understand a written language is completely different from knowing what order the letters go in. I can read the Cyrillic alphabet, but I don't know the standard order for the letters. Just stop whining about something so minor and either help this editor out by fixing the order or leave it to someone who can act in a spirit of collaboration. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And it continues: [249] --Marbe166 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DePiep edit-warring at Juliana of the Netherlands and threats of "You better behave"

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

---

Queen Juliana of the Netherlands had four daughters. As children and their succession are important to monarchs, we record this. DePiep seems to disagree, and has twice removed the first two "all or none""as I wrote in my es: all (7) children or none. Not that hared is it?".

I have no idea what they mean here. Yes, we should cover all four of the children. We did so, until they started removing them. Juliana did not have 7 children. This would be trivial ANEW stuff, and I said as much at User talk:DePiep#Edit-warring at Juliana of the Netherlands. However their response was "unhelpful", in their perennial fashion (see Special:Log/block), with a threat of "You better behave", followed by "You better behave better. Depending on your response, I might report you for trespassing WP:3RR." I am not prepared to put up with that sort of abuse (and still a lack of explanation or any real discussion) from DePiep. We've been down this path far too many times before and I'm sick of this sort of attitude from them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

And now they start another thread, Talk:Juliana_of_the_Netherlands#Children Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

WTF. My initial edit was: [250], I removed two children from section #Marriage, es "all or none". What is the problem? -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you removed the births of two of the four children. Why? Do you really think that they all have to be listed in the same paragraph? And why claim later on that she had seven?

Besides which, this isn't about factual issues, or even you edit-warring, it's about your attitude. You do not get to threaten other editors, "You better behave" and you have been told this and blocked for it over and over. I am sick of your behaviour like this – if you can't control it, other editors should not have to put up with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

you removed the births of two of the four children. Why? -- Because there were mentioned only two out of four. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

FWIW, I (not Andy Dingley) started the BRD talk [251] (21:13). Before (21:08), [252] Andy started with a Bad Faith approach on my talkpage.

That is: I started the BRD talk, Andy started a BF talk on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the bad faith attitude by Andy, from the first relevant edit onwards, should be considered too. Without this attitude, likely this would no have endded on ANI. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's very clear why the births of two of the children are in one section, and the others later on; the later two were born during a completely different period in her life. Frankly this is verging towards a WP:CIR problem, and this just makes it worse. I do wonder if DePiep's ten previous blocks haven't really got the message across. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not explain why Andy or anyone else could not have clarified this on the talkpage at moment #1+. Does not explain why Andy's BF is justified. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, seems like Andy is admitting/backtracking somehow [253]. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

How many posts have there been since? And yet you are still repeating this "Because there were mentioned only two out of four." nonsense (to make it quite clear, the article began by mentioning all four children, but you started removing them.).

If it's BRD you had wanted, I'd be happy to do that. But you'd already chosen to go for B-R-Do it again anyway-abuse other editors. You want AGF? Sorry, but you burned that assumption years ago. We all know how you behave when questioned, and tonight you're doing exactly the same thing again. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

He's not backtracking at all. He's (quite correctly) pointing out why your edits are wrong. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and with your comments above. I added information bit trying to ease the situation, to satisfy both povs, but DePiep immediately reverted it. His "my way of the highway" attitude here is unacceptable. Moriori (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Moriori, I revered [254] because you were editing an issue that is under discussion aka POV (a BRD discussion *I* started). -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. I gave no opinion on whether there should be two or four children in that section, which is what your dispute is about. My addition was informative and encyclopedic.Moriori (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

And now we are in the "Look over there, that guy did something too so my behavior is excused." phase of this? Who cares who started a discussion? You kept removing info for no legitimate reason, there is no guideline that says "all or nothing" so you removed it because you wanted to. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Jeeee, MPJ-DK is ediding issues under discussion [255]. + an arrrogant es. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

So I don't know what an "es" is, but i know what a clear case of I didn't hear that behavior is. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

es=editsummary. Bit of essential basic knowledge when you engage in an ANI thread. But keep freely spreading IDHT. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and I have NEVER seen anyone use that abbreviation for "edit summary". So no, it's not a "[b]it of essential basic knowledge", it's either something you made up or something ludicrously esoteric, so you don't get to use it pretend you have some greater knowledge. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I use it all the time: [256][257]. EEng 05:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

1) You're now the SECOND person in 14 years I've seen do that: do you know a third? 2) this makes it my second option ("something ludicrously esoteric"); 3) you actually used it as an abbreviation ("e.s.") and in an actual sentence, so if you had been the first person I'd seen doing it, there would be an actual chance of understanding what you meant. --Calton | Talk 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Whatever. This is clearly content dispute that should have been done at Talk. No ANI issue at all. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral issues belong here, your refusal to actually accept the fact that ALL FOUR children are in the article, jus different sections is the ANI issue, and your comments. So distraction, now downplaying in. Can we fast forward to where you get blocked again? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Content disputes don't involve nonsense like this (and your "arrogant" comment three lines above this). My advice to you would be to back away from this very quickly before it becomes eleven blocks. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. ALL FOUR children are in the article is not the issue. The point is that only two were mentioned in section #Marriage. Then again, Andy escalated to usertalk non-talks and ANI but did not Talk. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

So please explain what Wikipedia guideline has given your the impression that "it all has to be in the same section"? The article is chronological (you know "in the order it happened") and broken into logical groups for better organization and readability. A discussion cannot take place when one side holds their hands over their ears and go "la-la-la-la can't hear you" (hint - that person is you). MPJ-DK (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, ANI is not for content disputes. Do you agree that this could & should have been fleshed out at the Talk page, easily? -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my point - this report is not about "content dispute" but your behavior and actions. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

So far, your posts here are about content. Anyway, can you explain why my behaviour would be problematic since *I* started the BRD discussion while Andy started BF Usertalk posts & an ANI, ranting? -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You are all about asking questions here, I got one for you. Were all four children mentioned in the article before you removed sourced content? Answer that and I'll answer you. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Enough of these ranting escalations. I stand by my edit and its es. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not ranting when you simply tell someone they are wrong. How can you read everyones words here and still stand by your bad edit? Accept that you made a mistake. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked DePiep for one month for continued disruption, with reference to their long previous history or prior blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang check for User:Andy Dingley, please

-DePiep (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• When Everyone is telling you that your Behavior is wrong then Perhaps it is time you Liston to some of them Jena (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Reviewing the above conversation, the article talk page, and the article history, Andy Dingley does not seem at risk of being boomeranged. CMD (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Really really not going to happen. You're making things worse for yourself, in fact. --Calton | Talk 03:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I don't really see a reason why a boomerang check is really needed. INeedSupport ^:3 18:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The user (Andy Dingley) has very valid points, and in fact he/she tried to give you advice to avoid an incoming block, which unfortunately you ignored. So the boomerang will go towards you instead of the other user. INeedSupport ^:3 18:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

A hot potato draft "dropped" in its handoffs betwixt admins?

Having seen mention of a certain nuclear operations technician in the WaPo critical of Wikipedia (of its non-coverage of her)[258] and that Everipedia does[259]... I initiated a draft then asked an admin with know-how regarding scholarly biographies this administrator's opinion whether the subject in question had enough sourcing to warrant the encyclopedia's coverage.[260] This admin subsequently moved this draft into mainspace. Then lo and behold yet another admin countered the first admin's action through some kind of maneuver ud hafta be a wikilawyer to follow. So far so good. My query is simply this. Where TF is the draft that'd been so demonstratably prematuredly mv'd into mainspace? Hellaway to run a railroad.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Once the draft was published, it became eligible for speedy deletion. Clarice E. Phelps was deleted because the topic had been previously found non-notable by community consensus. So, your draft does not exist any more because it was published and deleted. You can request that the article be restored at deletion review. Or you could simply ask the admin who deleted it, Amakuru, to restore the draft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I just typed a long reply about this, but I’ll say a shorter version here: if anyone thinks recreating this article now would do anything other than seriously harm the reputation of a living person who is early in her career based off of an op-ed written by the article’s original author complaining about its deletion, you aren’t familiar with how the internet or career advancement work. Recreating the article this close to the moral outrage over the clear consensus in favour of deletion is in my view actually harmful to the subject, as well as unlikely to be in compliance with our inclusion policies and guidelines. Wait 6-24 months, see where this winds up. Before the recent Nobel prize issue is raised: that one involved a late career individual who was a cleat NPROF pass. This involves an early career individual who is a clear NPROF failure and where there was a consensus that she did not meet the GNG. I argued quite strongly that we made a mistake in the former, but here we have a very different situation that has different real world implications. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Topic Ban the entire community from creating an article about her, in any draft or user space, for the next 18 months. ——SerialNumber54129 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• What SN sez. ∯WBG^converse 07:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• It seems fairly clear that this saga has now moved on from the state when this ANI was filed, but as the named party I would just echo what NinjaRobotPirate says above. This page, as it says at the top, is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Which of those does this fall under? If I'd been asked to restore the draft I would have done so but things have moved on now so I suggest there's not much more to be done in this forum. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, methinks the real conflict of interest here are apparently no-name PhDs editing Wikipedia anonymously who troll multi-authored scholarly journal articles so as to braycomment on Wikipedia about the fact that one or another of the articles' coauthors don't have as impressive of alphabet soup by their name as [edited: these conscientious Wikipedia volunteers] do.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the re-re-(re?)-deletion of this being discussed? Natureium (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

>>>>>: Once the draft was published, it became eligible for speedy deletion. Clarice E. Phelps was deleted because the topic had been previously found non-notable by community consensus. So, your draft does not exist any more because it was published and deleted. You can request that the article be restored at deletion review. Or you could simply ask the admin who deleted it, Amakuru, to restore the draft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)<<<<<

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. I'll try it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with non-standard closures at SPI

Bbb23 is an administrator with checkuser authority. I am a contributor who has been wikistalked by a hot-head for the last two years. Over that two years my wikistalker has made extensive use of sockpuppetry to disrupt my contributions. They have used 75 different IP addresses to make hundreds of edits to disrupt my contributions. I've made about 20 SPI reports about these disruptions - about one per month.

Bbb23 has closed 8 of them, officially at least. In addition they have made several non-standard semi-closures, where they simply erased my most recent report from the record. [261] [262]

I am afraid that Bbb23 has lost patience, not with the sockpuppetmaster, but with me, for reporting them.

Yesterday:

• I filed an SPI report, at 10:09
• Bbb23 closed it, with a laconic "insufficient evidence", at at 11:55
• The sockpuppet made two further vandal edits, so I filed a second report at 17:34. I included the diffs from earlier that day, on the grounds that "insufficient evidence" implies that if more evidence emerges the earlier evidence remains relevant.
• Bbb23 excised my second report, at 10:51. This is a problematic, irregular, semi-closure. It's problematic because it doesn't show up in the SPI's archive. It's problematic because it means that other administrators, who might take my concern more seriously, won't have an opportunity to view it.

In my last comment on User talk:Bbb23 I noted their impatience, and the inflammatory language they used about me, and suggested they simply ignore any SPI reports I may make, in future, and let others address them. Bbb23 told me ":I don't want you posting on my Talk page anymore if it involves anything at SPI." That's why I came to ANI.

What would I like to see happen here? I would be satisfied if Bbb23 were to agree to not close SPI reports I make, and to refrain from quietly removing SPI reports I make. SPI's have a section, "Comments by other users". I am happy to read any civil comments they may choose to leave there. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I anticipate that some commentators might tell me to try to deal with my wikistalker through other fora, like requests for semi-protection, formal dispute resolution, or WP:LTA. I have tried requests for semi-protection, only to be told I should be using SPI, instead. Dispute resolution and LTA of course, would both be pointless with individuals who use IP addresses in order to avoid being held accountable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The first closure was quite apt. Also, why don't you use Twinkle to launch SPIs? And, don't ask for CUs on IPs.

Overall, this is an LTA. Revert and move on rather than consuming CU-resources. ∯WBG^converse 19:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• WBG, you wrote "don't ask for CUs on IPs." Well, on March 4th, Bbb23 wrote, in part: "There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently...
• As above, really, is there any point in listing an IP at LTA?
• With regard to the first closure being apt, are you defending the excision of my second report? Someone made four identical excisions of an edit I made [263], [264], [265], [266]. These edits follow the pattern of the previous several hundred disruptive edits this wikistalker has made. One of those edits was made by a newly created ID, that has just one edit under its belt. Are you really suggesting there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the newly created ID is a sockpuppet? Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• There's a difference between filing SPI reports on IPs and asking for CU on them. The latter is forbidden. Also, if IPs have made one edit in entirety (and have since hopped to another), why the heck do you want it to be blocked? The pattern seems like a LTA and we don't consume SPI resources over LTA identification. It's typical revert, block and ignore though I don't think a block to be appropriate in most of the cases given the throwaway nature of used IPs. And, please use Twinkle to file reports. ∯WBG^converse 04:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand Revert and move on. "Move on" would be appropriate if Geo Swan were clueless or were acting frivolously, and "Revert" would be appropriate if Geo Swan were handling a user who really did need sanctions, but I can't envision a situation in which both would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Revert and move on simply means that revert the IP and then move to other productive tasks rather than opening SPIs and asking for checks. ∯WBG^converse 04:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't ask for using checkuser tools to compare IP, CU check only for registered user. I admitted SPI is not that effective on comparing IP by behavioral evidence (i.e. edit tone/wording/or compare exact diff), which sometimes those evidences are not that really clear cut and need a discussion thread, but in SPI usually only SPI nominator and the admin to participate. Also, for example in 123.150.182.180 case, way many IP to blank the same discussion thread in Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)#IP edit, but since those IPs are from many different ISP as well as they are stale (stale IP mean may be 1 week or even few day of inactivity , AIV even consider a few hour as stale) after a while, SPI is not really an effective way to ask for a warrant to block the ip to prevent them on vandalism. It rather more effective to prove individual ip are disruptive editing "recently" and need a short block to prevent them to do so (if stale, no point to block). And other people had pointed out, if it is clear cut LTA, revert them and move on, nothing really able to do if the LTA is ip hopping and unable to predict the IP range. Matthew hk (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive#28 April 2019, well, the new sock suspect only made one edit , so it seem "insufficient evidence" is legit, since it is insufficient for one single edit to be the strongest behavioral evidence. May be file again if he made at least a few edits? Matthew hk (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see that. I don't see how a brand new contributor, who had never made any edits to the wikipedia before, is going to coincidentally decide their first edit should be a very obscure edit to a series of tables. While the basic WMF markup language, is much simpler than other markup languages, like troff and sml, WMF tables are not newbie friendly. No genuine brand new contributor's first edit is going to be to a table's title.

Please bear in mind that Bbb23 had already closed 8, or 9 earlier reports I submitted, so should have been quite familiar with the sockpuppet master's style. I didn't request a checkuser in earlier SPI requests, where he or she only used sockpuppets, only this one, where he or she employed a named ID. Is it possible for a reader here, who is a checkuser, to perform the checkuser test on VballJohnny? Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I can't imagine any reasonable scenario in which a user complains about a contentious admin action and gets met with an immediate ban from said admin's talk page. Being a CU does not make you beyond reproach beyond reproach, but when you're making a subjective judgment call that has nothing to do with your access to classified information, you're no different from any other administrator in terms of accountability standards. Bbb's authoritarian attitude at his personal fiefdom of SPI is nothing new, but refusing to be accountable as an administrator crosses a bright line. Bbb quite simply can't continue to action Geo Swan's SPI reports after banning him from discussing said reports. One cannot act in an administrative capacity in any situation where one is unwilling to be open, transparent, and accountable for one's decisions, and willingness to discuss on your talk page is basically the entirety of what that entails. I assume Bbb knows this already, and would not be so brazen to continue to handle reports from a user he's banned from challenging him. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  You assume incorrectly. I must congratulate you for again demonstrating your cluelessness about SPI and this particular case (each case is different). I usually don't bother responding to you because I consider any discussion with you to be pointless, but this is one goad too many. BTW, I won't get to see your charming response because I'm going off-wiki. I'll defer that pleasure until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23, on March 7th I suggested " If there is something about the SPI reports I have submitted that bugs you, but which you don't want to explain, or can't explain, perhaps you should consider simply letting someone else deal with reports I make?" It seems to me that Swarm concurred, and also thinks you should stop closing SPI reports I make.

  In your response, haven't you blown them off, insisting there is some complication that makes my SPI reports justify extraordinary measures, like removing them from the record. Well how come I am not aware of those extraordinary circumstances? Geo Swan (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: that is an appalling response to a real concern. I suggest you address that concern without the sarcasm and stop attacking other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the following timeline:

• My first interaction with Geo Swan at SPI was after they filed this report on December 24, 2018. The edit they said was "recent" had been made by the IP on December 23.
• I closed the report on December 25 with this comment: "One edit two days ago? Closing."
• Two days later GS filed another report about a different IP who had made three edits the day before and requested a CU.
• Later in the day I declined the CU.
• On December 29, GS filed a report against another IP that made two consecutive edits the day before.
• On December 31, I closed the second report because the IP edits were too old.
• On January 2, 2019, GS filed another report against an IP that had made two edits three days earlier.
• On January 8, 2019, Sro23 closed the two open reports because the IP edits were too old.
• Later the same day a clerk archived the reports.
• On January 24, GS filed a report about two IPs, one of which had made on edit that day, and the other two edits three days before and one edit on the 24th.
• Three days later I closed the report because the IP edits had gotten stale.
• The report was archived a couple of days later.
• On March 1, GS filed a new report against three IPs. The three had made one edit each, two the day before, and one two days before.
• On March 3, I closed the report because the IP edits were too old.
• On March 4, GS added another IP to the closed report with extensive comments and questions. The IP had made one edit two days earlier. GS's extensive comments were in response to another user's question. They were very hard (for me) to follow, but a principal point was that we shouldn't allow IPs to edit. Their comment about indefinitely blocking an IP made no sense. As to the questions, GS asked me (in the wrong section) how old is too old for IP edits. It was a simple question, but GS unnecessarily threw in numbers, some of which were on the surface silly.
• A short time later I responded to GS's questions. I told them there was nothing wrong with filing reports about IPs "who have edited recently" but that often after the filing, the IP edits go stale. I said that this happens frequently, not just to GS, and that it would be good for GS to "adjust your expectations" if they continued to file such reports. I also said that SPI was not a venue for GS – or any editor – to express their "political" views about IP editing. Finally, I asked about the indefinite block of an IP.
• Without comment, GS later in the day struck the word "IP" and replaced it with "ID".
• The report was archived a couple of days later.
• On March 6, GS filed a malformed report against an IP who had made one edit that day. The report was malformed because (a) it was filed as closed and (b) it had a stray word in the clerk/cu/admin section. I wasn't sure if GS had intended to say more. I undid the filing and in my edit summary called it a "mess". I believe it was at this point that I started to become annoyed.
• On March 7, GS refiled with the same IP plus another. They complained that I hadn't had the "courtesy" to explain what the mess was.
• I responded by leaving in the substance of the report but removing the complaint saying in my edit summary that SPI was not a "forum for "venting".
• On March 8, GeneralizationsAreBad closed the report having blocked the "latest IP".
• On March 23, GS filed another report but made a typo in the IP address.
• A few minutes later I fixed the typo. This IP had made several edits in the last couple of days. (This was an improvement because not only were the edits recent but there were more of them.)
• On March 24, GS updated the same report inexplicably adding an IP that hadn't made an edit for three days.
• On March 27, I closed the report for the usual reason that the IP edits were too old.
• That brings us up to the most recent problems at the SPI. However, earlier there were problems at my Talk page. The first was this discussion. It had to do with the "mess" and GS's use of the SPI Talk page for their own notes.
• On March 7, GS complained that I had called them "obtuse" at the deletion discussion. This is where they also said I should let other CUs handle their reports. And this is where I told them to stop posting on my Talk page regarding SPI. Perhaps my limit is lower than other administrators, but I had reached it. It did not preclude them from making reasonable comments at the SPI itself.
• Now back to the events that triggered this ANI report, but please bear in mind that I cannot divorce these events with earlier ones. They are cumulative.
• On April 28, GS filed a report about VballJohnny (since I've been acting on this case, this was the first time GS had listed a named account) and an IP. Vball had made one edit, a revert of GS's edit. The IP had made one edit three days earlier. GS requested a CU. This report illustrates the problem here. First, GS doesn't learn; they are still filing reports about IPs that make too few edits that are either too old from the get-go or later become too old. No one is interested in a single edit by an IP at SPI. Second, there's no basis for blocking the named account based on a single revert. If GS wants to have an account blocked for socking, they need to have some behavioral evidence tying that account to the master beyond just "they're out to get me". By GS's logic, we would have to block any new account that reverted one of GS's edits. Now I'm not saying that GS is necessarily wrong, just that accounts cannot be blocked without more evidence. Finally, the request for CU was wrong. GS already knew that IPs cannot be connected with named accounts, and the case is  Stale so there's nothing to compare the named account against.
• I closed the report for "insufficient evidence". I didn't address the CU request as it was moot.
• The report was archived, but a few hours later, GS reopened the report with the same named account, the same IP, and one additional IP that had made two edits that day. GS again made a CU request. This was when I reverted. I suppose I could have modified the report to remove the named account and the repeat IP, leaving just the latest IP, but I didn't. That IP still hasn't edited since April 28.

As far as I'm concerned, GS can continue to file reports in this case, but they must not file them unless they have evidence and the disruption is significant and recent. This is not something that is true only for GS but for any filer. They must also stop requesting CU unless they have a basis for doing so. In this case, the only one I can see is if they were to list two named accounts so that they could be compared against each other. Even then, though, there has to be evidence. If they wish, they can file a report against IPs whose edits don't meet the criteria I set forth above, and note that they are filing the report "for the record", not for action. Nothing wrong with that, either. Finally, as for my "ban" on GS posting to my Talk page about SPI, I retract it as having been made when I was exasperated. However, there's no reason to post to my Talk page about SPI if it's something that can be raised at the SPI itself. (This post took me hours to prepare; if I've made a mistake in any of the diffs, let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you must realize that I am not a mind reader. As recently as March 4th, you wrote: "There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently...

At whatever point in time you decided there was a specific problem with SPI reports I was making, didn't you have an obligation to either (1) clearly and civilly explain what you thought I was doing wrong, or (2) walk away from closing SPI reports I made, and let some other smook deal with those reports?

Let's be clear here. You have offered zero reason why you took the truly extraordinary step of stripping a report I made from the record, other than an edit summary "Reverted to revision 894575627 by QEDK (talk): Don't do this again" which I could have easily overlooked? I did not realize, at first, that that is what you had done. It was only when I checked the archive, to see how that most recent report had been closed, it struck me, "isn't that how Bbb23 closed the second last report I made?" that I checked the report pages revision history more closely. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You are repeatedly filing SPIs about IPs who have made only one or two edits, simply on the basis of them having reverted one of your edits? And you keep requesting CU, despite the instructions AND admins telling you not to? I think Bbb23 has been exceptionally patient with you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It looks to me like Geo Swan may have a wikistalker, but if that wikistalker is only making one or two reverts from an IP before moving on, there's really very little SPI can do. The time it takes to report and block that IP (plus the negative impact of blocking an IP which may later be used by an innocent user if dynamically assigned) far exceeds the time it takes to revert the IP's changes. I totally get that this would be really annoying, but I'm not sure I see a solution here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: - could someone who is good with such things let us know if a rangeblock would/would not work here? Nosebagbear (talk)

A quick look at three of the reports cited in Bbb23's list above shows five totally different addresses, so doesn't look like a range block would help. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I've raised a query on solving above (which I'd love answers to). I also wanted to note that Geo Swan had a legitimate complaint - their actions probably were a bit OTT (though very understandable given the frustration they've undergone), but Bbb23 should have gently explained what Swan could do differently. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. Bbb23 closed the reports appropriately: lone IP edits days ago aren't sufficient for blocks, especially if the range appears to have dynamic IPs or the alleged sockmaster appears to be changing IPs. In fact, a significant number of SPIs on IP "socking" is just dynamic IP addresses behaving dynamically. In these cases, individual blocks do nothing. This can be frustrating for users who file SPIs, but as I've said many times before SPI is not bloodsport, and what the SPI team does is deal with disruption from abuse of multiple accounts. If the disruption from a particular IP has stopped and it is unlikely to continue, we are unlikely to block that specific IP address.
  It has been discussed elsewhere, but we don't tend to give a quick response to IP only SPIs. This is a problem, I'll admit. Part of it is because CUs tend to shy away from them (it isn't a privacy policy violation to block an IP on behaviour, but speaking personally, I hate doing it unless it is an LTA, and I don't want my comments to be construed as technical analysis.) This is an area where we could very much use the help of patrolling admins who are familiar with our policy on the use of multiple accounts. The SPI team does our best to work efficiently, but there is a lot of work and only so many of us (and this doesn't include the non-SPI things that CUs often do that don't get as much attention.) The other option if there is actual ongoing disruption and it is a trend is to report to AIV with an explanation, which may get attention faster, but YMMV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Issue regarding a deleted article titled: Astute Tutors

Hello all, an article previously written and published by me (titled: Astute Tutors) was proposed for and later deleted because of a logo. I would like to have the article restored and would like to obtain the source code that I wrote up in the creation of the article. The logo is owned by me (Yevgeniy Sazhnyev), and I was the one who uploaded it to Wikipedia. I also specified that I own it and thus posted it on the article for Astute Tutors (a tutoring company). I'm not sure why someone thought it would be a good idea to remove the article. Thanks for the help! Sazhnyev (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The deletion log entry for this says that it was deleted under WP:A7: "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - nothing to do with the logo, which is a separate issue. The place to ask for a copy of the article, in the first instance, is User talk:JJMC89, the talk page of the admin who deleted it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One other note - if you have a relationship with Astute Tutors, you shouldn't be creating or editing an article on the company, per WP:COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should CheckUsers fight sockpuppets or help them?

Two weeks ago, I was blocked for canceling edits of a newly registered user, for which my duck-test showed 10 out of 10. But at first my request on SPI was not considered for a long time, and then rejected with the justification: "I'm not going to block someone over creating an account after an IP block expired" while the relationship between the stationary IP 73.16.107.72 and the dynamic IPs was confirmed, and the block of the permanent IP expired only in September ([267]). And only when the administrator decided that she had sufficient grounds to block me, did she recognize the fact of block evasion ([268]). When I recalled the rule that "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: <...> 3. Reverting actions performed by <...>sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." She stated that I could not know for sure that they were a sockpuppet. But listen, you reject requests with one hand and block with the other for the fact that "You did not know at the time that they were for sure evading a block." Now there is a two-week block in my block-list and, of course, now I will be treated accordingly. It seems to me that DeltaQuad strongly encouraged the sockmaster to continue in the same way. Today I submitted another request where I decided to finally clarify the situation with sockpuppets and their master, but it was closed - "There is nothing here but old history." So, two weeks and already "old history". What I want to say is that most good-faith users turn to SPI rarely and, of course, there may be errors in their requests. But if people write a requests, then something “got enough of them” and is it better to help them instead of looking for an excuse for refusal?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Help them – Leviv ich 02:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• We obviously don’t help them, they’re inherently disruptive if they aren’t legitimate, but as I mentioned above, a lot of us don’t like dealing with IP cases. I didn’t consider the case particularly well put together at the time, so I closed it and didn’t report on any CU results for obvious reasons. Another CU blocked one of the accounts after I looked at it, which is fine. We’re all human and each of us has a slightly different way of dealing with cases. Again, I’ll mention that it would be useful for more admins to patrol SPI, especially cases involving IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jean Monnet/problematic admin decision

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

---

• Jean Monnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm posting here because I'm puzzled by the judgment of an admin, NJA (talk · contribs), to full-protect Jean Monnet under the pretense that the reverts on the article constitute an edit war/content dispute when it should seem obvious to a reasonable viewer that the edits being reverted are blatantly conspiratorial trolling/vandalism: specifically, I'm referring to these repeated additions by 86.80.168.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) alleging that Monnet was a "CIA operative" (note that none of the sources added actually substantiates this claim). In my view, it seems to have been obviously conspiratorial vandalism and the IP should be blocked, rather than warranting a full-protection on the basis that the reverts on the article constituted edit-warring, since despite the IP's claims, they were the ones clearly engaging in bad faith (and I have my doubts that they were a "new editor" if they were fully aware of 3RR, etc. rather than a recurring vandal). While the admin in question has since self-reverted, I don't believe that their initial decision here can be said to have been reasonable – these are the types of edits that should be obviously understood to constitute blatant vandalism and warrant a block, not full-protecting the page while keeping the addition of content that was blatant trolling. (I'll note that I reverted the IP repeatedly under WP:NOT3RR, seeing as their edits, at least in my eyes, seemed to be obvious vandalism.) Mélencron (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that he protected the article in the exact version you prefer. I'm confused about what more you want done. --Jayron32 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though as noted on both my talk page and the article’s talk page I welcome another admin reviewing the decision and supplanting their view in this case. Life is too short and as such I do not plan to involve myself further in this case. NJA (t/c) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm questioning the decision of the admin not to immediately block the IP for blatant vandalism, rather than full-protecting the article in question and only self-reverting the addition in question after two other editors pointed it out. The article in its current state is fine, and I don't have an objection to that – but this seems to have been a case of seriously bad judgment by an admin in interpreting obviously bad-faith trolling as a mere "content dispute". Mélencron (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There was clearly an issue here that needed to be dealt with quickly, and this admin decided that the way to do it was full protection. The IP address used looks like it is dynamic so blocking it would not be likely to solve the problem. Maybe semi-protection would have been better than full protection, but my judgement about that has been made on reflection rather than in the face of clear disruption that requires immediate action. You should be thanking this admin for acting quickly rather than criticising here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: "You should be thanking this admin for acting quickly rather than criticising here": The admin intervention actually wasn't especially helpful. User:NJA interpreted a clear-cut case of disruptive editing by an unregistered user as a "content dispute", gave the page full protection on the IP-version thereby preserving the problematic edits, and initially refused to revert the page to the original version. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting closure; no further admin action should be required here. Mélencron (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Wolfgang8741 mass-rating articles as stubs

User:Wolfgang8741 has been rapidly working through hundreds of articles about lakes assigning them to WP:WikiProject Lakes and adding infoboxes, which is useful. He appears to automatically rate them "stub+low importance", which is not. Most lake articles are in fact gazetteer-type low importance stubs, but some that he has recently rated, for example Bluff Lake (San Bernardino County, California), Alder Lake (New York), Redd's Pond, Menemsha Pond, Jamaica Pond etc. are more substantial.

I noticed the issue when Wolfgang8741 stub-rated two articles I had started: Lake Menghough (5 April 2019‎ ) and McArthur Lake (Idaho) (7 April 2019‎). I pointed out in User talk:Wolfgang8741#Lake Menghough that he should read articles before rating them, or just not rate them. He seems to have ignored this advice, and on 28 April 2019 stub-rated another article I had started, Mirond Lake. In User talk:Wolfgang8741#Mirond Lake, Wolfgang8741 insists he is reviewing the articles before rating them, but I see no evidence of this.

My concern is that a newbie may carefully research and compose an article on a local lake, then get disheartened and give up when Wolfgang8741 rates it a stub. We are desperately short of newbies. Can someone here please tell User:Wolfgang8741 to stop rating articles without reading them? Ideally he also would go back over the articles he has rated stub, and update his ratings where needed. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I have been reading and reviewing, abite I have made a few mistakes and did correct those which 1. When pointed out by Aymath2 I reassessed themse page and 2. Already noted that 3 out of the thousands were unfortunately were related to this user's work, a non statistically unlikely event. I also asked for mentorship on what I may be missing between stub and start. 3. I already stated I planned a QA of my own work using tools in Wikipedia. Though I have not been presented with a systemic issue of my tagging as stub, only these three have been brought to my attention thus far. I'm happy to work with anyone on 1. improving my stub vs start assessment and 2. I do not believe there has been a significant misassessment in the work, please see the talk page and review my contributions to see if I created a larger issue. I'm already starting my own QA process, and as stated before I do assess each page before classifying. Please let me know how if an actual issue is here or if I am within a means of error of being human. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfgang8741: If you rate all lake articles "stub+low importance" you will often be right. Out of these thousands of articles, how often was your initial rating other than "stub+low importance"? I did an unscientific analysis (see User:Aymatth2/sandbox - Wolfgang8741 contribs analysis) and find for a sample period 34 pages rated stub out of 36, with perhaps one third of the pages rated wrong. If you cannot rate them right, do not rate them. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior/abuse after repeated addition of unsourced genre's

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

---

I would be grateful if someone could look into the edits of Sgt. Kingdoomer. After continued requests for this editor to source their genre additions they resort to extremely uncivil/abusive replies on their talk page, here and here. Robvanvee 19:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gross, totally inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"I shouldn't have to use a damn website to find the exact thing I'm looking for." If you want to edit Wikipedia you do. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And talkpage access revoked after the potty-mouthed rant upon receiving the block notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the assistance! Robvanvee 05:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Musician biographies

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

---

IP user 67.21.155.6 is persistently changing birth and death dates and other details on biographies of musicians. Today's examples are Bruce Fowler, Erica Yohn and Steve Roach. No new citations are ever offered – indeed existing ones are frequently misrepresented – no edit summaries are used, and talk page notices obtain no response. Could these activities please be investigated and appropriate action taken?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 21:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months this time. Mfield (Oi!) 21:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User talk:Atsme

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

---

Eyes needed there before things get out of hand. R2 (bleep) 22:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You probably should just stay off the talk page like you've been asked to. Natureium (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I most certainly will. I only posted my ANI notice, as I was required to do. R2 (bleep) 22:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This does appear to be going out of bounds now. After the ad hominem made against me for posting that DS reminders are OK, I made a simple response that the PA was noted -- and my response was removed. No big deal -- just not good form. But now, Sir Joseph has made a post containing an out of context quote suggesting that I am a holocaust denier.[269] Even ignoring my Jewish heritage, that would be way out of bounds. And, I'm not allowed to explain as my posts there are deleted. I don't think this how WP is supposed to work. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• R2 and O3000 should be get the fuck off Atsme's talk page and never return. /thread.--v/r - TP 01:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I simply stated that DS refreshers are required. In return I received two PAs, one suggesting that I am a holocaust denier, neither of which I am allowed to respond to and both of which remain. Have you been accused of such an obscenity and not been allowed to respond? Can you give me a better understanding of how you think I have erred? I do not understand your profane response. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

FTR, Atsme has removed my sole comment on the page, as "harassment", because it failed to support her.[270] Nuff said as far as I'm concerned; all reasonable editors know the difference between constructive criticism and harassment. If I may be forgiven for a rare bit of snark, I suggest that User talk:Atsme be moved to User praise:Atsme. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Improper behavior

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

---

The user DVdm has been constantly reverting my correct edits. Please block this user. Somebody356 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you do not want your edits reverted, source them. DVdm has done nothing wrong. I'll leave you some info on how Wikipedia works on your userpage, but I'd strongly suggest not reporting other users here until you have a much better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Request someone close this. John from Idegon (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted - again, for the fourth time, an unsourced, borderline nonsensical edit at Gluon . Left a final warning on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User seems not very interested in how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

One has to wonder how a user that new even knows where ANI is. John from Idegon (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And then there is this. Some people will just never get it. This is likely one. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Netoholic

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

---

User:Netoholic appears to make serial edits (flagging notability, nominating for AfD) based on his personal interpretation that they can ignore the notability criteria set out explicitly in WP:PROF because they perceive those to be in conflict with "core principles" regarding notability.

User:Netoholic has been told repeatedly by me (here) and other users (e.g. here) that this is not the way to go about things, that if they perceive policies/guidelines to be in conflict, they should start a discussion on the appropriate pages and try to establish a consensus, in particular since WP:POINT is explicitly discouraged.

Their reaction was to call for the next AfD based on their criteria (this one), and later to single-handedly and without even mentioning the change on the relevant talk page, let alone establish a consensus, make a change to WP:PROF which supports their side of the argument (here).

There are several discussions that have been going on or are going on, as well as several tags and reverts, all based on User:Netoholic's view that they need not abide by WP:PROF, e.g.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_1#Ana_Achúcarro
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ana_Achúcarro
• Re-tagging Ursula Gibson
• Primary sources tag Ursula Gibson
• Notability Tag AnaAchúcarro

All the problematic actions, in addition to other controversial actions such as a proposal to move Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_AfD,_AfC_and_PROD out of the project's own space without prior consultation of project participants, involve Wikipedia articles about women, in particular women scientists.

Given the level of activity, the disruption caused by this is not likely to go away on its own. In the course of the discussions, the user had WP:PROF explained to them several times, and a number of users have told the user that they perceive their behaviour as Wikilawyering or bordering on harrassment (notably in this AfD). Could someone please look into this? Markus Pössel (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• All of these articles were created by Jesswade88, who Netoholic seems to be targeting with these tendentious nominations and tagging due to recent press coverage. I'd propose a one-way interaction ban with Jesswade88, including a prohibition on tagging or nominating pages created by her for deletion. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• That sounds like a reasonable course of action. It would allow User:Netoholic to continue his positive contributions to topics such as superhero movies or collectible card games, and relieve Jesswade88 of the burden of specific targeting. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Real elitist of you, but you've only made 14 edits to the main article space this year. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yup. GMG^talk 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed with those above that this warrants a one-way interaction ban of Netoholic with Jesswade88. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am also inclined to agree. But this and this (discussion) seem like escalation that would not be covered by an IB. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what triggered this "campaign", but it's a timesink and should stop: poor AfD nominations appealed to DRV, attempting to change a policy page without consensus, nominating moving a WikiProject page out of the WikiProject space without even bring it up with the WikiProject first... this is all disruptive and is requiring a bunch of other editors to take time to clean up and otherwise deal with. This should stop, like, today. I was hoping this ANI thread would bring a response of "OK, sorry, I'll slow down", but it hasn't, so unless this stops immediately, I would support Joe's proposal. Leviv ich 17:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated !vote: I said "unless this stops immediately", and it has stopped, which is good enough for me. On-boarding community feedback is all I ever ask of my colleagues. So long as it's not a repeated problem, I see no reason for a sanction. (Plus, sanctions make more work for other editors.) Leviv ich 13:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I support such an IBAN, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. Beyond the individual articles, the kind of behavior exhibited here by Netoholic creates a toxic editing environment that is the opposite of what we should be aiming for. We should take all necessary steps to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN & endore fully David Eppstein's comment. Netoholic is very obviously causing distress to Jess Wade, who simply wants to be left in peace to write new articles. And Netoholic is creating a toxic environment for all those interested in Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Whilst acknowledging WP:NPA it is nevertheless the case that Netoholic's behaviour is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling; and although I will extent WP:AGF to Netoholic, this toxicity needs to stop. If there are notability issues with Jess's articles, the community is large enough to address these without Netoholic's close policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support based on Netoholic's response below, which makes it clear this is unlikely to stop otherwise; following an editor around to "clean up" after them like this requires that there be a clear problem with their edits that the community would generally agree on. Obviously, going by the response in every venue where this has been raised, that's not the case here. (Full disclosure: I have had unpleasant disagreements with Netoholic in the past.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• (Personal attack removed)
• Support one way interaction ban Per User:Netoholic/Admins : " I respect someone greatly who takes a short newbie article and improves it at least to a good stub level, or maybe even a decent redirect. Slapping {{delete}} or {{vfd}} on an article that was made only a short time ago is an insult to the author. Encouraging improvement is a more respectable stance." Ironic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• As you can see in the above cases, AfD was a last resort when every attempt to place cleanup tags and to point out the lack of WP:INDEPENDENT sources was removed within minutes. The problematic editing environment was due to popularizing a fresh stub/C-class page. Something about that needs to change. I'm stopping my involvement, but the problem will still remain. -- Netoholic @ 23:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are two separate, but connected, issues here. One is Netoholic's recent actions, the other is the Clarice Phelps situation and actions from Rama, Jess Wade, and others. They need to be dealt with separately. Whether intended or not, Netoholic's actions towards Jess Wade are unacceptable and must stop, and to that end I support to proposed one-way interaction ban. However, I do not think that is sufficient, judging from the AfD and recent WT:PROF posts. Netoholic can easily target other bios of academics and make the same disruptive claims such as that fellowships in learned societies aren't evidence of notability unless they are posted on the front page of the New York Times (yes, exaggeration, but you get the point). Is a Nobel Prize evidence of impact in their field if the only citation supporting it is to the Nobel Prize website? I'd say yes, but I suspect Netoholic would argue. I suspect that a broader topic ban is or will be needed here. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Despite Netoholic's statement and partial apology (below) I still support a one-way IBAN with JessWade or content she creates. But to go further, a TBAN on editing all academia-related articles could well be on the cards if Netoholic ignores consensus and advice, and continues to push, either at AFD or elsewhere, what seems to be promotion of a unilateral interpretation of WP:NPROF which does not have support from the community. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• There seems to be a consensus for imposing a one-way IBAN, and Netoholic as accepted it below. Can somebody please close this section? This is an ongoing problem, so we should wait for the discussion below on a separate topic ban to finish. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per the Back to the subject section below - there is no consensus for an IBAN at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• What is the procedure, then? From what I can see, the three administrators involved in this discussion all support the one-way IBAN. It is true, as you say, that a number of non-administrator users have stated their opposition. So do we need consensus among the administrators themselves or among all the users who have participated in the discussion? Markus Pössel (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note the (same) discussion continues below. ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic's response

It goes without saying that no one expects a full-fledged article to be perfect from the start. But likewise, when a new article that lacks independent sourcing is tagged {{notability}}, {{third-party}}, or likewise, those tags should be retained as long as they reflect valid concerns. That's not exactly been happening lately in User:Jesswade88's brand-new WIR articles, which are written and posted on twitter to a sizable following immediately. If admins want to check those page histories, you'll see me tagging for non-trivial concerns, and then the tags are removed immediately, usually without addressing the concern at all. Jesswade88 removes a lot of them, but isn't the only one - her posts get a lot of attention. There are two interpretations for why the tags are being removed - I (and others) could be just wrong about the concerns.... or her following feels a sense of pride for these articles and that visible cleanup tags detract from the experience. Overall though, her most recent article at least has had a lot of the concerns taken care of, and other editors have found at least some independent sourcing. But perhaps it all points to a change which should be made in how Jesswade88 popularizes these daily articles. Maybe create them in Draft: space and do twitter posts linking there, inviting others to make improvements without the immediate pressure of them being "live" pages? Or write them and ask for help from the WikiProject WIR folks to do a quick assessment to make sure its decently "ready to go", then popularize it a few days later? The recent "media coverage" with regards Jesswade88's Clarice Phelps article is I think is strong evidence that her current method can backfire. And I wasn't even involved in that one. So yeah, I guess admins could IBAN me (after only about two days since I even learned of her existence)... I think that just encourages even more of a bubble around her daily project. Wikipedia would be better of if instead we were forced to work on articles together. I'd like to note that though I wasn't named by her, she has targetted me to her followers outside of Wikipedia. I'll be on the losing end of this no matter what. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing the main problem here. You flagged and nominated for deletion articles that are considerably better than the average new WP article, and which pass a specific notability criterion defined for their class (academic biographies). Instead of abiding by WP:PROF, you followed your own personal interpretation for why they should be deleted, which interpretation runs counter to what is explicitly stated in WP:PROF. In addition, in the AfD cases, you did not perform proper WP:BEFORE, detailing your reservations on the talk pages and leaving people time to react. Do you really have no idea at all why such behaviour is seen as problematic here on Wikipedia? Markus Pössel (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing the main problem here. You are an incredibly infrequent] Wikipedian who showed up on May 1 and have been stalking any of my edits that come in contact with with WIR content. I also note that your last major spree of activity was in October 2018 and revolved around JessWade/WIR content as well (Donna Strickland). You're a twitter attack dog, and this ANI thread is just part of that. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia in the day (I have a job) so didn't know you were the editor who tagged it. >> I didn't 'target' you to any followers, I simply commented on how ridiculous it is that within moments of the page being shared, you'd claimed a Professor at MIT wasn't notable, then flagged it for deletion. As for creating as drafts - I'm quite sure the biographies I write don't need help. This isn't about my 'pride', so please don't be so patronising. I remove your relentless criticisms because the the tags are inappropriate, and you only seem to put them on pages about women scientists. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comply with WP:CIV, Netoholic, and cut out the ad hominem, insinuations and insults. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This user is just wasting people's time. They are nominating c class articles for deletion and when multiple experienced editors point out the irrationality of these nominations then this is repeatedly ignored. I have no idea of the editors motives but they are making this user entirely unconstructive. The editor seems annoyed that no one is taking his/her point of view seriously. Whereas the exact opposite is true, they are not appreciating that their nominations are unanimously agreed as lacking any credible supporting evidence. Surely if you have just had a SNOW Keep then it shows poor judgement and then very very poor judgement to then demonstrate the same poor judgement on a similar article. I strongly support the idea that this user should be obliged to not edit articles relating to @JessWade (and/or even women in general). (Note the revenge-like move proposal at the Women in Red project). I think and hope that they will find that they are better appreciated in other areas of the project. Oh and I do have a COI (I support Women in Red, my mother was not a bloke) Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, having an opinion about the article's topic is not considered sufficient to qualify as a WP:COI (if it were, most articles would be wastelands, since the most dedicated editors on a topic usually have some opinion on that topic.) See WP:COINOTBIAS. A COI means something like having a personal connection to the article's subject or some direct personal stake in their success; simply wanting them to succeed (or fail, for that matter) is insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles. I have only interacted with her articles for the last 2 days, and it was not specifically targeting her, but simply being one of many she drew attention to those articles by her posts via social media like many other editors. I trust those editors to help her improve these articles. But I would suggest to her and those editors that if someone raises an issue, places a cleanup message on the article... rather than react as you have as if it is an insult, that you AGF, relax, and really focus on making articles better quality rather than attack the person raising the concern - even if you think they are wrong. And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What comes to mind is that Wikipedia is in the real world. Last night, I was in a pub with 60 other people, most of whom are on Facebook, many of whom are on Twitter. I would hazard a guess that the odds that anyone except me had ever edited Wikipedia are approximately zero. The systemic bias is very real, and this is one way it manifests itself - the cross section of editors commenting on Twitter is not going to have the same demographics as that on an ANI thread. You can't really have a go at Jess for expressing an opinion that lots of people happen to agree with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I've just blocked User:Lancewiggs (here for 6 years, 7 edits) indefinitely for accusing Netoholic of being misogynist and associated with Nazism, and have removed their post. That, unfortunately, is the sort of thing that gets imported from social media. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, Jess Wade has not precipitated a pile-on on you by anything she has done on Twitter. You have brought this on yourself. We need to be very very clear about this. Jess Wade has the freedom to express her dismay at the treatment her articles have received. Wikipedians experienced enough to look through contribution and article histories have the freedom to express their views based on what they see. Your attempt here to police her twitter output is as unwelcome and as in fact more inappropriate than was your policing of her on-wiki work.

And that sentiment goes for you, too, Black Kite, to the extent that any of your post about Lancewiggs and your speculation on the connection between social media and that user's actions pertains to Jess Wade. She is the aggrieved party in this matter, and any suggestion that she should shoulder any responsibility for the actions of anyone who has involved themselves in this matter, or curtail her freedom to talk about whatever she damn well feels like talking about, is repugnant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, User:Netoholic's description that they merely placed tags and pointed out problems, and that the reaction of other users to this was because those users felt insulted by this very action, conveniently leaves out the facts that (a) they did not follow key parts of WP:BEFORE but jumped to AfD after less than 14 hours, and (b) that in their argument, they deliberately ignored that the articles met the criteria explicitly set out in WP:PROF, claiming that because in their personal opinion there was a fundamental conflict between WP:PROF and general criteria for notability that they could just ignore WP:PROF. Several users pointed this out to User:Netoholic; it played a key role both for people removing the notability tags and for the two SNOW closures of the AfDs. That User:Netoholic leaves out those key facts makes for a significantly distorted version of what really happened. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: No-one is curtailing anyone's freedom to talk about anything, other than curtailing Lancewiggs' ability to post here, given his totally unnecessary personal attack. And no-one is suggesting that Jesswade is responsible for his edits, either. However, I don't think that speculating that an editor who hadn't edited for 7 months came here to deliver that attack on the basic of the issue blowing up in social media is unreasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Netoholic is seeking to do exactly that in their comment "And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me". Your FWIW can be mistaken for endorsing Netoholic's policing of Jess Wade's twitter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: It certainly wasn't meant to do that. Once something appears in the social media realm, it doesn't matter how it got there. Jesswade was not responsible for Lancewiggs' edits, however Lancewiggs became aware of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: This primarily relates to your first message, I'm posting it here to reduce the chance it will be lost. I don't really understand your reasoning. If you believe Jesswade88 or others from Twitter are editing the article after creation inappropriately such as removing cleanup tags when the reason for the cleanup is either obvious or discussed on the talk page, and has not been resolved, or otherwise that the articles have problems that need to be resolved or should be in draft space; then there are ways these concerns could be dealt with. Most likely this would entail first talking to Jesswade88 and if the problems persist, bringing it to wider attention in an appropriate place. Perhaps even ANI. WP:AFD is clearly not the place to deal with these problems, that should only be for articles that you genuinely feel do not meet our WP:Notability requirements (GNG or subject specific) based on the available evidence and generally also some basic research if necessary. WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If you keep bringing articles to AfD and these keep being kept, this generally means you're doing something wrong. In other words, if you had been smarter about how you handled you concerns and assuming they are correct, we may now be discussing them here on ANI instead of discussing your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I've only taken two articles to AfD, and I did a pretty thorough WP:BEFORE check ahead of time. I'm pretty diligent and resourceful, and could not find WP:INDEPENDENT sources for them. I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate, no, you demonstrably did not comply with WP:BEFORE e.g. in the case of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski: C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." – you nominated the article for AfD less than 14 hours after it was created. C3 "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page" – you did not address your concerns on the article's talk page, even though there was a small discussion about notability issues already there. It's great that you're learning from this; re-reading what WP:BEFORE should probably be a part of this. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Full context of WP:BEFORE C3: try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}} . Which you know I did. Why'd you misquote the line? -- 06:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed Jess's posts on Twitter and there is nothing untoward about them. Stop attempting to deflect valid criticism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Which this isn't directly related to Netoholic, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about these creations. I am very much in support of this effort to create more biographies of notable women, but from what I can tell at RSN, it's looking like the creator of the article was the first to claim that Phelps was the first black woman to help discover an element. This, combined with other misunderstandings of either Wikipedia policy (verifiability, synth, OR, notability, off-wiki canvassing) or the United States academic system (claiming that a 29-year-old postdoc is a tenured professor), have me getting worried. I don't want to start fact checking the other 300 articles started by this editor, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. Natureium (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your evidence-free assertions, Natureium. We'll get back to you. We've just been through a whole thread on the close policing of Jess Wade, and here you are, popping up just as the dust settles, suggesting that that's exactly what is required. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade has had 8 rticles deleted out of 592 created since 28-09-2017. 1.5 years is probably a long enough time period for the community to evaluate her input, and the indication is that the community does not share your 'concern'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trying to be rude? Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Yes. Whatever community sanction is determined for Netoholic should be applied to you too. You're cut from exactly the same cloth, and seemingly incapable of seeing that your "but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary" is wildly offensive, is not supported by the statistic I constructively adduced, and per my comments lower down, might as well apply to you in a motes & beams fashion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon How would you preferred she phrase that idea so as to not be wildly offensive? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Per the instructions at the top of this page, include diffs demonstrating the problem. Don't denigrate editors by making evidence-free sweeping assertions; especially from within a glass house. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon for the reply. I was unsure if it was the phrasing, the lack of diffs, or both, which were upsetting you. Now that I know it's the lack of diffs, could I trouble you to post the diff which enumerates the 4 problems you've found with Heather Wakelee? I looked in the edit history and on the (currently non-existant) talk page and didn't see anything. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a hypocritical garbage gripe, considering you made your own assertions without providing any diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I take your point, Barkeep49, but no. If you have a look through you'll spot three sentences in which four assertions are made; none of the sentences are referenced. References for other sentences may cover these assertions; who knows. Much the same attaches to Jess's assertions. The article lacks defaultsort and authority control, both of which are dealt with in the MoS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What I see are two women who are attempting to bring more coverage to women in STEM fields. There's no reason that despite this shared area of interest that one, or both, can't criticize the content of the other in order to increase the quality of the encyclopedia. This is qualitatively different than nominating clearly notable people for deletion - what Netoholic did. Instead of going to deletion, he should taken to the talk page to discuss why his improvement tags should not have been removed or if it was across too many articles to hold simultaneous discussions gone to BLPN to raise the issue. I don't think he and Natureium are are at all cut from the same cloth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now looked at the four assertions made without citation at the article's talk page and found all of them to be compliant with requirements around sourcing, though one assertion was incorrect by a year which I've now corrected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks, and list some examples. The synth, verifiability, and OR issues are already being discussed here. One instance of off-wiki canvassing was discussed here, and I don't have to to find diffs for others right now. This AfD is where she claims that a 29-year has a tenured professor position. With regard to notability issues, as you said there are many articles and I haven't had much time to go through them, but here are a few that I've come across so far where notability should be examined:

• Pippa Grange
• Camille Petit
• Sarah Tuttle
• Katharina Sophia Volz
• Rylie Green
• Lisa Jones (scientist)
• DeAndrea Salvador
• Nia Imara
• Joanna Bauldreay
• Oluwatoyin Asojo
• Ciara Sivels

Natureium (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I first encountered Jess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hutty, cleaning up the article and improving it so it was kept. I recall the article needed improvements and additional references, and some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point. Some of these are documented in Template:Did you know nominations/Abbie Hutty. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kolodziejski as "snow keep" today; the article has been improved significantly from its original state by GreenMeansGo. However, it is not and has never been policy to demand that editors are perfect and should produce high-quality content from the outset, and editors should be encouraged to improve articles by collaborative means, not whacking them with a big stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point is a real problem. It's better to create a stub, than to create an article with information that can't be verified, especially if it's a BLP. I've created many stubs when I've come across people that have been determined by SNG to merit an article but for whom information and sources are lacking. We don't need perfect articles, but we need articles that are compliant with policy. Natureium (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And regarding community improvement, I have just spent the last little while trying to get some of the recent creations by this editor in line with the MOS, but going through the lot of them is going to take some time. Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There are by my count 4 claims in Heather Wakelee that don't seem to be backed up by sources, and at least a couple of MoS issues. I don't want to start fact & MoS checking the other 202 articles started by you, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't mind. I welcome any improvements to articles I've started. Natureium (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As do I. I don’t make claims that aren’t backed up by sources - Abbie was one of the first bios I made, and since then almost every statement I write is cited. But this isn’t about ‘improving’ articles - this is about deeming them not notable/ worthy of deletion (which Netoholic has, for every recent article i’ve made. As for Clarice Phelps, the claim came from a book (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/superheavy-9781472953896/), I didn’t write a biography based on something I had imagined. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This has always been my only concern. You can cite every statement but if the citations are no good for determining notability, we shouldn't have an article. I would suggest you start first by finding 2-3 truly independent biographical sources... if you can't find that many, its probably better to try a different subject. Once you have those, then you can use university/organization profiles as you've done. In these two (and only been two not "every") articles, I tried to tag them for lacking these independent sources and you kept removing the tags. I am a fairly staunch inclusionist/eventualist... but you make it really hard when you remove cleanup notices. That to me tells you think the article demonstrates notability as it is, and so AfD is the only way to determine that. I don't actually feel bad that the AfDs failed... because at least it prompted others to gather some independent sources and put them in the articles - as was always the only point of me tagging them in the first place. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are deliberately sweeping under the carpet WP:PROF and the criteria set forth there in, plus the current consensus of what constitutes a realiable and independent (of the BLP subject) source for satisfying those criteria. You are putting your personal opinion about what WP:IS means in this case above the consensus set out in WP:PROF. So no, you were not just implementing WP policies and guidelines here, you were using personal judgement to set aside the guideline WP:PROF that is most specifically applicable here. Do you really see no problem with this? In your rather lengthy answers, you do not appear to be addressing this problem at all, even though it was/is at the heart of the ANI here. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For Phelps the claim did not come, back in August 2018, from a book due to be published in June 2019 (nor does the book quite back up the claim - at least not the quote Jesswade88 provided from the unpublished back in the beginning of April). This is the version published by Jesswade88 in August 31 2018. There are a number of problems there:

1. "Phelps earned a Bachelors degree in chemistry from Tennessee State University in 2003" - cited to - [271] - doesn't support chemistry.
2. "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014" - incorrect. Phelps claims no such thing. The cited ref - [272] only says "Clarice Phelps, a researcher/program manager for industrial use isotopes at ORNL, won the Technology, Research, Innovation Award." - and doesn't support this at all.
3. " Phelps completed a Masters degree at the University of Texas at Austin Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program." - cited to [273] - doesn't support this. It does support she is currently enrolled as a student.
4. "She was involved with the discovery of Tennessine, and is the first African-American woman to identify an element." - cited to ORNL PR which says " Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine" - nothing about being "first" (it actually doesn't even say Phelps is African American or black - so even that bit is WP:OR in relation to the citation)

Looking at Leslie Kolodziejski (who is notable due to WP:NPROF, despite probably failing (like most wikiNotable academics) WP:GNG) - there were certainly plenty of primary sources used in this initial version which was subsequently challenged by other users. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really want to have a dog in this fight, but this comment where Netaholic is making WP:OWN accusations on Rosiestep - who is (in my opinion) one of the most sensible, level-headed and drama-averse editors on the entire project - is just so far out of whack I have difficulty comprehending how someone could make such a comment in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to the subject

Support, and ... (I failed to vote formally before) - I'm worried that this editor has agreed to stop annoying Jess Wade's articles but the response above does not give me any confidence that they understand that the consensus is clearly against their behaviour. Trying to undermine another person's arguments by counting their edits etc etc is just desperate. This user has been told that they do not understand PROF and that notability only applies to the existence of an article, so there is no point in restating that again here. I think some formality is required here to remind the editor that their wider actions cause concern and that the ban being proposed here can be extended. Victuallers (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I found it quite frustrating that Netoholic framed this matter as them pointing out problems and other editors taking those pointers as an insult. As far as I can see, so far, he hasn't demonstrated any understanding that his setting aside WP:PROF due to his personal non-consensus opinion regarding a supposed conflict with other policies/guidelines was problematic. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1-way IBAN (created TBAN below) - I realise I started the TBAN, so can't vote for that, but should still support the 1-way IBAN, for the repeated issues that the editor doesn't seem to sufficiently understand (at least in some areas, others could be viewed as the errors of a newer editor). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Massive over-reaction. Conflict (and even dumb ones like this) are a part of collaboration. Unless, this becomes a patrern, I am uncomfortable with the IBan given that there have been only two AfDs and two days of crossing paths.∯WBG^converse 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two bad AfD noms (Passed WP:NPROF which is a very specific guideline, but not WP:GNG) is an over-reaction here. Some of the tags were correct - while we do allow academics to pass notability without independent, reliable, secondary sources - WP:BLP (and WP:BLPSOURCES), WP:V still apply to article contents in BLPs. I will also note that there is a lively discussion going on Twitter concurrent to the discussion here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Opppse insufficient evidence of either egregious lack of judgement (per WP:CIR) or deliberate vindictiveness (per WP:HOUND); subjecting an editor's articles to closer examination—when there may be, pace JessWade, cause—is very much in the spirit of protecting the integrity of the encyclopaedia, if over-enthusiastically approached in this case. Still, I'm sure they've got the message by now. ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose These AfDs look pointy to me, but I don't think that this merits an interaction ban, especially after such a short period of time. Natureium (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: So I've been watching this for some time. I think a hearty round of trouting is necessary, quite frankly, but anything more is simply disproportionate to any delict committed here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while there were certainly problems with Netoholic's conduct, the rush to suggest an iBan and the hasty accumulation of supports for that suggestion is less than ideal. As Netoholic appears to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary. Also, Tagishsimon would be wise to review the ongoing thread about Legacypac at AN and note that battleground behavior eventually results in sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this or any other sanction is an over-reaction, especially bearing in mind Netoholic's response. I regularly go through the edits of certain people and tag, revert, delete etc. I'm known for it and thanked for it. It isn't hounding to do so if there is genuine cause for concern (as there has been here, based on the Phelps palaver). The idea that in this case it is some sort of crusade against someone, based on two days' activity, seems extreme. It is also extreme to think that, for example, it is targeting women - Jesswade88's edits mostly seem to relate to women and thus it is inevitable that any sifting through those edits is going to relate to them also.
  I don't use Twitter but I do think that if people choose to use it (or any other social media platform) to promote their work on Wikipedia then they're probably opening themselves and their followers up to malign accusations, whether rightly or wrongly: the person tweeting creates the situation and it is entirely possible for them to avoid it simply by not tweeting about it in the first instance - no tweet, no twitterstorm etc. What people do off-wiki is entirely up to them but, regardless of what policies are put into place on WP, public pronouncements on public forums may result in unintended consequences. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am a regular Twitter user but occasional editor, with a life outside both. If I become aware of articles that I can help to improve via Twitter, does it devalue my efforts to improve a page simply because of how I hear about it? If so, we risk losing out on the constructive contributions of many casual editors. I've been following this discussion for hours now since the Leslie Kolodziejski AfD, and the general tenor doesn't fill me with enthusiasm to contribute more in future. I'm sure many others feel the same way. DWeir (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Like I said, it is up to you but there may be unintended consequences. In the Phelps debacle, for example, a very experienced Wikipedian suddenly began whinging became concerned because their Twitter use had come under scrutiny and they were concerned for the safety of themselves and people whom they know. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I have run into Netoholic before in cases of requested moves. I have found they are a stickler for how policy/guidelines were written to a point that it passed what WP:NOT#BURO cautions against. Eg, there are common sense consensus decisions, times where IAR applies, etc., and that P&G are descriptive, not prescriptive of how to use them. I read pretty much the same issue here, and nothing related to any specific vindictiveness against this topic area, but mostly just their insistence that policy be followed to the letter. That needs to back off a bit, but that is something not actionable outside of TROUTs. --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How does this square with their behavior with respect to NPROF? --JBL (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion TBAN

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

---

I think an IBAN might initially have sufficed, but judging by the conversation above, the primary issue area doesn't seem to be accepted & resolved. The editor would appear to have made some contributory edits, and the once mooted "academic TBAN" enough would sever that, and is very broad. I suggest the following:

TBAN on PROD and AfD activity

I've deliberately not made it a TBAN against deletions in general, as we don't seem to have had issues with speedies, COIN, DRV etc.

I've suggested a general PROD/AfD TBAN, but if a narrower one on submissions wants to be made, I'm also game for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Can I please ask for a bit of sanity check here? This is getting out of control. I have literally only AfD'd two articles in the last two days... and probably no more than 20 in my entire editing history. This whole thing is running amok. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic: Have a closer look at the rationale given for the sanctions. This is not only about the AfDs you have made so far, but about your deliberate setting aside of WP:PROF, based on your personal interpretation that the consensus reached at WP:PROF is in conflict with some more fundamental principles, and that you are therefore free to ignore the criteria (in particular as regards suitable sources for the specific criteria) of WP:PROF. You have conspicuously not addressed this problem so far; you have not indicated that you even understand why others see this as a problem; your summary of what you claim you did wrong, as well as this last comment of yours, give no indication that you are willing to acknowledge this key aspect of the problem. That, as far as I can see, is the key to sanctions beyond the Jesswade88-specific ones: that you have shown behaviour that is likely to lead to lots of additional time-wasting conflicts, and that so far you appear to be completely unwilling to even acknowledge that the problem in question even exists. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

More generally, please take a step back and consider, in light of the two WP:SNOW reversions as well as in light of the considerable number of experienced Wikipedians trying to get through to you here, that this is not a "consensus of idiots" as per the jwales quote on your user page, or a process that is "running amok", but that instead you are fundamentally wrong at least in some of the aspects of what you have been doing, have so far not shown indication of realizing and/or admitting that fact, and that *this* combination is what has a number of people here (all of whom would rather be spending their time on something else, I would assume) worried about your future behaviour. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: Please stop WP:BADGERING me with the same thing over and over again. This is now the 7th direct comment to me in this section, largely repeating the same demands of me. You have no grounds to claim I am "deliberately" doing any such thing. I am engaged in some pretty collaborative discussions over at WT:PROF (where you have badgered my comments as well) over what appropriate level of conformity to WP:Verifiability#Notability should be communicated on the WP:PROF page. I have no problems with WP:PROF criteria at all... just that interpretation of it by editors is often forgetting that independent sources are needed for those criteria in order to base articles upon. Maybe after that discussion my mind will change or I'll understand the rationale a bit better. I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon. So to say I've "not addressed" the feedback from the AfDs is just flawed, at best. -- Netoholic @ 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:PROF was a key part of the incident report here, and had so far remained unacknowledged in your replies, politely (if repeatedly) asking about this was appropriate, I think, and certainly not WP:BADGERING at all. My description of this as being deliberate is not an unfounded claim; instead it directly follows from the discussion we had on your user page, where you are fairly explicit about not abiding by certain aspects of the WP:PROF consensus since in your view it contradicts core policy. Also, the issue is not some vague "interpretation" of WP:PROF criteria, as you claim; you are going counter to an explicit criterion and the specific guideline laid down in WP:PROF as to when that criterion is satisfied. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, having looked at Netoholic's AfD stats, it shows he has started 17 AfDs in 15 years, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Next (programming block), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Edelstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloy (rapper) which all closed as "delete" without issue. I did think Netoholic was a bit hyperactive about Edelstein, but consensus proved him right in the end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I did deem Netoholic's slapping of a notability template to be acutely dumb over my edit-sum and was shocked to see the AfD but we don't TBan folks for heat-of-the-moment lapses in judgement or temporal dumbness. Per Ritchie. ∯WBG^converse 10:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No, this would be excessive right now. A TBAN should only be something to consider in the future if issues around WP:NPROF and WP:IS were to continue against consensus. It's clear Netoholic has got the message he/she overstepped the mark, and I'm sure they'll want to take a little more care in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's an issue, it is not, per Ritchie333, with their general competence at XfD. ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not going to ban someone for having a more stringent view of WP:N than usual. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreaction. Netoholic needs to understand that the community has decided that NPROF is the rule here. He is not disruptive at AfD in general, unless there's more that hasn't been brought up here. Natureium (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: No TBAN, per above arguments. Simply too excessive. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I've made way more bad AfD and DRV noms than Netoholic and I've only been here six months. If I understand the situation, Net tagged some articles, the tags were removed without (in Net's view) the underlying issues being addressed, and Net interpreted that as meaning the article creation process was "done", and since the article didn't (in Net's view) support notability, AfD was an appropriate next step. This was a mistake. First, because we're supposed to AfD based on the status of sourcing, not the status of the article (so tagging or not tagging, creation being complete or not complete, should all be irrelevant to a decision to AfD an article), and second because if you think an editor is doing something wrong at an article, nominating that article for deletion is never the right way to address it–that "takes it out on the article" instead of "taking it out on the editor". It seems that Net has taken these lessons on-board. We shouldn't TBAN each other from areas where we make mistakes. As long as it's not a repeated ongoing problem, there is no need for a sanction. Leviv ich 13:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose good grief no! This is beyond overkill. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be excessive at this juncture. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the IBAN proposal. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Netoholic - post-closure discussion

I see that there is no consensus for any kind of sanction for Netoholic, but I was still hoping that the discussion under Section break could continue so we can shed some light on the issue of cleaning up some of these articles. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI is not for discussing content? Leviv ich 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Straight off this discussion Netoholic is back to participating in AfDs focusing on the same editor's creations and expressing the same dogmatic views counter to the consensus interpretation of WP:PROF. The lesson learned appears to be: ANI doesn't care so keep doing the same things. This is what happens when you say "oh, he isn't that bad, he only went after two articles": he continues the same focus on hounding a productive editor that caused him to be taken here in the first place. How many good editors will have to be driven away by toxic ones like this before we only have the bad ones left? (For the record: I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of the article under AfD or the decision to take it to AfD. But Netoholic needs to learn that hounding is wrong, and seems to have instead learned the opposite. Other people can and will decide the AfD appropriately; his involvement on it is unnecessary and, because of the past history involved, unhelpful.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of that !vote is problematic? It looks perfectly legitimate to me. It certainly doesn't warrant that kind of personal rhetoric. Lepricavark (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I rarely notice who created the articles I !vote on in AfDs. I've also been accused of being disruptive because of the views on notability I've expressed at AfDs (whether !voting keep or delete). Freeze peaches and all that. Leviv ich 04:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Above Netoholic said they would "stop paying attention to Jesswade88's articles". Several people opposed a formal IBAN on that basis. This shows that Netoholic's word is worthless. ANI has once again decided to respond to toxicity with an ineffective slap on the wrist (if that). – Joe (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The original IBAN proposal was made by you without Netoholic having been given a chance to defend himself. I'm not sure you ever gave his word a chance to be worth something. And I don't think his behavior was bad enough to justify the initial reaction. That being said, while I am not entirely convinced that we should assume Netoholic checked to see who created the Sarah Tuttle article before !voting in the AfD (I know I usually don't check that before !voting in an AfD), I can understand why his participation in that AfD looks bad. Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The participation in the AfD, and the trying to change NPROF while involved in disputes about the meaning of NPROF, and trying to move a WiR advice essay out of the WiR project space .... --JBL (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: Netoholic has now joined a fourth AfD on articles created by the same editor he has already been credibly accused of hounding. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I see a big difference between initiating AfDs and tagging articles and simply !voting in AfDs. Like, there is a massive difference between those two things. Furthermore, I think we all know that this thread never would have blown up like this if the articles in question had not been about women. The second comment in this thread is a sitting arb proposing a one-way IBAN without waiting to hear what Netoholic had to say for himself. Netoholic was unfairly jumped on and should not have had to agree to any restrictions, but the understandable desire to protect articles about women overrode concerns like fairness. It seems like Netoholic was identified, fairly or otherwise, as an enemy of Women in Red and therefore he needed to be stopped by all measures, reasonable or otherwise. That being said, once Netoholic gives his word, he needs to keep it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since no one goes around systematically trying to delete new articles on male scientists, for example, we're not going to have an ANI thread about it. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone go around systematically trying to create new articles on male scientists? There has been a commendable and concerted effort to create articles about women scientists, but sometimes good intentions can go too far and result in the creation of articles on non-notable individuals. And when that happens, some editor or subset of editors are likely to tag such pages for deletion. Sometimes these editors will also take good intentions (yes, keeping Wikipedia free of articles on non-notable subjects is a good intention) too far and tag some articles that actually do have notable subjects for deletion. But in both cases, we should not jump on good-faith editors for taking good intentions too far. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Netholic crossed the line quite some time ago from quality control to hounding. Normally when scrutiny of a longtime, respected co-worker is done, it's done in the spirit of mentoring that person and showing them constructively how to improve their work. If I was subject to the kind of campaign that Netholic (and a few others) have been carrying on in the past few days, I would certainly feel as if people are not out to help me but to discredit and destroy as much of my work as possible. That's not the environment we want here. I support a one-way I-ban - it's really not too much to ask to have Netholic check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: would you voluntarily agree for a while to check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88? Leviv ich 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize I was still so popular. No one could be bothered to ping me back here before now? I think the HOUNDING may be switching the other direction.
I said above that "I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles", and I have. Right now, I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for now WP:PROF has been working out. It seems like several editors may be independently taking recent events into consideration and nominating a couple of her articles, but I am not looking at the page's creator - only the quality of the articles as they are in the order they are nominated. I am actually spending a lot of time improving articles up for AFD, even when I still don't think they pass notability thresholds, to give them a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps as Clayoquot said above - "showing them constructively how to improve their work". If someone thinks that is disruptive or unwelcome... I dunno what to say. -- Netoholic @ 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Jesswade88: so she can opine on whether your improvements are disruptive or unwelcome. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to reconcile "I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles" and "I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon" with "I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for how WP:PROF has been working out" and "I am actually spending a lot of time improving articles up for AFD". I agree with Jayron below that there are no sanctions in place preventing Net from doing anything, but at the same time, there seem to be some mixed signals from Net. I, too, am curious whether Jesswade88 thinks there is need for community involvement here. Leviv ich 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the OP, Netoholic nominated two articles for deletion and tagged two articles, all of them created by Jesswade88. Then this thread was opened and immediately escalated to a one-way IBAN discussion. Since that point, Netoholic has !voted (not initiated mind you, just !voted) in two AfDs of articles created by Jesswade88. And all of this has happened over the span of a few days. Not weeks or months. Days. Not only is that not a campaign, that's not even sufficient cause to informally ask Netoholic to stay away from Jesswade88's articles. This thread was rushed to banning phase far too quickly and we need to stop looking for a reason to ban Netoholic. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Netoholic has conveniently only quoted one of the statements that are of relevance here, and omitted the others, here are some reminders: Netoholic followed his statement "I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles." [22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)] with "I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this." [04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC] and "I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon." [see above 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)]. Several editors opposing sanctions specifically noted that their reason for doing so was that Netoholic had learned his lessons, and appeared "to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary". The ANI was closed on 7:46, 2 May 2019 by @Jayron32:. Less than 24 hours after that, Netoholic, in direct contradiction to what he promised to do, went and participated in this and this AfD for articles created by Jesswade1988. He said he would not involve himself with AfD ("involve", not restricted to "initiate"), but he did. He said he would stop "interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes", and he did, by actively participating in AfDs for two of Jesswade88's articles. Does WP have any procedures for dealing with editors who flout ANI in this way? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No sanctions were imposed by the community to be "flouted". When I closed the discussion, which had been open for some time, there was significant opposition to imposing sanctions above, and that opposition was growing (not shrinking) over time. Now, if you want to start a new discussion about a specific sanction based on new evidence, feel free to do that. But to claim that Netholic is violating anything simply isn't true. There has not been any expressed community consensus for any sanctions. Please note, that does NOT mean that I am endorsing their actions here. They may (or may not, I'm also not saying they are) commiting horrifying atrocities that need to be addressed. Or maybe not. Doesn't matter here; what matters is they haven't acted in opposition to any community sanction as yet. If you want to put a community sanction into force, create a thread to enact one, give it time to develop a consensus. If one develops, you'll have something to work from. --Jayron32 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Flouting" did not refer to any sanctions (I am aware there were none), but to the fact that the consensus-finding process itself was influenced by Netoholic's assertions, which he then went back on directly after ANI closed. I haven't got sufficient experience in the more unsavoury side of WP conflicts to say whether or not this kind of backtracking behaviour is considered par for the course by administrators, so I for one am not going to take any further initiative here. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Start a discussion proposing that Netoholic be sanctioned. When people comment, consensus may develop to enact those sanctions. When those are enacted, administrators will enforce them. You haven't given administrators anything to enforce yet. Unless he's violating an established rule like edit warring or personal attacks or something like that, unless we have some community imposed sanction, I'm not sure what you want admins to do. --Jayron32 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you as an admin find nothing objectionable in what is going on here, I'll certainly not presume to know better. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark:, the fact that Netholic's scrutiny of Jesswade's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign, not less. If he had taken his time about it, he might have absorbed some community feedback that some of his criticisms were based on flaws in his own thinking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I could use the same sort of accusation - "the fact that Clayoquot's scrutiny of Netoholic's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign" - see how it just makes your skin crawl to hear that? Flawed thinking, indeed. Sometimes, just sometimes, everyone gets a bug to look into something intently. 4 days ago, for me, it was jesswade88's daily article. 1 days ago, it was academic biographies in general. Two weeks ago it was an article about a reporter. A year ago, I was writing about books. Mostly, I hang out on WP:RM because it scratches all kinds of surprising research itches and I get to spaz out and tackle tons of different topics. Don't get all bent about what I've entangled my head in for any particular 2 day period and think its a "campaign". -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You're avoiding addressing the substance of our concerns about you: that your overall style of interacting with Jesswade88 does not appear to be collegial and constructive, e.g. taking the Keep closure of Ana Achúcarro to DRV[274]. If that was a 2-day thing for you, how about gracefully bowing out and moving on now that it's May 3? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: – sadly, my experience with Netoholic is similar when it comes to avoiding / leaving out the central and most problematic issues. How someone can get the kind of specific feedback Netoholic has gotten in this process, state that they will not go near the problematic area again, go back on that statement and do so anyway as soon as the ANI is closed, and then later on claim that it's all some harmless fancy like others they have had before, is beyond me. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It might also be worth pointing out (not sure which side this supports) that in the last few days the issue of female scientist on Wikipedia has attracted some outside attention, and thus will have generated some internal attention as well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Real improper behaviour

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

---

After multiple reverts and final warnings (all removed form their talk page) for adding unsourced content, user Somebody356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes —again— with this edit, re-introducing an error in article Gluon, now providing two sources, none of them supporting the added content. The second source doesn't even mention the article subject. See also the above section Wikipedia:ANI#Improper behavior. Can this person be somehow stopped? - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given them a week off for their persistent disruptive editing. I almost went for indef as I'm not convinced a set time block will make any difference, but one last chance and all that. Feel free to let me know if the same kind of thing continues after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, after what looks like a trolling unblock request, I have upped the block to indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Successful recruitment effort on reddit

Please be advised that there has been a faily successful effort to recruit redditors to push a viewpoint here (archive at the time of posting this). While the subject page is already edit protected, seems that some further admin attention would not go amiss while the editors work out their differences. Cheers. Melmann (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For reasons beyond the wit of mankind I just read through the entire thing. God knows why or what I planned to learn. I wouldn't have said they were being particularly co-ordinated, they were rather more cohesive about bitching about Wikipedia and the few editors challenging them. I do love Reddit, but it does weary me - though it has the benefit that their bickering threads are more understandable than ours! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've watched the page and left some comments/replies to those who came to the talk page. I wouldn't say it's a "fairly successful effort", not much really happening here. -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE account on a single-purpose mission

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

"Wikiyazan" is a brand new account which became active on 24 April 2019, and is on a single-purpose WP:TENDENTIOUS mission:

1. At South Azerbaijani Wikipedia he has made five reverts without edit-summary/explanation. Four different users have reverted him.[275]
2. At Azerbaijani language he has tried on three occassions to remove well-sourced content supported by a quote.[276]-[277]-[278]
3. At Tractor Sazi F.C. he has made two reverts without edit summary/explanation.[279]

This account has already violated WP:WAR, WP:CON, WP:VER (amongst others) on numerous occassions. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this account is absolutely not here to build this encyclopedia. For the record: I've also made a SPI case as its just too obvious that this is not a new user who's trying to pursue an IRL-agenda.[280] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

They are blocked. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:7965:AC4C:DB8C:2EE1 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's only a 31 hour block, so we'll see if that helps. I'd suggest a TBAN, but at this point they wouldn't have anything to edit on (not that there has been much in the way of constructive edits in any case). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation

Azifjason has ignored the messages sent by HickoryOughtShirt?4 and repeated the addition of large volumes of non-neutral text at Rhode Island Republican Party copied from [281]: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I flagged the other two times it was added for revdel. It looks like the user is gone for now. Maybe a warning with the big scary stop sign this time? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added another warning to their talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

purely vandalistic IP needs nuking.

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

---

180.191.146.122Qwirkle (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been nuked. In the future, simple cases like this should be taken to WP:AIV. --Jayron32 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Burmese editor

this Burmese editor MyanmarBBQ (talk · contribs) always like to use BAD WORDS (such as Stupid) and not polite for his reasons when he undo or remove other editor's edits. can you checking this editor? if it's not under the wiki rules, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This editor did WP:IDONTLIKE edit wars/content removed at Haruehun Airry, without reason and citing a reliable source. And also many other Thailand related articles. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ: That is not a good reason to call someone stupid. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No! bro! I did not call "stupid" on Haruehun Airry article, please check [282]. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

he called me as Stupid on New Thai Queen page and also called other editors is Stupid in other pages, pls. check his contributions MyanmarBBQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), thanks you.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ:it's not wars that i remove some of detail that unclear and unsoured, so i and other editors put the reasons why we remove some of deatial and ref. on Haruehun Airry already after you ask.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes bro! i called you as stupid on the queen article, because you did removed sourced personal info of the queen. I know my word that didn't seem very civil. sorry for that! I'll civilly edit on the future! And thanks for giving reasons on the article. Cheers. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ: on that page i didnt remove without reason, i put the reasons already that it's UNSOURCED, and on Thai page didnt put this detail yet. so you saw the reason alreaday but you still undo it. anyway i didnt angry you but i just want admin. checking your.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've one-time undo at the article!!! And please see the queen's birth date source here, Channel New Asia is reliable source. Thanks

I'm used to broken English, but from both of you this is more than a bit hard to follow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

they didnt put the ref. before i remove, and on thai page no one is confrim this and put this detail yet. thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Now, some senior editor has been updated the info and added The NY Times source! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Evrdkmkm you did not try to talk to MyanmarBBQ or even post a notice on his talk page about this dicussion. This should be your first step, not your last. You should not have brought this to WP:ANI. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

FTR, Acroterion and The Bushranger gave MyanmarBBQ some civility warnings and advice half a month ago. Samsara 20:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And Drmies did so a month before that. Samsara 20:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What User:The Blade of the Northern Lights said. If the two of you are going to be editing the English Wikipedia, both of you should be very careful before you post--lest it be misunderstood. MyanmarBBQ, do not use the word "bro" unless you are talking to your friend, for instance. That edit war on that Airry article was interesting since the article is a mess and the edit warring back and forth was even messier: both editors are at fault, not just for edit warring but also for being just absolutely lousy at communicating--I think Evrdkmkm needs to say more in their edit summaries, and Myanmar should probably say a lot less. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much...Drmies and all editor per above, I did undo or revert with Good faith please see my contributions! And proposer said "He didn't angry me". Please don’t bite me :'( , I’m a newbie! I'll careful edit in future! God bless you all MyanmarBBQ (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding a commercial site

Anna.Tsolidou (talk · contribs) is adding a commercial website to articles as well as images from the commercial website which she says are her own work. I should have logged off already so am leaving her to others to see if it's all ok. I'll let her know now. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Calling me "bonkers" and "shitty"

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

---

SashiRolls has created an attack page about me in user space: [283]. Although I recognize that there is a valid use for preparing evidence for dispute resolution, this looks more like just a collection of personal attacks. I can see a case for taking it to WP:MfD, but this seems to me to be over-the-top, to a degree that justifies some administrator attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need another 100,000 bytes of the Sashirolls soap opera on WP:ANI, can you keep this contained in the current season? You called Sashi a crackpot and Sashi called you bonkers, lets not waste anymore electrons here. SWL36 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No. That's a false equivalence, and this is a new problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, if you wish to air your grievances, please do so elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• This does not reach the level of an attack page. By far my favoured option would be for these discussions to just die. If we can't manage that then I suggest we tweak the proposed 2-way IBAN to be between SashiRolls and Trypto. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see it as an attack, if you see it as something appropriate to be on this site, then I don't know what to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm noting that an admin has speedy deleted the page, in part as an attack page. Admins can still view the page, but non-admins cannot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'd say it meets the criteria for an attack page. Deletion sounds reasonable. If their goal was to collect diffs for an RFC, ANI filing or the Arbcomm, they need to do it without all the personalised commentary. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with SWL and the bear. Not an attack page. Likely for the recent Arbcom filing. Everyone knows Sashi is creative with language. I think Tryp should unclutch their pearls and drop the stick already. Leviv ich 22:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree all you want, but one admin has deleted it as an attack page and another has confirmed that it was. I don't know what your reference to pearls means, but I take it as indicating a lack of understanding what WP:CIVIL is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with O3000's closure of this thread. Assuming the page was for Arbcom, that being over, and the page now deleted, seems to be the end of this matter. Leviv ich 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The material about me was put on the page after the ArbCom case request was closed, so it wasn't for that. And it wasn't really evidence, so much as just a series of insults. The last time I checked, this was Wikipedia, not 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture Tryptofish posted with the caption "I eat trout." in response to Sashi calling for Tryptofish to be trouted.

4chan is an imageboard site. You posted this picture with the edit summary "Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too good to pass up." and when Sashi saves it to a personal evidence page, you complain about being insulted, unclose this thread, and declare this is Wikipedia, not 4chan. OK. Leviv ich 22:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I should have explained that better, admittedly. I apologize. But it comes from User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 33#Things that have evolved beyond sci-fi movies..., where I have joked that the image was me, a joke that I have repeated multiple times. And you seem to think that my complaint here is because that image was on his now-deleted page. It isn't, and no one would have deleted it if the only thing about it were that image. And you also seem to think that #Proposal: Tryptofish & Kolya Butternut trouted & possibly banned from drama boards was something that should not have been treated as un-serious. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The page was intended for their Arbcom statement, but I did not see the page in the state described nor do I remember if it was still almost blank at the time the case was closed. My concern would be if the page contained more false accusations. But I don't want to get into it here.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The stuff I'm reporting was added after the ArbCom case request was closed, and was very different from what you would have seen at the time of the case request. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The evidence I posted: 1 (starring Calton), 2 , I did not say you were bonkers but "went bonkers" (temporarily) to make the attack in 2. I also did not call you "shitty" but provided evidence of you rating examples of mean comments in terms of shades of shittiness: 3. It is deleted. I have not lost the original. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So this is where we are now. You sound quite satisfied with what you said about me, and seem to be saying that you are prepared to re-post it. Admins can see how credible your description here is. I know that Wikipedia is not good at dealing with civility issues, and I don't know if any admin is going to touch this. But given that your previous indef block was lifted by the community with the understanding that you would be subject to scrutiny, I think this requires some administrative attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think the severity of the page is a bit overstated, but it absolutely met the CSD that it was deleted under, and no further action is needed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, less than 6 months after this we find ourselves here again. How many otherwise productive hours have been wasted on this page in the last few days due to SashiRolls..? Definition (yes, I know it's wrongly attributed and etc but...) of insanity is doing the exact same fucking thing over and over again, expecting shit to change. SashiRolls is a net negative to the project. Neil S. Walker (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: 6-month block for User:SashiRolls

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

---

I see that User:SashiRolls has been blocked for extended periods before, and hasn't learned, but 6 months is in practice the same as indefinite, except that a 6-month block is less likely to be undone by one administrator who decides to be too nice. Some of the recent disruption occurred on my talk page, after I advised User:SashiRolls and User:Snooganssnoogans to take their quarrel to Arbitration Enforcement rather than WP:ANI, and I then collapsed it because it was Someone else's problem (and after making a mistake about which editor had been blocked for what), but I think that SashiRolls is Wikipedia's problem. A Someone else's problem field, in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, makes something almost invisible. I suggest that we make SashiRolls almost invisible for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and Robert McClenon pardon me for saying so, but do you think the recent review of Legacypac's block you posted to AN helped the situation in any way whatsoever? Do you think the portal arbcom case request you made helped that situation in any way whatsoever? Maybe consider slowing down with the threads? Each of these threads you start takes up community time and attention. Leviv ich 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A-fucking-men. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a 1-6-month- or longer block, as SashiRolls' explanation on 23:12, 2 May 2019 is sufficient to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Since a violation of policy was determined anyway, give SashiRolls a 24–72-hour block instead (if made effective today, would cover this entire weekend). That's just based on that one page he/she compiled. But going forward, this incident should be taken into consideration, if SashiRolls' breach of policy begins to continually repeat, or becomes more severe. -Mardus /talk 06:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and beg everyone to drop the stick and let this go. Also concur with Levivich above regarding the frequent opening of these time wasting discussions. In the last one, a simple 31 hour block has turned into a community ban pile on. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. And if I might make a respectful suggestion, Robert, perhaps you could step back a bit and consider whether you are helping to reduce drama these days or are actually contributing to it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

SleeplessNight12

I have serious concerns about editor SleeplessNight12 (talk · contribs). They firstly reverted a number of edits I made to the article on Helena (empress) with no justification or talk. They then followed me to the articles on Frederick the Great and Donatello to revert edits I had made by arguing that anything that spoke about homosexuality was "vandalism" (WP:HOUNDING). Today I have looked at the talk page on Helena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(empress)#Bunch_of_changes) and I have been called an "anti-Catholic, gay apologist" along with s reference to "homosexual and immoral people". A look at the editors talkpage suggests they are involved ina whole number of antagonistic disputes. I also wonder whether they are using a separate account (IP:96.70.198.37) as the changes made by this user to Helena look remarkably similar to those pushed by SleeplessNight12 and this IP has not previously been active on this article page. Could someone please look into this please. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Mr Contaldo80 started editing Catholic articles to display his anti-Catholic bias. I corrected 3 of those. Once he told me to stop, I stopped and started a discussion. Now, this person is angry that not everyone agrees with his anti-Catholicism. I did not edit or revert after being told not to, and started a discussion. You guys can decide how to best proceed. God bless all --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Frederick the Great wasn't even Catholic so in what way did you "correct" my "anti-Catholic bias" in that article? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir, that is the way I started out, and went to about 3 articles. Fact still remains, after you gave me a warning, I immediately stopped and went to the Talk Page. It is not my problem that other people are finding your anti-Catholicism disruptive on Wikipedia too. I always take warnings seriously. Hope that helps. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12 - you can't use terminology like "anti-Catholic" to describe editors - you can comment on actions, but don't try to discern someone's underlying motivation. For starters, it's easy to get wrong - someone who may disagree with you might seem like a supporter of the opposing side, when in fact they aren't. Regardless, if you call someone "x", you need to be able to back it up with evidence that's convincing to a disinterested outsider.

What's more of a problem though is that you seem to talk "anti-Catholic" views as disqualifying. That isn't the way it works around here - there's nothing wrong with editing topics you disagree with. If only supporters got to edit articles, you'd have totally one-sided presentations. By getting both sides involved, and by expecting both sides to walk away OK with the final product Wikipedia can produce excellent articles.

It rarely helps your case to label someone by ideology anyway. Calling someone anti-Catholic is likely to elicit a shrug from many of the people here. To the non-religious person, or Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Eastern Orthodox Christian and or Buddhist, fights between Catholics and Protestants so narrowly sectarian. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And the longer schism between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is sometimes not seen by Protestants. I did once advise a Buddhist editor to read about filioque and told them that after reading it, they still wouldn't understand (but I am not sure that I understand either). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not intend to be disruptive. I only wanted to make my observation known. I apologize for what I did SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing Yemen portal

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

---

Hi, recently a discussion to remove Portal:Yemen Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/9_automated_pseudo-portals_created_from_redirects (one week old) I was not aware of the discussion and now that I am trying to recreate the portal and improve it, the portal gets deleted by JJMC89 what should I do with this? I am definitely going to create a portal for Yemen as all other countries have portals.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Go to Deletion review and try to get consensus for it to be undeleted. El_C 05:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by HCube 1963

This person has spent the last 3 months adding their "name" to the list of producers on mostly hip-hop albums. While some of their edits have been reverted and several warnings left on their talk page, I have now gone through every single one removing the HCube from these articles. One only needs to hover over the diffs on their talk page to see their M.O. and while they were sometimes reverted on the more popular articles, they managed to let quite a few slip through on the lesser watched ones. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thank you. Robvanvee 07:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And I've deleted his self-promoting subpage as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz

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

---

This looks like a threat of some kind. I am entitled to contribute to the Wikipedia without someone threatening to expose me to "scrutiny at a different forum". As far as I can see, all my contributions to the talk and article have been entirely appropriate and in-line with site policy, which I have attempted to uphold, while seeking compromise, in the face of two users repeatedly attempting to force their preferred language into the lead over the objections of several users while discussion has been ongoing on the talk page. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(Note: This This comment is the one being replied to, subsequently altered.) think the "different forum" Icewhiz was referring to was this one; and if—in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources, then clearly other editors might see that as disruptive. FYI & YMMV of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have redacted the final sentence because already it has given one user the wrong impression of the dispute. The following: if—in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources is nevertheless a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. I have not once contested any of the sources, this being a dispute over balance in the lead (I even personally wrote the version I removed to encourage User:Icewhiz to follow WP:BRD) and you might have actually reviewed the dispute first before intervening and poisoning the water of any future consideration of a complaint I am taking very seriously. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12:

Firstly, per WP:REDACT if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes, by <s>striking</s> them.

Secondly, there is no point in posting substantially the same comment to my talk page as you make here: if you start an ANI, address the ANI.

Thirdly, if you expect anyone to believe that saying that you said something, when you not only said it but then redacted it, is a misrepresentation then you must expect everything else you say to be examined more closely than you may expect.

Fourthly, accusing editors of not reviewing pages before editing and poisoning the waters is verging on an aspersion, and if you are wanting to redact anything, that should probably be first on your list.

Fithly, this is wholly a content dispute, which, as you know, ANI does not soil its hands with :)

Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. In the context of the talk page discussion, I have reason to believe that another user has threatened to expose me to "scrutiny at a different forum" (the recent context in the UK press in mind), which was the subject of this WP:ANI post before you kindly derailed it. I will also not redact my suggestion that you didn't consult the article talk page before posting here, because I sincerely believe that you didn't. I believe that you based your initial post on a misreading of the final sentence of my ANI post. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:07 (edited 12:20), 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the misrepresentation: my sentence: I have refused to be convinced by "The RSes say X and therefore you must accept my preferred version of the lead" arguments, was transformed by User:Serial Number 54129 into in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources, although I'm sure you would like to insist these mean the same thing. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry; but either you do not kow what you are talking about, or you do not possess the means to express it, or you lack the experience to understand what this board is for. Or possibly a combination of all three. In any case, I'd take on board Goldenring's point below, and it might also be worth perusing WP:BOOMERANG while you are at it. BTW, I have no idea whatsoever what your allusion to the context of the UK's press is. Talk about muddying the waters... ——SerialNumber54129 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Not being able to express myself clearly is fortunately not something I suffer from. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

On a point of curiosity, @Serial Number 54129: I assume this diff you linked above is a typo of some sort? What did you actually mean to link? GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Ohh...wrong diff, now corrected. Naturally, by striking through, rather than redacting, as it's been answered  ;) must've clicked the wrong "prev[ious]". Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 14:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• This looks a pretty clear attempt to manufacture a behavioural dispute when you're losing a content dispute to me. I'd drop it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain, based on the talk discussion, how I am "losing a content dispute". Specifically, how consistent are these[284][285][286][287] contributions with that claim? Endymion.12 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherrypick all you like, you've been edit-warring the content out of the lede for several days now. Do you actually expect something to come out of this complaint? GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore, no, and therefore I will drop it. For the record, I was reverting on each occasion to WP:STABLE. If anyone is concerned about the decline in participation[288] from new users, this kind of behaviour is why. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The kind of behaviour where one edits an already-replied-to post as an argument tactic? I can see why that would drive people away. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Fæ ‎

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

---

Here she accuses me of being creepy and of (in effect) being a sexist [[290]] for posting a warning about possible meat puppetry at an AFD. She is told to stop by multiple users [[291]], [[292]], and warned by me not to. She then doubles down on it [[293]], demanding I prove I am not (note AFD's are not supposed to be about user conduct). This is (apparently) a pattern she has been warned out before.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC) And it continues [[294]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• If Fae can't participate in the discussion without making unhinged attacks on editors who have done nothing wrong, then Fae should not be part of the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Calling her unhinged is not helpful.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Please note the dramatic wording above. I have called nobody a sexist, ever. The action of researching and presumably watching a BLP subject's social media accounts, and checking through their discussions with others, which may include with social media accounts of Wikipedians, is not something that should be encouraged, because of undemonstrated allegations of canvassing, meatpuppetry etc. These allegations are wrong, and researching social media accounts of subjects and Wikipedians creates a hostile environment. Those doing this should back off and reconsider what is good behaviour on the internet for Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  As has been stated at the AfD, Sarah Tuttle's Twitter posts are the second thing to appear when one Googles her. And it is reasonable that one would Google the subject of an AfD. Stop assuming bad faith when you have absolutely no reason to do so. And stop making careless accusations of creepiness (and yes, you implied sexism whether you mean to or not). You have no right to get on a high horse and lecture us while engaging in such behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that the BLP subject is directing meatpuppets or asking Wikipedians to canvass or manipulate Wikipedia on their behalf. A BLP subject daring to mention Wikipedia on Twitter does not give carte blanche for publishing negative allegations about them, and consequently creating a hostile environment for contributors to the article under discussion. Sticking to facts and basic civility is not being on a "high horse", it's barely standing on my own two legs. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven has already stated that he was concerned about one of the replies to Tuttle's tweet as opposed to her tweet itself. And there is a difference between "daring to mention Wikipedia on Twitter" and broadly accusing Wikipedians of misogyny and racism. How do you not see the difference? And, in light of your attacks on Slatersteven, it is impossible to believe that you care about the creation of a hostile environment. You have not stuck to facts or basic civility. Instead, you have made personal attacks and disregarded what other editors have attempted to say in rebuttal. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Only an observation: this is a matter tied to the closed discussion above about the actions User:Netoholic had taken related to AFD. --Masem (t) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Uh, how so? Not sure why I was pinged here. I commented on the same AfD these parties did, but otherwise I'm uninvolved. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have redacted the personalized and off-topic discussion from the AFD. Urge everyone to take a step back and examine how they can best make their (on-topic) points without inflaming the atmosphere even further. Use of terms like "creepy", "unhinged" etc are not helpful. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll strike that part. But let's be clear that Slatersteven is not at fault here. I geniunely don't understand why your wording suggests that everyone needs to step back when this is an issue with one user. That seems unfair. Lepricavark (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- Fae has been continuing with this chilling nonsense for long, as Sitush has experienced firsthand. I strongly feel that the above accusations violate NPA and are blockable. ∯WBG^converse 15:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not watch any Twitter account, I went there because of a post in this thread [295]] that link ed to this twitter post [[296]] which was part of a feed where he (not her) posted this [[297]] which took me to her feed, which contained this [[298]]. No digger, watching or reaching was need, I just followed a series of open and clear link, not even elementary. Nor have I stalked or followed any other wiki edd, and would not even know if they had replied on any of these twitter feeds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you knew so little, and there was so little research, why did you publish direct allegations about the BLP subject canvassing Wikipedia in the AfD? --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not I linked to a twitter thread where such a call had been made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You chose the words "a call to aRMS" to describe twitter posts diff. I have yet to read any "call to arms" which promotes canvassing off-wiki by the BLP subject or anyone else. Where is the evidence, I cannot see it in the posts you have linked here, or were you exaggerating for some reason? --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Quoth the raven " The way to counter this is to ask among friends and colleagues familiar with Wikipeida's hermetic rules to fairly comment to keep, if they support that.", how is that not a call for people to just turn up and vote keep?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Correct, I did not read that properly. Certainly that was an opinion by someone that was not the BLP subject (which you did not make clear in your allegation), in a twitter thread that hardly anyone would read and apparently has attracted zero keep votes in the AfD. Why are you making allegations of canvassing ("a call to aRMS") in an AfD that literally was never canvassed, drawing attention to a twitter discussion that should be irrelevant and was otherwise not publicised? BLP subjects and their friends are not fair game to get roasted, just because they are aware of a Wikipedia article about them being discussed for deletion. What should be the priority is respecting the BLP subject's privacy, even if their social media accounts can be searched out on the internet, none of that should be relevant for an encyclopaedic discussion of content. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that neither of you is going to achieve anything positive with this conversation and that you should just let it go? Ignore my advice if you wish, but nonetheless that is my advice. GoldenRing (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• NB, from User:Fæ "If you need a pronoun to refer to my account, I prefer the courtesy of a singular they rather than she, he or anything else." It is well-known that they is not a she. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I’d chime in here with User:GoldenRing that the parties involved should drop the stick and back off. Every side here is ascribing the maximum ill intent possible to construe from every statement, and really needs to stop tilting at windmills. When literally the second thing I see when searching for a bio is the embedded tweets talking about the AfD, it’s not stalking to note someone’s social media presence. Putting the template on the AfD was all that was needed without trying to apply kremlinology to tweets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware the template existed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line xe can go regarding xyr topic ban and regarding civility. The statement "By the way, it's pretty obvious that the reason you made this note is that the subject is a woman" is calling that person a sexist just as surely as "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" means "fuck off".

By the way, did anything ever come of the repeated calls for a tool to search a user's contribution history? It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or xyr previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to look very far back. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The right pronoun to use has been spelt out. Be nice please, you know exactly why it is upsetting to make my identity an issue. --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Pronouns are important; not only for the obvious reasons...but also because their misuse may allow parties to muddy the waters and deflect an issue into a non-issue. And I'm sure that's something none of us wants. ——SerialNumber54129 18:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to enter these diffs by Fæ into evidence:

1. 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) "Usual Suspects" (considering 4 other users commented there, 1 being Rama who undeleted... this is a very narrow net), "more interested in finding reasons to attack individuals, including creepily researching their social media profiles, ceaselessly finding reasons to make contributions here a non-stop ranty argument....
2. 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC) - "How tone deaf you are. "Professionally outraged" is how right wing extremists have marginalised and derided the opinions of feminists, integrationists and pro-LGBT thinkers for decades. "Professionally outraged" is equivalent to the dichotomy of praising men as masculine when they express anger, while any woman daring to be angry is derided as a scold.

Calling Sitush, of all people, "tone deaf" is.... Quite astounding, really.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherry picking? The full context is more meaningful:

You know, I would like to spend some time thinking through the sources again and working collegiately on this article. Unfortunately it has the attention of the "Usual Suspects", who are here within minutes of this article being restored, more interested in finding reasons to attack individuals, including creepily researching their social media profiles, ceaselessly finding reasons to make contributions here a non-stop ranty argument, and will take any slim evidence to take us to dramah boards. No thanks, I don't want my off-wiki data being connected to my past 10 years of contributions to this project.

More prophetic than astounding. Here at ANI people can get away with making fun of my gender identity in an apparently deliberately nasty way with no thoughts that sanction could result, and here is a call to research every edit I have made in the last decade. My prediction may seem extreme, but it has been entirely accurate, you must agree. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Keeping on digging, I see. I would not use "prophetic" here. I will quote Sitush: "As I said, I am profoundly deaf - I can't hear anything without the most powerful hearing aids, and nothing below 110db even with them - but it does not define me, despite the daily discrimination I face;" 12 Feb 2019 Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, we cannot call anyone tone deaf in their use of language, just in case in real life they might wear hearing aids. Had this aspect of Sitush's real life been known to me I would have chosen different words, but I do not follow their user pages, I do not know anything about their life, neither do I have any reason to research them. You may like to note that calling me "professionally outraged" is not any more acceptable, it still just dismisses the person rather than dealing with the issue. If you look up this page, you will see someone using the word "spaz", which only has one offensive meaning that demeans people with conditions like cerebral palsy. It is the nature of Wikipedia that this will pass without comment. Folks like me that are not comfortable with the way things are, and dare speak out, will continue to be threatened with whatever can be dreamt up, no matter how thin these arguments are in reality.

Have a think about what "reality" is, and how Wikipedia policies and this noticeboard are in practice less civil to minority views than most public houses. --Fæ (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I would think that someone who is quite, umm, keen on pronoun use would be a tad more careful with their own language. However, even if we were to AGF the "tone deaf" bit, you still did not AGF in that conversation, and came out swinging with various accusations and even contrasted them with "right wing extremists" for their use of language not to your liking.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am keen on seeing it become a normal expectation to be civil with pronoun use, rather than it being written off as a bad joke.

The specific rhetoric is used by right wing extremists, highlighting that fact is pointing to history and conventions for acceptable discourse, explaining why it is upsetting, not a personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to make a personal comment about anyone else before I close this and we all carry on editing with a little more knowledge about other editors than we had before? I'll give it 15 minutes. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear

[299] Editor Kansas Bear deleted my notification to him about DNR in a very rude form. First, such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG. Second, I don't care about this guy, but I will not tolerate such outrageous violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA from anyone. If he or somebody else thinks that I am a sock-puppet, I will glad to hear his concern on the respective noticeboard.

I will wait for the sanctions, that community will find appropriate and I hope this editor's bad conduct and lack of manners will be assessed. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting archived RSN discussion?

I would like advice whether/how to re-post or re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at AN,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote of sorts emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard, of the AN discussion consensus about the HuffPo article: "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[300]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an AN sub-thread.)

• Should there be a new discussion on RSN solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed at AN? Arguments for an against are on the RSN archived thread.
• Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
• Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion? BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your insistent lobbying for your paid editing business is entering WP:NOTHERE territory. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indef troll

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

---

Also, you just insulted all those living and all those dead soviet history scientists and soviet media/propaganda workers. ... So, by insulting USSR you insult Russia, [301] — that's highfalutin rubbish from a WP:TROLL. Would someone indef him? See also And yes, you can't just go an scare me with blocks and bans. I registered here only to point out to the fact that the article contained blatant anti-russian lies, not to continue being a part of the wikipedia community. So I give absolutely zero things about those bans., [302]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you say that if I claim that your words 'soviets lie like dogs' are insults, I'm a troll, or what? And yes, you were behaving very rude, and giving zero arguments, while constantly threatening me with bans. You already tried to twist WP rules, by saying that I will be banned for IRL threats, but I pointed out to you that I didn't give any threats (and you know that). Also, you ignore all my arguments, while giving statements in the likes of "all western professors always tell the truth and believe in freedom of speech", or the mentioned above statement about dogs. So, it is you who are the troll here and you should be indefed.

Shasla1

What I have said was And no, we don't consider Soviet propaganda as reliable fact-based knowledge. More like something between wishful thinking and lying like a dog. Btw, I don't know why you find this offensive: the Soviet regime is gone, it has been dethroned, therefore it no longer has any real power. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, block, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Geo_Swan A case of incivility, CIR and playing victim

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

---

Just wanted to give some context to why Geo_Swan believes they have a wikistalker. Here is a classic example of them not being civil and insulting a user who doesn't agree with them. If you review their edit history (including with admins) you will find this is the normal for them and whenever they are found to be wrong they play a victim card. Additionally, they routinely violate BLP and have openly spoken against the BLP policy. [[303]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.255.32 (talk • contribs)

You have failed to notify Geo_Swan of this ANI thread. I have done so for you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll make two points:

1. I think I bent over backwards to show good faith to my wikistalker, before they earned an indefinite block. But I think my obligation to assume good faith ended when they earned that indefinite block.
2. With regard to the accusations of BLP problems... I have been around here since 2004, and I have started many articles. While my wikistalker here has levelled recent accusations that I add material about living individuals that does not measure up to policy, they are not the only contributor to have ever done so. What I would like those accusers to remember is that the wikipedia's standards are much more stringent now than they were a decade ago. When I contributed material that measured up to our standards, at the time I contributed it, that does not make me a policy violator when those contributions don't measure up to today's standards. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Low how the diff the IP provided is not about BLP violations, but a redlink disussion where Geo Swan was upholding the guideline. Not exactly damnig evidence. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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