Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048

Recent bot-like reverts of a specific user

While I'm still looking into other Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.

Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.

At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:

1. adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
2. making changes to the wording of the text.

In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.

The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The list of all reverts are as follows:

FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that JayBeeEll's behavior of performing a mass revert with poor edit summaries qualifies as a behavioural issue regarding WP:POINT and WP:ESDOS, and it should be recorded as such. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is WP:RS.) —JBL (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein And let me guess, you get to make the decision as to what is low or high quality. It goes without saying that I'm against that.

A massive revert such as the one done is only justifiable if there is a clear infringement of a wikipedia guideline. As such, Miaumee's edits' quality are largely debatable, and JayBeeEll should have brought up the problem in, say, Wikiproject Mathematics.

You also miss my second point. I understand if it is hard for you, but try to place yourself in Miaumee's shoes for a moment. Hours of your work have been reverted, and with a quite unhelpful edit summary. This clearly goes the opposite way of WP:CIVILITY (particularly, but not exclusively, WP:ESDONTS). Ideally I want this to be solved in a way that is, at the very least, civil towards Miaumee. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 12:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't get that kind of response from the other party if you just throw facts on their faces. First of all, what guarantee do they have that you are correct? Absolutely none. That's why you need consensus, supports from other people. I'm much more likely to recognize that I am wrong if more than some random editor calls out on me. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is an absurd elevation of process over substance, and it's particularly ridiculous given that you didn't bother to see what discussion with me would yield before running off to ANI. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm most concerned with the civility problem. JayBeeEll applied the edit summary "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" to over 70 edits. It would be hard to argue that that's appropriate; it seems to me like WikiHounding. I noticed the uncivil edit summary in one of the pages on my watchlist and it led me to comment on their talk page, and I also considered starting an ANI thread before I saw this one. Benny White (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would help to make the following things explicit: I noted Benny White's concerns earlier and have not made any of thse edits since then. When I resume examining the rest of Miaumee's edits, if I revert them, I will endeavor to write edit summaries that don't rub people the wrong way. Likewise, I will proceed at a slower pace. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is no admin input to this, other than David Eppstein's (which was summoned here by JayBeeEll himself), I intend to take the role of an unrequested WP:THIRD opinion to solve the dispute. I will politely:

1. explain to Miaumee, based on what was discussed here, that Mathvault and Mathworld can be seen as WP:QUESTIONABLE sources or largely WP:RSSELF published sources, and thus lack WP:RELIABILITY.
2. explain how her persistent and somewhat bot-like edits to rephrase text, while good faith, go against MOS:STYLERET when there isn't a clear improvement to the text. In some cases, such as here, there was a significant improvement to the text, but I guess that's because the original article had more significant problems in writing style. Most of Miaumee's other edits were modifications to an otherwise fine text, some of which arguably decreased the text quality.
3. invite her to undo JayBeeEll's reverts where she is sure the two above items do not apply.
4. invite her to selectively undo JayBeeEll's reverts, so that the content that does not infringe items 1 and 2 can remain live in the articles.
5. kindly request that she shifts her focus to adding actual new content to articles (properly sourced, of course).

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As the person who thought this was worth escalating to WP:ANI you are the wrong person to claim to take a neutral role in this. And your suggestion that Miaumee be encouraged to reinstate some of the bad edits and continue making more of them is unconstructive and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was unsure if it was worth bringing the incident here, but now I am sure that's what should have been done. I'm glad to have this incident recorded here, but to some extent disappointed with the lack of feedback from neutral uninvolved admins.

I still believe I am a neutral party here, as I never had any relation with Miaumee and I noticed this whole problem merely because I'm watching Variance, and suddenly a revert with a weird edit summary popped up in my watch list. To make it worse, it reverted a largely fine edit (thought I intend to remove the mathworld references soon).

Might I add, I am now reminded that an RfA has just been denied on the grounds that the candidate had bad dispute resolution skills (withdrawn at 17 September), so the dispute resolution skills I am witnessing here is having its toll on me. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As an attempt to improve the item you mentioned, I have striked it and added a reformulated one. By no means I would proposed she fully revert edits, as all of them involve mathworld etc references, and I'd rather have her keep these away. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walwal20, Miaumee, David Eppstein, and JayBeeEll: Walwal20 reached out to me, as an uninvolved admin, which I am. Indeed I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, or interacted with any of you except David Eppstein, who I have had slioght but quite positive interactions with. Several points:

1. I accept for the moment, the statement that Mathvault and Mathworld are generally low-quality sources.
2. An editor who believes that a given edit is unhelpful may surely revert that edit as a matter of editorial judgement. No one's approval is needed for that, although if the revert is challenged WP:BRD applies.
3. However to mass-revert over 75 edits at a rate approaching 5 edits per minute approaches the level of bot-like editing covered by WP:MEATBOT. This is not acceptable in the absence of consensus. I accept that all these reverts were done in good faith.
4. As per WP:SUMMARYNO, "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing"is not a helpful summery, and it looks pointy whether it was intended as a POINTY action or not.
5. I therefore ask JayBeeEll to refrain from any further such edits until there is time for a discussion of the matter. Please consider this a sufficient challenge to these edits to invoke BRD.
6. I have as yet no substantive opinion on the merits of these edits. I will try to form one. There are both content issues and behavioral issues here.
7. I will address :::Miaumeedirectly on that user's talk page, and ask for a Stop to the edits now being reverted.

I ask for calm and civility from all involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now made This edit to User talk:Miaumee DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

JayBeeEll I am attempting to respond quickly to prevent further problems here. I have not yet had time to read everything written about this situation. I apologize if I have overlooked comments of yours, and i am thankful that you have already agreed to my requests, which I hope are reasonable ones, and which were in part addressed to all. Could you give me a pointer to the agreement you mention, please? or at least was it in this thread or elsewhere? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going offline for a few hours, but will check back when I can, all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't mean to snipe at you specifically, I just find it ridiculous that this was brought to ANI in the first place, without waiting for a response on my talk-page. The comment I mean is the one is response to Benny White above -- although rereading it I guess it promises slightly less (or at least is vague about when I might resume looking at Miaumee's edits). So let me take the opportunity to observe that there is nothing urgent about any of this; to further make clear that I will not resume before this is resolved; and to restate my earlier committment to not doing the things that people object to (the speed and edit summaries) if I do resume after this is resolved. Finally, I appreciate your comment on Miaumee's talkpage, thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite all right, JayBeeEll, no offense taken. I see the comment you refer to, and i thank you for that and for your later response just above. I am now hoping for a response to this from Miaumee. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. Thanks for chiming in. I guess I'll start by saying that my edits are not exactly as systematic as some here have presumed. Often times, the editing barely happens because I find a sentence jarring or hard to understand, and the rest proceeds organically from there. The intent is often not to introduce new content, but to put myself as a first-time reader and see which passage appear nebulous (as is common in mathematical text) and how they can be rephrased. The edits weren't done with the intent of reverting style, although for someone with a certain grammatical style whose edits are often substantive, it could appear that way.

The other thing I thought I would mention is that during the course of editing, I've come to learn certain grammatical changes (outside of MoS) are touchier than others. In the beginning for example, I used to reflexively remove duplicate spaces after full stop as I read through the text. But after being notified that some prefer double spaces, I became more aware to adjust my writing to fit the predominant style of the article.

So this, among other reasons, is why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia (there are others more capable in making those sorts of judgments than me). The history of me being on Wiki has been me doing the editing, and others doing the reverting (if they so feel compelled). To be frank, the reverting basically didn't happen until fairly recently, but that's also why there hasn't been any edit war involving me in the first place—since I almost never edit an article twice.

So the point here is that I'm not the type who would seek to reinstate any reverting. I think that if the edit is good, then it'll find its way there somehow, and if it's bad, someone will either change things up or revert it altogether. That's basically why I have been confident with editing—knowing that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone in the process.

OK. Back to the concerns about grammar. To be honest, I didn't think that it would be such an issue since the MoS covered many aspects rather thoroughly. From my exchange with JBL, I've learned that he takes issue at least with my use of stray commas and em-dash. While the uses of these are rather common on Wikipedia, they have the potential of changing the meaning of the sentences. So that's definitely something I think twice before doing.

Apart from those, I really haven't got much clue whether the issue with grammar are indeed grammatical errors in the Wikipedia sense, since—as you might know—I haven't been able to get much info from the reverts aside from "grammatical disprovement". It'd have been nicer if the edits were modified instead of being reverted—but I guess that's hard to do due to the substantive nature of the edits.

As for the citations, that's something I have a mixed feeling about. As you might know, I have a few handy online sources I use for reading on a topic and doing the editing. If I slap a citation on an article, it's generally not because I'm crazy about them, but because they happen to be just around and ok for the sentences being substantiated. While I agree that these different sources (mathworld, mathvault, mathsisfun, brilliant, math insight) are of different levels of quality, I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least).

Hmm... how should I put this. I think I'll start by saying that it is generally not easy to find a citation in mathematics (though it sure is easy for those doing the policing). The point is that I've chosen those sites precisely because they are reference-based and non-self-published (at least in the appearance of it). Even if they were to be self-published, these are generally written or reviewed by competent individual (including mathsisfun, which admittedly looks very inappropriate for citing). I guess what I'm saying is that out of millions of questionable math sites, those are the ones that tend to stand out and happen to be around during the research (and are less likely to disappear like some academic PDF would).

For example, I also have some reservation about citing Brilliant.org, which is technically a wiki. But unlike open-for-all wiki, they have a curation process so that only certain individuals can edit (almost as a sort of peer-reviewing). If this were about biography of living person I'll definitely think twice, but if one considers those sites as low quality, then considering their factual accuracy and the amount of math resources they offer—it'd be like playing a game with your hands tied (unless one turns to textual sources, which I assume is possible but much less handy). My inclination is that them doing harm on the site is a bit of an over-stretch, but of course that doesn't mean that anything goes either.

Anyway, I am not saying this out of defiance, nor I am trying to discredit your points—as I'm sure I can do better on many fronts. Basically, this is yet another reason why I'm sort of prepared to have my previous edits reverted (if it were to come out that way). As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll refrain from any editing until the dust is settled. Though I really, really do appreciate the admins and fellow editors for standing out, I'd probably stay relatively low-profile to avoid clouding the judgment. Miaumee (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Miaumee, I am glad to read your comment above. I hope we are wewll on the way to resolving this.

It seems to me that three are two parts to this, content issues and behavioral issues.

The content issues are the quality of edits by Miaumee, and how they can be improved, and whether reverts are needed going forward. That is really out of scope for ANI, but perhaps needs further discussion somewhere. It could be done on User talk:Miaumee or on a separate page, perhaps a new page such as Wikipedia:Math edits by Miaumee (or I could create such a page in my user space if people prefer).

The behavioral issues are fairly simple, and I hope will not need further discussions or any restrictions on anyone. On Miaumee's part, there must be a serious effort to make the best possible edits, and to work collaboratively. An attitude that if there is a problem with an edit, someone else will revert it or correct it is not optimal, it can seem as if that means expecting others to clean up after poor edits. Also attention to Wikipedia:Communication is required. And in this particular case, Miaumee should review their own past edits and revise them to remove problems where possible.

On the part of JayBeeEll, care to Assume good faith and keep Wikipedia:Communication is required in mind. Mass reverts, as described in the comment by JBL ...I feel that you have left no option other than to revert all your edits... and as carried out by JBL in the list of diffs earlier in this thread, are not usually appropriate. There are a few cases where an editor's contributions will be reverted in bulk. For example, when a Contributor copyright investigation has found that an editor has made sufficiently frequent copyright violations that a mass revert is warranted. But copyright issues are rather more serious than grammar and punctuation errors, for one thing, and such a decision is never made by a single editor, it is done by consensus, normally after a formal process. I do not think that the problems with Miaumee's edits rise to that level. Therefore I must also disagree with and disapprove of the comment by David Eppstein in this thread that Miaumee's edits are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. WP:QUO says If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Help:reverting says Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? and n the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. WP:SUMMARYNO also points out the need for helpful, specific edit summaries, saying While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. and Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. Also WP:MEATBOT says that Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. and warns of the dangers of highly repetitive editing. I gather that JBL has agreed not to use such methods of reverting in future.

With JBL's agreement above, and with Miaumee's stated intent to do better (I'm sure I can do better on many fronts.) It seems that the behavioral issues have perhaps been addressed. Does anyone think that further discussion of these or of any other behavioral issues is needed here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: perhaps I was being too polite and circumlocutory. Your long comment here, accusing me of failing to follow WP:QUO, is forcing me to be more blunt. In fact, I have looked carefully through each of the several edits of Miaumee that I undid, contrary to your accusations. I found in them only the introduction of low-quality web sources, minor wording changes that added verbiage but no value to the article, bizarre choices of punctuation (especially frequent introduction of unspaced dashes in places where dashes of any sort were not appropriate, creating the appearance of compound words in technical articles where that could plausibly indicate some unknown technical meaning but in fact merely consisted of poor writing), gratuitous changes of citation style, and the occasional introduction of mathematical inaccuracies. There was never any attempt to introduce worthwhile content to the articles that could be salvaged with better editing; it was all cosmetic and all disimprovement. I did not want to say that there is nothing of value to salvage in Miaumee's edits, because I do still believe Miaumee is acting in good faith, but when you use my politeness as an excuse to attack me I must respond honestly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to attack you, David Eppstein. If you reviewed an edit, or many edits, by Miaumee, and concluded that each was of no value to the article, reverting them was perfectly proper. I note in this revert (which seems to be your latest revert of Miaumee) for example, a helpful specific edit summary. This is in contrast to the repetitive reverts by JayBeeEll. My objection was the the implication which seemed to me to be present in your comments that, having reviewed a number of edits by Miaumee you found them of such consistently low value that it was justified to revert al of them without further examination or "at sight" as JBL described them. If I understand you correctly, that was a misdescription, and all your reverts were after examination. If so I have no problem with them. I apologize if I mischaractreized your commetns above. Can you see where they seemed to me, in conenction with the comments by JBL, to be endorsing a "revert-on-sight" approach? Do I take it you agree that even after finding many problems with an editor's contributions, individual reverts require individual, albeit perhaps brief, examination of the edit to be reverted? If so, they we agree. I was, i admit, more focused on JBL's reverts, and on you only in terms of your comments here that seemed to endorse them, or endorse a revert on sight approach. I apologize for not making this clearer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

When an editor makes dozens or hundreds of edits, all of the same type, how many of them do you have to examine carefully word by word, recognizing that they're all of the same type and providing careful individually-written edit summaries describing for each of them what their faults are, before determining that additional edits that look at a cursory glance to be of the same type can be treated the same way with a canned edit summary? You seem to believe: there is no limit, that cursory undoes with canned summaries are never appropriate, and that productive editors must be forced to either waste their time taking great care over each undo or let the articles they watchlist slowly rot by ignoring these disimproving edits. That is not reasonable. I would like to encourage new editors, especially in mathematics and especially if (as several others here have implied) Miaumee is female, because we need more editors of both types. But allowing new editors to persist in bad habits, rather than redirecting them towards a type of edit that can be more constructive, and forcing other editors to waste time indulging them, is not encouragement, and I would add that it is also not encouraging those other editors to direct their time and energy towards what should be the primary task here, building and maintaining an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say that every revert needs to be individually considered, not conducted en-mass with a canned edit summery, unless a clear consensus to revert all of an editor's contributions has been developed with multiple experienced editors contributing to the discussant, just as is done in a WP:CCI. And I think that is what current policy and guidelines call for. I would say further that such a process is not warranted unless the editor involved has been blocked or Tbanned by community consensus, or at least such a measure has been seriously debated at a noticeboard. There are other ways to redirect new editors with bad habits than mass reverts. Targeted reverts with helpful comments seem more likely to do the job if it is doable in a particular case, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia" You never check for insertion of vandalism, unsourced content, and POV edits? How does that work?
• "I almost never edit an article twice." Do you add the articles you edit to your watchlist? This allows you to check newer changes.
• "I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least)." Then you should discuss the reliability of the sources with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've spent more time gathering your feedbacks from different pages. As mentioned earlier, I don't plan to reinstate any of my previous edits. If people feel that further revert is needed out of good faith, I won't object. And if people decide to reinstate some of the edits, it's ok too—I just don't think I'm experienced enough on Wiki to make the call.

When I think about it, it seems that we're all here because the communication broke down somehow with us holding onto our belief. I think the first line of attack is still the edit summary, which I think I haven't done a good job at monitoring. My watchlist grew very large very quickly, so I changed to monitoring using the contribution page instead, but somehow that habit slipped off, and by the time I received messages on the talk page, it's usually too late. I think I can do better on that front.

As for the citations, I think it boils down to me and JBL and David Eppstein having different threshold of acceptabilitiy (me being not a research scientist, hence a more liberal approach to it). At this point, they are the only ones who have reverted my edits on that basis, so I'm not sure how their viewpoint reflects that of the general wiki math community. While I think that whether the sources are questionable as per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF is debatable (not that I'm defending these sites, but these are not small sites, after all), I do think that they can definitely improved if I were to choose more scholarly sources. With that, the issue should be settled.

On the grammar front. I'm aware during the editing process, some mindless errors might slip in. I think the easiest thing I can do is to revise the edits once before submitting, and another time after submitting.

Other than that, I still have the feeling that the disagreement is more on style than anything. For example. both JBL and David Eppstein have objected to the use of em-dash as bizarre, citing that it could be confused with a compound word (even though a hyphen would be used in that case). I can see how it can be confused with a math operator if an em-dash were to occur after symbols, but then that's where the lack of spacing around em-dash is useful. It's true that some of my changes alter the meaning of the sentences, so I try to be more mindful on that front. In any case, I think that a good course of action for me is to go back to MoS again, read through a bulk of sample featured articles on math thoroughly. This should provide me with some clues as to how to proceed with editing. Miaumee (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Extra Eyes on Margot (activist) Please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Experienced editors and admins with a free moment are kindly asked to keep an eye Margot (activist) for the near future. There has been some heavy duty edit warring there involving potential MOS and BLP vios (trans naming etc.). A brand new account also showed up for the party. I have blocked the editor I think most responsible and issued warnings to the others. Additionally I reverted the article back to the point where it was semi-protected by El C and have bumped the protection to extended confirmed. Thanks in advance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: I think the ECP should be enough. I will say that Ad Orientem was incredibly lenient on User:Subtropical-man, however; I would have indeffed at this point. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, no. I've just looked again at this. The reply (to Ad Orientem) was "user:Plunginge xtremely (99%) agitates towards the promotion / defense of LGBT, you don't see it? Even Steve Wonder will notice it. If you think the destructive action by user:Plunging is good then you should be blocked indefinitely." I have therefore increased their block to indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Plunginge does actually look pretty suspicious to me. Might be worth a look if anyone reading this has access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh indeed, however Subtropical-man is going to have to explain why they made eight edits to deadname a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement. His history, quite beyond Margot, suggests somebody with an agenda. I have no issues with the indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing by MRuniqat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MRuniqat keeps adding unsourced allegations to SUPER (computer programme), claiming that the program comes intentionally bundled with trojan viruses. See the article history. This is an extremely serious accusation that requires exceptionally solid sourcing, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. But MRuniqat refuses to add any source at all, despite being repeatedly asked on their talk page to do so.

What's worse:

1. The user keeps cheating by adding a fake reference to the Microsoft website that does not say anything about SUPER at all (and previously also by marking those edits as minor).
2. The user keeps saying "try it on your own" despite being explained that this is not acceptable (firstly, because original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, the claim requires a reliable independent source, secondly, because even if my antivirus software detects a virus in SUPER, that does not automatically mean the software contains a virus, as antivirus software is notorious for false alarms, plus it does not automatically mean the company bundles the virus intentionally).
3. Good faith cannot be assumed anymore. The user keeps edit warring despite being asked to stop. The user keeps adding an extremely serious accusation without any proof at all. The user keeps ignoring all requests to provide any relevant source. The user knows very well that Wikipedia does not spread rumours and requires reliable sources—the user has deleted, and therefore acknowledged all warnings and explanations on their talk page, including my final warning and a detailed explanation. This user does not act out of ignorance—the user keeps doing it deliberately.

This is now clear wikitrolling. Intentional cheating and gaming the system is explicitly mentioned as a form of vandalism in the WP:VANDAL policy. The user keeps adding similar edits to Miranda IM, adding their own personal opinion ("one can assume" as a "source" for their claims) as a fact, and when I revert it, they add it back with an obviously false explanation that my revert is a personal opinion (which is now clear trolling). As the user has already received a level-4 warning and still keeps adding the same unsourced allegation, blocking the user is now the only option left.—J. M. (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. J. M., even tendentious disruptive editing combined with personal attacks is not vandalism; it is done with the intent to push what the user believes to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. (I know that tendentious editing is not vandalism, but intentional cheating is, as WP:VANDAL explains. This is a frequently overlooked aspect of vandalism.)—J. M. (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SillySympathy3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SillySympathy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In January, Richard Spencer is an "alleged" neo-Nazi [1] (warned by El_C here). Today, it's the history of racism against African-Americans that's "alleged" [2]. And also this piece of work. The rest of their edits seem to be adding redundant national adjectives in the lead of articles on footballers. I have difficulty seeing the benefit of allowing this user to continue. --JBL (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Holly2017: WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, or WP:DUCK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Holly2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new(?) user has done virtually nothing but make nonsense edits to their userpage and AfC, vandalize articles by inserting incorrect information, upload useless and bizarre personal photos, and troll the Teahouse. I don't know which of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, or WP:DUCK fits, but they are costing Wikipedia too much time and energy at this point. Can we get this taken care of? Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, El C. Might be worth a CU check? Smells a lot like a returning troll masquerading as a young girl. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Holly2017 is a sock of Weeedd. There were a couple more where that came from, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential vandal on the Shenyang WS-10 Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello admins.

Please look into Shenyang WS-10 page. There is this user: RovingPersonalityConstruct

He keeps deleting credible sources and adding his own source, although his own source goes against his intended will.

He did it again today by keeping removing sourced materials including the sources themselves. He tried to use his own sources to proving his claims only ended up conflicting himself and he removed his own source. I tried to reason with him on the talk page but he ignores the talk page.

Today, I added more creditable information about the engine and provided source. He simply removed them all including the source. His behavior proved to be disruptive, could you please warn him.

Please revert his vandalism and protect the page.

Thank you,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by User:NuggetYT

This [3] is clear legal threat. The editor claims to be the the director of communications of Monsignor Farrell High School [4] and thus is a WP:PAID editor. Meters (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've made it clear that if their next action is anything but withdrawing that threat, they will be blocked. I will grant that they might respond to a message directed to them on Meters's talk page before they see my final warning, however. Still, at this point, if their response to that message is to double down on the legal threats, I'm going to block even if they hadn't yet seen my final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaaand blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people think (even aside from WP:NLT) that this is a reasonable or effective threat. Sheesh. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My lawyers says that no matter how fun I think it'd be, it'd be a bad idea to start all of my responses to such people with "my lawyer says." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You always could do what Trey Parker and Matt Stone did. They instructed their lawyer to publish the following official statement: [5] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary.."Don't Taze me, bro." LOL. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAME at 2019–20 Western Libya campaign

3 editors are reverting the page to an unreferenced revision. When told the edit is unreferenced the users simply stop responding but nevertheless have been reverting the page for over 2 days. Attempting to get me, as the sole user reverting back to the referenced version to trigger 3RR, get blocked and hopefully game the system at the article. Please put an to this which has been going on for 2 days. GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Diffs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gala19000 Shadow4dark (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a duck, user GoldycDonald behaviour is fishy enought to be linked to proven sockpuppets Gala19000. See the latest Sockpuppet investigation.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user after they have moved to Karabakh articles. They were so kind to call me a "fucking tard"--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, it's always convenient when people do that - it save so much pointless hand wringing. WP:PBAGDSWCBY GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On another site, us sysops wished that we could impose a rule that problem users should be compelled to have serialised usernames: User:Spammer01, User:Spammer02, User:Troll01, User:Troll02, and so on. We never did manage to convince anyone in authority. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm astonished that three of those accounts are uncreated redlinks; i'm tempted to claim one of them in honour of one of the best fairy tales; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Defamatory comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If an admin would be willing to change the visibility of this false and defamatory comment I would appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Under what criteria do you think that criticism qualifies for revision deletion? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

New account first and so far only edits are to say that. Alarm bells ringing. But Ivan is right on what grounds do you think that is going to be hidden for all of eternity? Games of the world (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's a "smear", which falls under "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally (and others may certainly disagree) I do not feel that the comment falls under that criterion. It does not use vulgarities, bigoted language, or other degrading language inappropriate for civil discourse. Merely being false doesn't qualify for revdelete. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly used to the revdeletion criteria and how they are interpreted, but I agree that it seems unlikely this falls under them. If it did, we'd be revdeleting a lot more edits than we are now, including quite a few on AN//I etc. BTW, if some editor is sure the edits qualify for revdeletion, I'm confused why the edits are still on the talk page. The longer they are on the talk page, the messier the revdeletion will need to be. The page is not particularly active any more, still there is already one archiving bot edit which will be caught up. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is the kind of comment that gets thrown around in any highly emotional/contentious political or sociological article on Wikipedia, especially one currently still raw and still in the news. I don't think it merits revdel. One could keep an eye on the editor that posted it, and make sure that he doesn't go off the rails. One could also consider simply removing it from the talkpage if it serves no useful purpose. But it shouldn't be revdelled. It might need to be in evidence at some later date, for whatever reason. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I know some admins are more liberal than others when it comes to revdel but extending it to this type of comment would be going too far. P-K3 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am very quick on the draw when it comes to revdeletion, but this is not something I'd scrap. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:HistoryEtCulture circumventing their block

It would appear that alas, the P'ent'ay article issue, which involved a certain user agenda pushing and block evading (for however many times the Wikipedia administration know), has returned via a random IP address and continued their contributions (which a consensus was never reached on). This user, HistoryEtCulture, is without a doubt, in good faith, the culprit. Could this article be protected further from IP addresses and new Wikipedians, for safety's sake? The IP acting verbatim as the contributor is 129.174.240.247.- TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @TheLionHasSeen: I've requested semiprotection and added the sockpuppet reports since there's been more since you wrote this, but a few things:

• First, as the editnotice on this page states, you must notify the user on their talk page when creating a thread here about them.
• Second, requests for page protection should go on WP:RPP - there's a good chance you'll get a faster response there.
• You can also report the IP to the relevant sockpuppet investigation if you see it in the future.
• One last thing is just a point of clarification, bans and blocks are different things. A block is a technical measure to prevent an account/IP from editing, while a ban is more or less a social thing saying "this editor is no longer welcome here". When someone is banned, all of their edits in violation of the ban can/should be reverted. That's not the case for simple blocks though. In this case they're technically banned under the three-strikes policy as CheckUsers have confirmed that they've circumvented the block more than two times.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines can be pretty confusing, so I just wanted to clarify a few things with you. I've been here off-and-on for a decade and there's still plenty I don't know. Keep up the good work! – Frood (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Frood. HistoryEtCulture is permanently blocked for the following, and may be found in the archives of the noticeboard as evidenced here and here; this is just providing some additional evidence for evidence's sake. Next, thank you for the reminder, as I was in the midst of multitasking and forgot to notify the IP they highly seem to have performed these contributions through. That, is occurring right now as I type this expanded response and forgo my initial response. I appreciate the assistance, greatly so!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a random question, but would't it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to contact the VPN companies utilized and request their information for constant disruptive activities? Also, with harassment seeming to extend to outside of Wikipedia from the cases opened against them, that the Wikimedia Foundation confidently contacts those harassed or cyberstalked giving them the option to perform a cease and desist? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

In theory, yes. There used to be WP:Abuse Response but that was shut down because it was pretty inactive. There have been cases when the WMF has gotten involved such as with Grawp but I imagine they only do that in extreme cases. Unfortunately this is pretty run-of-the-mill socking. – Frood (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Like @Frood says, Hoaeter/Habesha Union is technically banned, anyway. It is difficult (for me) to imagine any circumstances in which Hoaeter, et al could successfully appeal any of the various accounts' blocks -- see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter#June 2020 as to why. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article protected. The blocked editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter) is editing from the same location as previously (a US education facility). Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Rémy Ryan Robert and summer hits

Rémy Ryan Robert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to draw the attention of the administrators to a user named Rémy Ryan Robert and his activity related to the article "Summer hit". Almost every week, for a couple of years now, he has been trying to prominently mention Jessica Simpson and/or Geri Halliwell there. Moreover, his additions are either unsourced or inadequately sourced. He has been warned several times already. I even gave him two level-4 warnings, but he doesn't stop.

Actually, some edits are made anonymously from the IP address 176.190.126.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I think it is reasonable to assume that Rémy Ryan Robert and the IP are the same person. At first, I wanted to file a checkuser request, but then I thought this was a clear WP:DUCK case anyway.

What Rémy Ryan Robert does is he adds some photo with more or less the same description in poor English:

• [12]: "Since 1999, Mi Chico Latino by Geri Halliwell, is one of the best summer hit in several countries."
  (The sourcing is inadequate. Officialcharts.com simply says the song spent 1 week at number 1 at the very end of August 1999. And it is highly unlikely that a reference book titled British Hit Singles & Albums can possibly be a source for all of this.)
• [13]: "Since 2004, Ride It" by Geri Halliwell is one of the best summer song in serevals countries."
• [14]: "Since 2004, Take My Breath Away by Jessica Simpson is one of the best summer hit in severals countries."

He also seems to like a song titled "If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton, he has added it to the list of examples:

• [15]: "2020: "If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton"
  (The sources don't seem to exist.)

And "Promiscuous" by Nelly Furtado:

• [16]: "2006: “Promiscuous” by Nelly Furtado"
  (The reference is a link to the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart for the week ending on October 7, 2006. It just lists the song at number 40, that's all.)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously unconstructive editing, trying to evade scrutiny... that's an easy call, blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits accompanied by a cn tag

Farhanakbar1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite repeated warnings as well as a personal plea on their talk page requesting them to stop adding unsourced information accompanied by a {{cn}} tag, this user continues and makes zero attempt at discussing this concern. Frankly, this just comes across as lazy to me and it seems they couldn't be bothered to learn how to add citations or perhaps there is some concerning level of incompetence that may need addressing. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There ain't no incompetence there! It's deliberate. A lot of effort to add a tag to every fact for someone who is apparently lazy. I think they do know how to add references, but there is not any/reliable sources for what they are adding and therefore are adding it to stop what I would call a drive by revert. Games of the world (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, pure laziness. Jerm (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. This is indeed disruptive, so I've issued a partial block from mainspace until and unless they can convince us that this behavior will stop. They can propose edits on talk pages, and if they show that they can make properly sourced edit requests, I've got no objection to another admin removing the block. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability What do you mean "kidding me". I agree with everything that GOTW said. Anyways, thanks for putting a block. Jerm (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Jerm, that comment wasn't directed at you - it was a reaction to the user intentionally adding unsourced information with a CN tag. GeneralNotability (talk)`—Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback and a special thanks to GeneralNotability for tending to the problem. Robvanvee 06:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico edits by User:Anonymous MK2006

Despite having had WP:PRUS brought to their attention multiple times over a period of eight days on their talk page, and despite numerous reversions by several editors, User:Anonymous MK2006 continues to edit articles in a contrary manner. Pertinent provisions of WP:PRUS:

• 'Regarding the inclusion of "United States" in the infobox, there have been many discussions over the years because Puerto Rico is not in the U.S. but is a territory of the U.S. "United States" thus shouldn't be included in addresses.'
• 'Puerto Rico in many respects behaves as a country and is a country, ....'
• 'In most cases, there is no need to obfuscate the reader with the political relationship of the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, information in the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject";[3] thus, if the subject of the article is the municipality, the infobox should not have facts that allude to the political relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.'

This user continues to use the formulation "Puerto Rico, United States" or something similar[17][18][19][20][21][22] and to add the United States as an infobox subdivision level (or removing Puerto Rico as the country or replacing it with the United States)[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] in article after article. The user was already engaged in these edits as an IP user before creating the Anonymous MK2006 account on 17 September,[31][32][33][34][35] some of them addressed by me at User talk:84.66.6.5 on 16 September.

User:The Eloquent Peasant has also been heavily engaged in communication with this user.

Does this user's editing warrant a block? Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked that the user has been warned sufficiently, indeed others tried to explain what they were doing wrong, but they still continued to add the US to the Puerto Rico infoboxes. I therefore blocked them for 31h and will try to roll back their edits now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards is a WikiProject advice page, not a guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a guideline but it indicates that the matter has been discussed at length, that there is an existing and heavily elaborated consensus among a group of editors that has discussed the matter, even if it doesn't rise to the level of WP:Consensus in terms of amounting to a guideline, and that editing contrary to it amounts to editing against existing consensus, no? Don't the responses by me and others to this user's edits reinforce the consensus? Further, Wikipedia:Consensus is policy and WP:BRD (which I raised the first time I wrote to the user) is an explanatory supplement to that. If nothing else, the user is in substantial violation of WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I wasn't just applying WP:PRUS without contributing my own view to the building consensus, but contributing my own support for what I found that it provides. I found it after seeing the user's edits, disagreeing with them, and looking to see whether the topic had been covered on Wikipedia before. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not editing against consensus unless there's an RFC or a guideline or policy page. Consensus among WikiProject participants is not binding on the community. Lev!vich 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly gets warned by other users that their edits are not appropriate, tries to discuss, gets their arguments rejected, and, instead of discussing further or opening an RfC or even a talk page discussion just stops replying and goes on making the same edits - well, this is disruptive editing--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's a type of edit warring, even if it's not all on the same article. Lev!vich 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the user posted an unblock request which convinced me that they can be unblocked at the moment. They promised to start dioscussing before making further edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor

For a while now, the IP 47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unneeded hyperlinking of words in articles; linking common words e.g assassination, gang, etc in violation of MOS:OVERLINK. Likewise, they change the tone of information to informal, an example being this edit. I've contacted the editor about this and other problems on their userpage and explained in detail the problems with their edits and I linked some concrete examples there as well, but they're neither responding nor taking heed. Though the editor once in a while does something useful, the vast majority of their edits are simply not constructive and consist mainly of overlinking and changing to unencyclopedic tone. I chose to give the editor some time to see if they corrected it by themselves following the message left on their userpage along with me reverting the bad edits they made, but no luck. Eik Corell (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User still going at it, now with vandalism too. Eik Corell (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this report. I found them yesterday and have been reverting on sight, with verifying first that there wasn't any valid edits just to be sure. More of the issue I've seen with this IP has been the unnecessary changes of various wikilinks with changes revolving around the concept that the MOS:PIPEDLINK plural styles section discusses. Their changes to various pages near always adds a unneeded redirect. Links where you started at page A and the link sent you to page B, but after their edits, you start on page A, click the link they changed, it sends you to page R that is a redirect page that still sends you to page B at the end, but with an added, unnecessary step.

Examples: [television program|TV broadcasts] to [tv shows] and [video game]s to [video games] seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Content_rating&type=revision&diff=980269146&oldid=969901178 [mashed potato]es to [mashed potatoes] and [Swedish meatball]]s to [Swedish meatballs] here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_cuisine&type=revision&diff=980166827&oldid=980134983 The list goes on and on. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Recurrent problem with Paris 1 page

There are IP addresses and User:Marco Carrasco (alumnus of Paris 1 according to old version of his page) who are putting old positive rankings of this university. Last one: [36] Others are listed there: [37] (removed "no longer..."). --Delfield (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I also notice that this was not closed and that the user continues with its behavior in talk pages. --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hammouda Salhi

Hello,
Meaning Translated has moved the article out of the draft space even though Curb Safe Charmer declined the review twice. Shouldn't this article stay in the draft space? Moumou82 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Moumou82, AfC is an optional process. If you or CSC feel that it's not ready for article space, you can nominate it for deletion either by CSD (if it meets the criteria) or at AfD if you think the subject isn't notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Omg55557w77w7

User:Omg55557w77w7 is removing Moscow and St. Petersburg from the List of tallest buildings in Europe saying that these cities are not in Europe [38][39][40]. Seems to be vandalism. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also he added the "counterpropaganda message" [41] to the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like someone has an WP:AGENDA. Jerm (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

But it's definitely disruptive. Jerm (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 36h (in particular, for this) and reverted, but this is most likely a sock, I just can not guess of what master.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Seems to be WP:SOCK. Uses the same wording style, writes words with uppercase. – user:81.132.29.226 [42]--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин If you suspect sockpuppetry, please start a case @WP:SPI Jerm (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hariolr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor has made a total of three edits, all of therm disruptive.

• In this edit[43] Hariolr introduced a deliberate error. The cited source[44] says "Tradition dictates that, all eldest sons are to be named Rama Varma, the second son Kerala Varma and the third son Ravi Varma. The fourth son becomes Rama Varma."

• In this edit[45] Hariolr called Allopathic medicine (a term coined by the inventor of homeopathy to describe science-based, modern medicine) as "Pseudo Scientific".

• In this edit[46] Hariolr changed the wording of another editors talk page comment.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hariolr, you look WP:NOTHERE to me. If you refactored aomeone's talk, that's wholly unacceptable, and if you're here to advocate for homeopathy , you are at the wrong encyclopedia. Ditto if you are misrepresenting sources.06:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)

  I thought we were welcoming to homeopaths. Didn't we just delete a userbox hostile to gay marriage? EEng 07:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  Homeopathy is different to Homosexuality. One is home medicine remedies and the other is the sexual attraction to men. Giraffer ^munch 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Giraffer: [47]. —JBL (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  JayBeeEll, I'm lucky this isn't reddit. Giraffer ^munch 14:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I imagine that a homeopathic quantity of lesbians would agree with that definition of homosexuality. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic user

For a long time, the IP user (IP variables) 2001:fb1:70:9069:29dd:7e84:bb3c:1a40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Marek Reichman ([48]) article, removing sources and information. Repeated many times, but it doesn't help. It gives no arguments or sources, all the time removing only source information. It is likely that it is a Theregan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user who, in a similar vein, also destroys the article and removes the warnings from his discussion page. LechitaPL (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed or attempted to discuss on talk pages before coming here? Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and this was the response.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Also at the article talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs. That seems problematic. Wm335td (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The user (and the IP) continued to edit-war by removing sourced content, and they apparently have chosen not to respond here. I have fully protected the page for three days, and I am inclined to block, but will be happy to have more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The one who has been vandalising this article Marek Reichman for long is the user LechitaPL not me if you look at edit history, and he even accusing me and others with no reasons He wants the article to go his way and views without letting anyone to change it, His claim been proved as irrelevant and fake information, the User LechitaPL has been blocked so many times from vandalising and stubborn behaviour and couldn’t even come discuss in the talk page He can’t just ask the administrator to lock the article for no reason without discussing in the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregan (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that LechitaPL has never been blocked for vandalism, or for any reason whatsoever. MrAureliusR_Talk! 08:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Undisclosed Paid Editing by Micah Street on Draft:Micah Street

User:Micah Street has submitted Draft:Micah Street to WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, they are believed to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing since the article is heavily biased and at the end of the page, they stated (in revision 973670953) that "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage "Micah Street". We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding." This significantly proves that the editor in question is engaged in paid editing, but they have not disclosed such through:

• a statement on your user page (as of revision 971048430),
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (no talk page found on the draft in question), or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions (as of revision 973670953);

in accordance to policy of the Wikimedia Foundation and English Wikipedia as stated in WP:PAID. Thus, I would like to report Micah Street for violation of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have only notified them - the first such notification by any editor - of our policy on paid editing less than half an hour before raising the matter here (if you have previously done so, please provide a diff). They have not edited since then nor indeed or the last week. Please await their response before coming back here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was reported at WP:AIV, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:

"Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage Micah Street. We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding."

And that was before you notified them. I find no violation here. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• WikiAviator, The user's COI was disclosed on 18 August 2020. The editor in question has not edited since that date. If you want them to declare their COI in a specific place, please leave them a precisely detailed note on their talk page, and give them the policy link, and tell them exactly what to do. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maile66, there's also the username problem -- they seem to be in violation of username policy. Can you deal with that issue? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, the user is already soft blocked for violating the username policy. See [49], [50]. Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I understand User:DePiep has a long record of incivil behaviour. More recently I recall he was blocked for one month.

I’ve experienced this behaviour myself, including his use of hostile and foul language, and, as a non-Admin, warned him about it

Much as I appreciate his contributions, and have put up with his unwelcome behaviour, his recent behaviour is the last straw for me.

What particularly annoys me is having to waste time writing up this post, when I have better things to do. That said, the time has come for short-term pain (this complaint) with a view to a long-term gain (the end of DePiep’s unwelcome behaviour).

What happened (25 to 26 Sep)
The action takes place here:

A. WP:ELEM Lead PT in PT article
B. Periodic table, article history
C. Template:Element, history
D. WP:ELEM Alkali metal color

Colleagues at WP:ELEM had been having a discussion about how to colour categorise the periodic table graphic appearing in the lede of our periodic table article. WP:ELEM is a small project with about a half dozen active to semi-active members, including DePiep. A few other editors drop in from time to time.

After a considerable discussion within the project, including a survey of the literature, the sequence of events was then:

1.  I posted an updated PT graphic to our periodic table article. [B, 04:44, 25 Sep]
2.  I told WP:ELEM about it and why. [A, 07:14]
3.  Two project members User:R8R and User:Double Sharp asked for a minor easily accommodated change, that is all. [A, 07:45; 09:16]
4.  User: YBG suggested some other really cool options. [A, 08:55]
5. DePiep subsequently reverts my updated graphic. [B, 09:24]
   It is evident that DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners. As a fellow WP:ELEM member he could not be bothered doing his homework and checking for the background to the offending edit, a background discussion which he was supposedly following.
6. I ping to DePiep that, as a WP:ELEM member, and in the context of the subject discussions and supportive feedback, the revert, as opposed to further discussion, was uncalled for. [A, 10:52]
7. I took these comments by R8R, DS and YBG as indicating consensus for the change, subject to some modifications, which I enacted. In the comments to the edit I say, "D please DePiep, rather than R, if you have o/s concerns." [B, 13.12]
8.  User:ComplexRational chimed in saying he was basically happy with the graphic, and provided some further comments. [A, 13:33]
9. DePiep reverts me for a second time. [B, 21:39]
10. WP:ELEM member User:R8R posts a single associated change to the colour scheme for the WP:PT. He did this since WP:ELEM members generally do not like the particular colour shade in question. [C, 14:54, 26 Sep]
11. WP:ELEM member User: Double sharp posts a "like". [D, 16:39]
12. DePiep once again reverts. [C, 21:34]

I have since reverted DePiep’s revert, commenting that he (DePiep) is not the arbiter of these matters.

That was the last straw for me, and is why am here. I begrudge no one the right to revert. But not without context and not within a project without bothering to check the associated discussion. As noted, DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners, even within a project he is a member of.

On a few occasions I may have been tetchy in my interactions with DePiep. I believe none of my these were over the top. That said, if anything I have done is deemed to be inappropriate I am happy to held accountable.

That is another indication that I have reached the end of my tether wrt to DePiep’s ongoing incivility, and his proclivity for same, despite past warnings and a recent 1-month block.

Outcome sought
In light of this incivil behaviour, and DePiep’s record of same, I am requesting that he is once again sanctioned. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Sandbh, you need to provide WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. If you don't know how to create a diff, find the edit in question (either by clicking "prev" or using the radio buttons), copy the url, and post it here inside square brackets, like this random sample diff: [51]. --Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, don't see anything apart from DePiep reverting some what correctly for no consensus. Games of the world (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Sandbh, rather than coming to ANI, and posting accusations about other editors in discussions, per WP:BRD what you should have done is posted [a link to] your preferred final version of the table on the talkpage of one of those pages, pinged every single participant from the discussions, and established a clear WP:CONSENSUS (preferably, with clear "Support" and Oppose" !votes). Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads and in various places, there is no actual consensus. Please go back and establish the actual consensus. If no consensus becomes clear even after pinging all the relevant participants, then create an official WP:RFC. Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD. Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you. And discuss content, not other editors. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bottom line: This is a content issue, and this thread can be closed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that this should be closed ASAP, particularly due to apparent canvassing issues. Games of the world (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I should add to this discussion before it is closed. I’d appreciate a couple of hours’ time to do so.—R8R (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Comments by DePiep

• TL;DR: I claim to have worked by BRD. That is me reverting and engaging in the talk. I asked to point out (or strive for) consensus.

I am a long-time member of WP:ELEMENTS, as is Sandbh. We have had serious and fruitful discussions at WP:ELEMENTS, some taking over a year. Together the WP:ELEMENTS members and contributors have build a strong case and consensus alsmost every time. I have implemented these outcomes loyally.

Recent months, a multitude of ideas and proposals were discussed at the project talkpage, mostly initiated by Sandbh. This involves dozens of threads and many hundreds of edits. Unfortunately, many threads meandered off into a different topic, and not a crisp conclusion (consensus) was reached. Most if not all threads' issues come together in periodic table and its image. So far, all fine. However, since last December there seems to be a chilled, less cooperative atmosphere on the talkpage.

04:44, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the main image in periodic table [52]. It included many changes, both content (the science) and editorial (graphic effects).

09:24, 25 September 2020 I reverted it [53] "undo. not fleshed out, no consensus, too much quirks". One editor supported this revert explicitly [54].

I joined the discussion constructively: [55], [56], and I asked to point out consensus's for the many changes [57].

I also added a question about a subtopic [58], and Sandbh actually implemented a result (albeit without consensus); this is to show that I did engage and that Sandbh acted upon my contribution.

13:12, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the image again into the new version, updated (image version history) [59]; I reverted [60] for the same reason.

All in all, this is a straight BRD sequence. (Problematic is that consensus is hard to find in the talkpage for most of the changes; some changes were not even discussed at all, esp. the graphical ones. But this is a content & discussion issue, not relevant for ANI, I think. To me it looks like Sandbh is construing 'consensus' from the presence of the discussion only).

In a separate place I reverted an edit [61], and engaged in the talk with arguments [62] (so BRD again). Sandbh replied with a personal attack not engaging in the argumentation [63].

I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases, constructively. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Comments by R8R

There is a reason why Sandbh wrote those words, "last straw." This is not an isolated disagreement.

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

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

In this particular case, my input was changing the color of one group of elements. I didn't expect this to be a controversial action: other editors called for that previously, and even DePiep themselves had said changing the old color was "good choice for access reasons" just a few hours before I made that change. In response, I got three consecutive messages from DePiep: in the first one, I was told that it "would be nicer if you had published it" (I will refer to this later), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave (I did not make any edits concerning this issue between those messages). That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw.

At the same time, I am having a discussion (at times peaceful and at times not) with DePiep at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of two particular actions taken by DePiep: one is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page, and the other is using obscene language that was directed at another editor (myself). The former action, as you see, is not their first time doing something of that kind, and the latter action is something DePiep had done in the past, too.

The reason why I wanted to return to "publishing" is that DePiep is often not having an edit unless it had been approved at WT:ELEM, including the two rather uncontroversial edits from this week mentioned by Sandbh and myself. Not that they oppose it, they merely impose having to make a bureaucratic request and have other editors approve it, and the approval must be good enough for DePiep or else it won't pass. This is rather unsettling because it stops other editors from being bold and improving the article without having to undergo our local bureaucracy that nobody is asking for. We do have a habit of discussing things that we find worthy of a full discussion. I want the uncalled for bureaucracy (and undoing others, and not listening to them, and obscene language) to stop so that we can be a part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, again.

I am eager to stand accountable for anything other editors believe I should stand accountable for.--R8R (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Once more about this revert by me ({{Element color}}). In the editsummary, and in my subsequent talkpage post [64], I clearly noted the problem with this change. (For the interested reader: it created two nearly identical colors in the legend - ouch). Also, asking for a proposal/discussion after a bold edit is basic WP practice called WP:BRD; I do not see how that could be worth noting here. I also note that neither you nor Sandbh responded to the actual problem I noted, so evading D. Instead, you turn such regular BRD steps into some constructed nasty attitude you try to smear me with. And btw, the diff you added as "good choice for access reasons" is a misunderstanding on your side, and could easily have been cleared up in the talk had you mentioned it. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing wrong with noting what you think is a problem; that's fine, simple BRD is fine. That's not the takeaway from my mention of it. A normal BRD cycle doesn't result in telling another editor to "grow up and behave," that's the uncivil behavior here.

The claim that I have not responded to your concern is demonstrably false.

Even if I had indeed simply misunderstood you, that is still no excuse for the behavior you have shown. I made a bold change that I believed to be uncontroversial and was reverted with a comment that told me to grow up and behave.--R8R (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R:. You only entered the discussion after I posted a second call to discuss [65].

"grow up and behave" is a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits. In this case: discuss up. Looks like anything I would say would land wrongly with you and with complainer Sandbh [66]. As this thread shows, the two of you had a tendency to turn content issues (or disappointments) into personal behaviour issues (or straight personal attacks). -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

When you have raised your concern for the first time, it was past midnight in my timezone. Of course I didn't react. And from then, it took you thirteen minutes and no action from me to tell me to grow up and behave. I replied to you soon after the midday of the next day (today), soon after I replied to a few other comments that required my attention. I replied twelve hours after you first raised the concern, I'd say that's quick enough, and yet, you decided to present here the argument that I had not responded to the problem you raised; not just that, you even added no further qualifications. Instead, you could have said, "I'm sorry, I was wrong to accuse you of that." In fact, you still can.

"Grow up and behave" is indeed a colloquial address, but it's not by any measure civil; its remarkably condescending. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I told you something like that. But if that's the language you consider fine to be used among collaborators, find those people who agree with you, and talk to them in that manner. I am not responsible for Sandbh's words (and he isn't for mine), if you want to talk to me, talk about me or yourself, and you can discuss his behavior with him. I'll note that quite a while ago, you wrongly accused me of making personal attacks against you, and I've been extra careful since then not to let you be right the next time you make such a statement. Having said that, I'm sure other editors will find a way to assess my behavior here, and yours, too. Dixi.--R8R (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The point is, @R8R and Sandbh: these are a clearcut Bold-Revert-Discuss processes, but you both are turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add. Let me note here that the multiple agressive violent comments like DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners I left aside -- but only by my choice. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

First commentary by Sandbh: As this is the first time I have lodged a complaint, here are my impressions of the way it has been responded to, aside from R8R's contribution.

1. Thank you User:Softlavender for your advice regarding the provision of WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. I will do so.
2. User:Games of the world I explained the basis for my impression that I had consensus. I further understood that (a) consensus does not require unanimity; and (b) that consensus does not necessarily require a formal RFC process and certainly not within a project within which the matter had already been discussed at some length, and of which DePiep is a member.
   I further see you have your own record of blocks and taking an undue interest in matters here at WP:ANI. Your comments are not welcome, by me, in this matter. You may like to take note of the advice provided to you on your talk page, today, by User: Girth Summit re, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.”
   Neither is your pile-on request, for an early close of my complaint, welcome, following the request by Softlavender.
3. 1st request to SL: User:Softlavender: I will thank you to (a) not tell me what I should have done; and (b) not refer to my statement of facts as allegations. For that matter, you may like to advise me how I can post a complaint here about incivil behaviour without posting a statement concerning the facts of the matter, or allegations as you refer to them.
   1. Re: “Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads”, no the threads are not that lengthy, and I have provided the times and places of the relatively few posts of concern, albeit without the diff summaries, which I will provide.
   2. Please do not tell me, “Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD.” All you have demonstrated to me is your lack of understanding of the concise sequence of events and times that I provided. Further, there are three reverts involved in this matter.
   3. Please do not tell me to, “Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you.” I understand BRD and do not, as I said in my complaint, begrudge any editor’s right to revert. I explained my concern about BRD in this particular case, in my complaint. And please do not tell me to, “discuss content, not other editors.” I came here with a complaint about DePiep’s behaviour, and not for a talking down about how I should not set out the facts of the matter.
   4. I will thank you for not expressing your superficial and unhelpful bottom line opinion that my complaint can be closed (really?) in a matter with which you have had zero involvement and have zero appreciation of the issues at play.
4. User:Games of the world I will thank you to please check your facts before referring to what you regard as apparent “canvassing issues”. If you could have been bothered to do so, as User: Black Kite seems to have done, you would have seen that no such canvassing occurred. As noted, your running commentary is unwelcome.
5. User:Black Kite Thank you for your post. Quite so.
6. My impression so far is that of a stampede to dismiss my complaint ASAP, comments by R8R and DePiep aside.
7. I have worked with DePiep for several years, within the WP:ELEM project. This is the first time I have felt it necessary to bring my concerns to this forum. I did not do so lightly and did not expect my concerns to treated in a manner akin to spectator catcalls from a peanut gallery. I’m looking at you, Softlavender, and Games of the World. 2nd request to SL: Please stay out of this and please stop wasting more of my time (single helpful comment by Softlavender, aside).
8. God help us if that is the way matters brought here are to be treated.
9. I will wait for a real Admin who will give my complaint fair consideration and due process. Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases". This claim is bogus. BRD says (quoted verbatim): If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, I don't think you are helping your case by attacking (and name-calling) people who are trying to resolve the matter here, or by putting words in my mouth; I have never used the word "allegations" as you twice claimed. I do see that you have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].

  And here is you apparently defying WP:BRD, implying that the lack of consensus for your change did not merit a revert: [73]. So at this point, you either don't understand WP:BRD (which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss), or you refuse to abide by it and refuse to demonstrate clear consensus, but rather edit-war and then run to ANI. And it is true there is no clear consensus, as you admitted in that post, and it is true that the discussions are spread over massive threads comprising many lengthy paragraphs in at least two different threads. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh I'm an admin, and I'm definitely real. I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve. You have reported that DePiep has been uncivil, but I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us to deal with. R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation "WTF" - I know what that stands for, but it's a very commonplace way of expressing surprise and/or frustration, I don't think there would be any likelihood of a consensus emerging that it is a sanctionable mode of expression (in the way that I might block someone for repeatedly saying "Fuck you" to someone). Just so that I don't need to click through every one of the links above and read all of the conversations in full, are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?

Failing that, I'd make the general observation that anyone reverting anybody else's work ought to be doing so because they have a specific disagreement with it, and they should be willing to discuss that disagreement on the article talk page - BRD is meant to offer a way to work constructively together, it's not intended to be a roadblock. I don't have the time just now to read through all of the above, click through all the links, and come to an opinion on whether anyone is trying to be obstructive rather than constructive - anybody wanting to demonstrate that would do well to offer a concise summary, supported by illustrative diffs. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I would like to make a clarification. "WTF" may indeed be common in English, but that doesn't mean it's not obscene: for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary lists the abbreviation as "offensive slang." I also note that meaning of a word depends on the context, and both examples I have brought up are aimed at a specific editor, rather than merely feature the abbreviation. As a non-native speaker of English, I was once rather puzzled by the way some words are used in it, and I eventually made sure to learn what is permissible and what is not.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

R8R mild obscenities of that sort aren't prohibited here, unless there has recently been a massive shift in what's permissible that I'm unaware of. Personally, it's not a phrase I would use towards an editor whom I didn't know well, especially if it was someone I was in dispute with; however, admins have only a few rather heavy and unwieldy tools we can use to encourage positive collaboration, and blocking someone's account for using a very common phrase like that would be excessively heavy-handed. It's rather vulgar, but it's not an insult or a personal attack, all I can do about that is encourage the DePiep to try to bear in mind that they should try to choose words and expressions that will make it easier, not more difficult, to collaborate with colleagues. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I'll merely say that this was only one of those things that I mentioned. It's unpleasant to hear something like that and it doesn't help the dialogue, but I wouldn't have come here had it only been that.--R8R (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

3rd request by Sandbh to SL to Softlavender Per my request, unless you are the Admin who will be dealing with my complaint, please stay the hell out it and cease and desist the incivil, unhelpful, unproductive, time-wasting, unwelcome harassment, bullying and associated behaviour. I do not need you to run a damned play-by-play commentary on my behaviour, which I stand ready to be held accountable for, not that it is the subject of the complaint. As I said, and you blatantly ignore, you have zero knowledge of WP:ELEM and zero knowledge of the long-standing relationships involved within that project, and apparently zero knowledge of DePeip's past transgressions and proclivity for incivil behaviour. I am warning you. Any more of your unhelpful, and unknowledgeable pot-stirring commentary and I will lodge a complaint about your unwelcome, unprofessional, incivil behaviour. Go and stick your nose into someone else's business and waste their damed time, rather than mine! It is bad enough that I have to waste my time but I explained the reason for that. Get the heck out of it! Screw up someone else's life! Sandbh (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, crikey - that post was the least civil thing I've seen when looking through this. I get that you're frustrated, and ANI is not a fun place to hang out, but there wasn't any call for that. You might want to consider looking at Softlavender's last post as a useful example of how to make a point concisely, and to support it with diffs. Softlavender isn't an admin, but she's an experienced editor in good standing and I genuinely think she was trying to help resolve this. I hate asking people to calm down, I realise that it often inflames situations rather than having the intended effect, but really - please dial it back a few notches. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, this isn't your personal domain or your talkpage, and you cannot bar people from posting here. This noticeboard is for problem resolution, and welcomes the input and insight of both administrators and experienced editors. Experienced editors add more eyes to the situation and add evidence, especially when evidence is missing or curtailed in the original request. Also of note is the WP:BOOMERANG aspect of noticeboard filings, which is that when you file a complaint about someone, your behavior will be scrutinized as well. If you have not done the obvious steps of resolving whatever dispute you are reporting (in this case the obvious step per WP:BRD would be demonstrating consensus, on the article's talkpage, for the change you wanted), and/or if your own behavior has exacerbated the situation or been equally problematical, then those factors are taken into consideration. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On that note, two useful links:

1. Tips for dealing with incivility

2. ANI advice

--Softlavender (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The 14:13 post by Sandbh re Softlavender is not nice to read, and not helpful IMO even in ANI. Also, I do not wish my current opponent to be judged by this single post. I request that his post be nullified ('as if not existant') and not considered at all. That leaves the rest of the thread to deal with. (So, to be clear: forget about this one post, and process the thread at best everyone. No harm to Sandbh for this one). -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thank you for becoming involved in my complaint. I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can. Sandbh (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Second commentary by Sandbh
@Girth Summit: As I stated previously I will post the diffs as helpfully suggested by Softlavender.

In the context of my complaint I'm requesting due process. That is, a considered examination of the issues of substance and an impartial decision as to whether DePiep's conduct (a) constitutes incivil behaviour; and (b) warrants a commensurate sanction. Now that I look at what I just wrote I am surprised that I even need to set an expectation for due process.

With respect, as I see it, you have so far given my complaint a cursory examination bereft of the context of DePiep's repeated history of invicil behaviour, as has been previously raised in this forum, and the associated sanctions he received.

R8R has been editing for longer than I have and is the most civil, impartial, professional, deliberate, and nonplussed editor I have worked with. That he sees fit to add his concerns to my complaint, concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour, speaks volumes, for what my opinion is worth.

I said this was my first time at WP:ANI. That is after nine years from my first edit, and interacting with DePiep on and off during that time.

What is the first thing that happens? Softlavender chimes in, without announcing their status, and recommends closing my complaint. R8R, who I doubt has ever seen this, "panics" thinking the complaint is to be closed, and asks for a few hours so he can add his voice. His reaction just about matched mine.

As far as my comments regarding Softlavender, I called it as I saw it. I have seen and experienced more egregious unsanctioned behaviour, within WP, outside of this forum. In any event, what I wrote is not the subject of my complaint. That kind of righteousness, holier-than-though commentary and unrequested advice is unwelcome and incivil, as I see it.

I repeat my assertion concerning the unwanted commentary and advice rec'd from the peanut gallery, and that I should or should not do this or that, or read this or that.

4th request by Sandbh to SL: I understand this is not my personal domain. So I will repeat my request to Softlavender. Your running commentary is not welcome to me. If you are a valued editor, kindly desist from commenting on my complaint. I am not finding your commentary to be helpful to me.

User:Mr rnddude's comment (for which, thank you) that, "I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board." does not fill me with confidence that my complaint will receive an impartial hearing, with due consideration of the behaviour of concern.

If my own behaviour is of concern to anyone, anyone is welcome to raise that as a separate issue. Please do not conflate the two issues of my complaint concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour with my subsequent behaviour. Separate the two matters please, according each editor involved due process. I have nothing to hide. I stand by my actions and accept full accountability for them.

Regarding your comment, "I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve." There is no problem needing resolution. Rather, I have raised a complaint concerning incivil behaviour, that is all. I am seeking a fair consideration of my complaint. This includes deciding, in an impartial manner, if there is a case to answer, noting DePeip's extensive history of incivil behaviour and, if so, whether a sanction is warranted. I hope that is not too much to expect of an Admin, whether that is you or another Admin, or Admins.

I speak in the context of decades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct.

Finally I note and thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User:Andy Mabbett, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. On your part Girth, I note your inclination to dismiss R8R's concerns, and to highlight User:Softlavender's (unwanted by me) contributions, in the context of them knowing nothing about relationships within WP: ELEM, including their recommendation to close my complaint, which only caused unnecessary grief for me and R8R.

I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration rather than the near-shambles (as I see and feel it) that I have experienced to date.

The complaint has already burgeoned out far beyond what it needed to, including my latest 750+ words, here. No wonder you may not have had the time to fully assess it, presuming you will take the lead on it as an admin.

I have now marked out my four requests to User:Softlavender to cease what I regard as unwanted, unhelpful, harassment and bullying behaviour. I will not put up with a recurrence of this unwanted behaviour from a supposedly valued editor, in light of my repeated requests to them to stop doing this to me.

Sincerely, Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can. Was this really as concisely as you can? Given your decades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct, how would you rate your own approach to conflict resolution here? Did you adhere to, or stray from, the basic principles of conflict resolution? Did you focus on the problem, or on the people? Did you do more reading (listening) or writing (talking)? Did you validate others' points of view, or dismiss them? Did you identify shared interests, or only your own? Did you propose solutions that everyone can say yes to, or did you approach it as a zero-sum game? These were rhetorical questions. I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration ... It won't. Your responses to the editors who engaged above will not attract more participation in this thread, other than from people like me pointing out with a healthy dose of snark that you have truly bungled your request for assistance. Though this trainwreck of a thread might be fouled beyond repair, should the problem you're having continue, you might try posting here again in the future, but next time, put to use those decades of experience in conflict resolution and present the complaint in a way that actually makes volunteers feel invited and welcome to help. Good luck. Lev!vich 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Your comments add nothing to progressing the management of my complaint. God help us if this is the way a first complaint here at WP:ANI, after nine years of contributing to WP, and a request for due process, is treated. The topic is my complaint of uncivil behaviour by Depiep. Please leave my behaviour out of it, or raise a separate complaint about me. You comment about my decades of experience in conflict resolution and dealing with misconduct Guess what: I followed due process! How novel; is that something that might possibly be extended to the shambolic way I've so far been treated here?

How about considering the good advice of Girth re dial it back a few notches? How about waiting until I de-stress enough to be able to post the diffs, rather than stirring the pot with what I regard as biased self-righteousness, which is only contributing to the problem rather than its solution?

Unlike your contribution, I once again thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User: Pigsonthewing, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Request by Sandbh to all concerned: Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs. Exception: YBG, who has already advised me that, as a fellow WP:ELEM member, they will be making a contribution. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Sandbh: Once I again I remind you that you do not get to control who or what is posted on this thread or anywhere on Wikipedia except your own talk page. If you do not want any more input here (except from people of your choosing), I suggest withdrawing this complaint and going back to the project talkpage and using standard procedures (dedicated threads, polls, questions) to establish what the current consensus is around the image of the periodic table. If you continue here battling with experienced and well-meaning editors in good standing, and attacking them, instead of making the case against DePiep (using diffs as I suggested in my first response to you), you are doing nothing except making it worse for yourself and sullying your own reputation. I posted a link above but I don't think you read it, so I'll post it again: ANI Advice. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Wapow legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WahPow Several legal threats. Warning user on ani thread now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, blocked as soon as I made this post. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Our predictive blocking works once again! GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single-purpose account repetitively adding the same unsourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cihangir751 (talk · contribs) seems only here to add dubious unsourced information on some obscure Ottoman character, erasing sourced content; deliberately ignores invitation to discuss on TP, claims to be a descendant of the subject, having therefore the right to deny other people to interfere. What other solution except block or thema-ban?--Phso2 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Graeme Bartlett and denying G4s

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Techie3/onemanonewoman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Techie3/marriagebox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DAYS after we had a discussion - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination, ending in deleting dozens of similar userboxes, new ones are coming up - and G4 speedydelete is being refused by the admin who recreated the box for his own use

First of all, should User:Graeme Bartlett be recreating a userbox that Wikipedians had just agreed was discriminatory as an administrator, and secondly, about these refused deletions:

• "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted"
• "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted" (different page)

G4s are meant to include things "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Now, this could just be an error, but it smacks rather strongly of POV-editing on his behalf. The first one is basically identical to DOZENS of ones deleted in that discussion, the second is within the range of ones that were deleted, though one would have to look a little harder, so if it had been just that one, I wouldn't have commented.

I've started another MfD for this, but, frankly... this is not how this should work. I really, really didn't want to bring this up here, but it's getting far too ridiculous. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 06:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree that the consensus in the MFD was delete, and that was closed in error.

You'd think an administrator would know better than this. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the edit that created this version of the template has an edit summary reading "(Backup copy of template)". You know, a re-creation. Of something previously deleted. How does that square with Graeme_Bartlett's claim of "never previously deleted"? --Calton | Talk 06:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it extremely distasteful that GB, an admin, copied the code of one of those templates onto his userpage while the MFD was in progress and it was beginning to WP:SNOW. Narky Blert (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

These "backup copies" were made before the MFD was officially closed, on the 23rd and 24th of September. I wanted to change the wording of some of the boxes, particularly the marriage box. I hope this ends peacefully.    Techie3 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

These "backup copies" were made before the MFD was officially closed, on the 23rd and 24th of September. Right. And this is relevant...how? --Calton | Talk 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well these boxes were not been illegal at first,and you could have caught them before the MFD closed. Techie3 (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You copied the content of the user boxes in advance of their coming deletion, as an end-run around process, and your only defense is that you weren't caught early enough? --Calton | Talk 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I will preface this with the statement that I strongly supported the deletions and a brief look at my user page will show I don't support declarations undermining the validity of my family. I do think this issue needs to be monitored and fully support Adam Cuerden and the repost here. But this is a heated subject and I think this might have been done in the heat of the moment, by an otherwise positive editor. They might be having second thoughts regarding this and I think we should wait until they have replied to form any conclusions. Maybe I'm a hopeful optimist, but I'm just trying to assume the best about individuals I strongly disagree with.   // Timothy :: talk  07:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 07:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment As the author of the userpage concerned, I am OK with deletion but wanted improvement.  Techie3 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been closing off speedy deletes after about 24 hours of non-action by other administrators. Any for the case mention I have suggested that Rhododendrites retag the pages listed for G4 to let someone else consider a G4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The pages have now been deleted by JJMC89. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This makes it sound like this 24 hour thing is just a reason you are giving after the fact to try and justify it, besides in one of the two cases you gave less than 12 hours - not that this 'rule' of yours is really meaningful, you could equally apply the logic that you delete pages indiscriminately after 24 hours of nobody contesting the deletion. And you admit that you were looking for a reason to save the page so don't you think you should have realised that you were involved? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think people should know that I am involved, and I should have left those tagged pages alone, and used deletion review instead. THhe hostility of editing environment has been escalated by Rhododendrites' nomination of neutrally worded expressions of opinion that a big proportion of Wikipedia editors would agree with. So what we really need is an RFC on the topic so that more thought can be given and expressed by a wider range of people on the existence of political opinion infoboxes. I don't know how many of these infoboxes were in use. But it is the principle of what can be expressed that should be the subject of the RFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Strange, I would have though an administrator who's been editing here for 16 years might understand WP:CONSENSUS, which the MFD overwhelmingly had -- which you should know as you participated in the discussion and were one of the few "Keep" votes there. --Calton | Talk 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been closing off speedy deletes after about 24 hours of non-action by other administrators. This policy of yours appears to date back for all of three days, as I can find no evidence for it -- or even an interest in speedy deletions in general -- in your edits going back ten months until the sudden flurry of db tag removals on September 25th. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• My question would be to ask why Graeme is still using the deleted template on his user page, just hard coded rather than transcluded. This seems very WP:POINTy to me, and not befitting of an anministrator at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  This. Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• According to Graeme Bartlett, "What is on my user page is not a template or user box", so it must be all right. Oh, and apropos of nothing, he notes that some have been blocked -- not by him, of course! -- for "vandalizing" his user page. User:Fram has removed the Not-A-User-Box, so that's resolved for now, but Graeme Bartlett is rapidly exhausting his credit of good faith. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• General comment- G4 is the speedy criterion that's interpreted more broadly than all the others. This is because there are innumerable ways people try to wriggle their way around a delete consensus at XfD. Whether it's posting the page back with purely cosmetic changes, posting it back under a different title, or any other funny tricks. Although other CSD criteria need to be interpreted strictly, G4 is not one where ruleslawyering will help you. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've always found it shocking that an admin in particular would include such a userbox on their page, being the first person many new users come in contact with and, like it or not, representing one of Wikipedia's powreful class (what a new person would regard as such, at least). But certainly after the userboxes were deleted with consensus that they fall under '"inflammatory or divisive" and "propaganda [or] advocacy"' (via a nomination which, responding to above, I did not initiate but of course supported), to subvert that by recreating it locally seems pretty pointy. If that is acceptable practice, we might as well not have discussions about userboxes (or any divisive/disruptive template) because users can just reproduce them manually on their userpage. I'm glad to see Fram removed it, and that Graeme hasn't restored it. I left Graeme a message about the declined G4s because, well, he was both wrong and involved. Looks like he declined to revert himself but invited me to retag, and as far as these things go, that's good enough. I did not intend to escalate to ANI unless he dug in his heels on the matter. As that hasn't [exactly] happened, at this point I don't know what ANI can do here other than wag a finger and make it clear "you are involved". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is remarkably disappointing behavior from an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I second what GW said. This is absolutely astonishing and merits ArbCom investigation/opinion or T&S scrutiny. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Good lord. It's a userbox. Can't people find something more useful to fight over? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an inflammatory, discriminatory userbox that targets a minority population. That's why it was deleted. That an administrator would deliberately preserve or recreate, and prominently display (at the top of his userpage), such a userbox during or after the MfD bespeaks a serious lack of judgment and of understanding Wikipedia's commitment to be welcoming to all users. Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman." I should think it discriminates and targets more than one minority population actually. Also affected are polygamists and those who would like the right to marry children, animals, plankton, microbes, space aliens and inanimate objects. Perhaps part of "welcoming all users" is allowing a certain licence to the expression of viewpoints that we may find personally repugnant. In terms of reducing divisiveness, I think it was a mistake to ban userboxes expressing one viewpoint on a controversial subject rather than them all.     ←   ZScarpia   16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) This is not the place to relitigate the MfD, and it's really not the place to compare LGBTQ people to pedophiles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC) We're not here to welcome anybody, rather, we're here to make sure no one group is made to fell unwelcome. There's a subtle but important difference. Nick (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC) [EC] Apologies for the facetious tone, but I was trying to make a serious point. A very good job is being done of making one group feel unwelcome, I should think, those who hold traditional views on marriage. I say that as someone who supports the legal recognition of relationships other than traditional male-female ones. As far as trying to relitigate the MfD goes, I wasn't involved in the original discussion and have no interest in undoing the decision. It's just that I think that eliminating the expression of one viewpoint only wasn't beneficial (part of the aftermath is the current case); it would be best, in my opinion, in the interests of cutting down division (the guidelines ban divisive userboxes), if a further move was made to eliminate the expression of the other viewpoints also. I think that it is problematic that selectivity based on subjective judgements about which viewpoints are currently permissible is being allowed. A lot of my editing is done in controversial subject areas, which means having to tolerate views I don't like (and others having to tolerate mine).     ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC) If you look at my editing history and userpage you'll see that I too edit in controversial topic areas. I have no issue with "tolerating views I don't like"; I have a major issue with editors being expected to edit alongside those who express discriminatory and/or bigoted views against entire groups of people based on their gender, race, etc. But again, if you want to contest the deletion, WP:DRV is thataway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC) That's the thing, although it's my choice to do so, I do edit alongside people I regard as expressing "discriminatory and/or bigoted views against entire groups of people." And being in denial about it to boot. I've already said that I'm not interested in reversing the deletion, but extending it.     ←   ZScarpia   17:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC) ZScarpia, if that was really an attempt to make a serious point it failed miserably. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Such behavior from an admin is troubling, and warrants review. Paul August ☎ 15:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Correct. I'll say this now - Graeme is very lucky that I saw this during my break at work today and not whilst I was available to be online for longer. If I had been, I might well have blocked him. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes this was bad, but given that the userboxes have been deleted and the recreated userbox removed from his userpage, I'm in favor of letting it go. The problems have now been fixed (thanks to those who fixed them), and as long as it isn't repeated, there is no further harm. GB does a lot of good work otherwise and has for a long time, this issue makes people emotional, and we're all allowed to screw up now and again. Lev!vich 16:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  I fully agree. This is clearly inappropriate and a lapse in judgement from GB, but people are allowed to have that from time to time. GB seems to be an active editor and admin for over a decade, with (it seems) an uneventful career in terms of misconduct. I do not think it's appropriate to throw around ArbCom/blocking here. Again, I say that the community should probably discuss the underlying issues here: there's now this thread, the loss of an administrator, and a divisive discussion at MfD also spewing out elsewhere. Probably a good indicator that there's underlying issues which should be discussed and addressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Question: I did end up finding this, and im wondering if this is appropriate as well, User:Techie3/christianmarriage, I'm willing to assume good faith, but seems a bit iffy after all that has happened. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Created five hours ago. Yes, that one needs to be deleted too. Techie3 needs to stop his shenanigans, and all of these iterations need to be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Deleted per WP:POINT. User:Techie3 is very close to losing their editing privileges here. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Black Kite, Thanks! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Techie 3 has agreed not to create any more userboxes, I think we are good there. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am so sad to see this, from a longtime admin who has done so much for our project. I want to chime in with what TimothyBlue said, and I am also still depressed over Ad Ortientem's departure. But this is just not the place where we can have userboxes that are so clearly divisive and deny some people the right to marriage. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Ad Orientem's feelings...and frankly, I feel like we'd be better off if everything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (especially Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues and its subpages) went away. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. But since there is no consensus to do that at the moment, there are certain points at which we have to draw the line, as this particular MfD did. It should be fairly straightforward really - the community doesn't actually care which of your beliefs you want to stick on your userpage, as long as those beliefs do not demean others, or their rights. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Between this discussion, the previous ANI one, the discussion on Jimbo's page, and the current MFD on the alt right ones, its clear there's a problem of how we deal with editors with controversial ideologies that other editors are uncomfortable with; userboxes are only the tip of this. And it is disconcerting that we actually have editors that seem to promote the idea that even if the editor with a very controversial view but otherwise behaves as expected (civil, non-disruptive, no POV pushing, all that), we should not welcome them because they promote a controversial view which is completely contrary to both WP:NOT#CENSOR and the General disclaimer, as well as the general purpose of this being an open wiki that should be accepting of all voices regardless of their stance. We have to make a distinction between harassment and abuse that is directed at specific WP editors which we absolutely much act on, and this attempt to right great wrongs by cutting off those voices we don't want because it makes some editors uncomfortable due to their more general, non-specific message. This is basically thoughtpolicing, the last thing that WP stands for.
• The short term solution, of course, is to get an RFC going on whether any political/ideological userbox should be allowed, period, and/or refining where the line is on being "divisive" as used in this MFD (to avoid the double standard as pointed out by Ad Orientem). But this is the tip of an iceberg based on my own observations of the last 5-6 years triggered by obvious external events. --Masem (t) 18:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, userboxes that indirectly target a minority group are not acceptable, period. It has nothing to do with "discomfort" and everything to do with trust and safety, and a welcoming environment. Controversial views are fine if they do not directly or indirectly target a minority group and/or their rights. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• But where is that line that "indirectly targets a minority group" is drawn is a problem. I can argue a box that says a person being a Republican does that given the GOP's nature. Same with a box that says a person is a Christian. (obviously not suggesting we delete these specific boxes). I've argued that when the group in question is specifically talking about hate crimes and violence towards a group as in white supremacy or the like, absolutely these are a problem, but anything less than than and you have this massive gray area that is now creating a double standard. --Masem (t) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is no grey area. A userbox that says "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman" is effectively saying "This user rejects gay marriage as invalid". I don't see how it could be interpreted in any other way. Would we allow a user box that said "This user believes a marriage consists only of people of the same race"? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Time over time there has been comparisons between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, and it is sad to see this argument persisting even in this ANI. I have repeated the argument multiple times in different venues, including in the MfD why this comparison is completely invalid, though those arguing for the other side have so far not been able to offer a valid rebuttal to my argument. I invite users to read the following two statements: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. (Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. (Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and then they will be able to tell why same-sex marriage still isn't internationally recognized, and is simply not comparable to interracial marriage. And no, I do not intend to relitigate the situation. But I have to make this point when I see others pretending the debate for same-sex marriage has been settled with assertive statements such as There is no grey area. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• While I understand that you feel the UDHR is the decisive authority on what is and is not an unacceptable denial of a person's rights, not everyone agrees. The English Wikipedia community certainly hasn't agreed to use it as the basis of policy anywhere I'm aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• No. There is no grey area in terms of what I said in my first two sentences. You may argue that the interracial marriage analogy is invalid, but the userbox that I gave as an example should not be used here. We are not here to litigate the various attitudes of country X to gay marriage, we are pointing out whilst an editor is quite entitled to their particular beliefs, since it clearly demeans a certain demographic then they should not be entitled to display it on this website. I don't think that's a difficult concept. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare and Black Kite, I understand and respect your opinion. To clarify, what I feel was inappropriate is not the outcome of the MfD, but the analogy of SSM with interracial marriage, and worse yet, slavery and nazism, which were all present in the MfD discussion and elsewhere. As I said, I think this should be a settled issue now. As much as I disagree with the outcome, the community has spoken and I call upon my fellow editors respect the consensus, and, unless and until the community decide otherwise in a RFC or DRV, stop with the SSM templates and move on. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Dps04, nowhere in those declarations of rights do either of them in any way declare marriage to exclusively be between one man and one woman. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nope. Stating a religious or political-party affiliation does not target anyone. Stating an institution or right should be restricted to certain majority groups targets the minority group(s) that is excluded. Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect Masem is referring to the current MfD about alt-right userboxes, where he has been arguing that despite the fact that the alt-right is an explicitly white nationalist movement, its users may not always hold discriminatory/bigoted views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a slightly different issue, because it requires the reader to make a logical step from the user's political stance to their actual beliefs on any particular issue. That's not the case here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is why we can't have nice things. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No this is why we can't have fabulous things.Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I really don't get the idea of this userbox: it looks like pretty much the definition of a straw man. I mean, is there anyone who supports the institution of marriage, but would deny the right of one man and one woman to take part in it? Or is it really about the denial of rights to others rather than supporting anything? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They are fairly easy to decode. Even the mildest "This user believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman" has the unstated corollary that "This user believes that other types of marriage are invalid". Some of the others in the MfD included views from "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman" (pipelinked to heterosexuality) to "This user opposes the legalization of Gay marriage" to the charming "This user does not recognize same-sex relationships.". In the end, though, they're all effectively coming from the same place. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They're dog whistle statements, just like All Lives Matter. As BK says, this sort of stuff is easy to decode if you know what to look for. As a historical example, I cite rootless cosmopolitan; and, more recently, as a single example among very many by far too many people, Boris Johnson's suggestion that Barack Obama holds a grudge against the UK from an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire". Narky Blert (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I was being deliberately disingenuous in the course of making my point. Of course I understand that the subtext to this userbox is that any editors displaying it would deny the right of marriage to anyone who doesn't fit their definition of "decent people". It just so happens that a significant part of Wikipedia's editorship doesn't fit this definition, so the userbox is an insult to them, and another significant part of the editorship (including most people in most liberal democracies) supports everyone's right to enter into a married relationship, even if they themselves are in a traditional "one man one woman" marriage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone defending this behavior should think about it this way: If the user box said "This user believes marriage should only be between two white people" would you still be defending this as "just a harmless opinion"? It's the same thing as stating that it should only be between a man and a woman. It's still telling everyone that you don't think two different people should be afforded the same rights. Its still offensive. To the people who would equate this with "the other side". If it's offensive to you that other people show support for not discriminating to support inclusiveness, then you should probably find another hobby. Maybe Stormfront. Valeince (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Having the opinion that marriage is only between a man and a woman is, in Western cultures, is now the minority view in the prevailing culture, no doubt, and there's no question that those that are LGBT would be offended by it. I don't question the concern. But I stand by the fact that WP has made it clear that we are not a safe space per NOT:CENSOR/General disclaimers, nor are we righting great wrongs, in that editors are expected to be encountering those with controversial views, which may include views that they would find discriminatory towards them, and are expected to cooperatively work with them. (I'll point out this example of a safe space poliy used for a 2020 community summit which is about the extend that I see on WP). When it comes to direct harassment and other forms specifically targetting editors, that's different and we probably don't do enough there to make it safe environment for editing. We judge editors only based on their behavior not what they say about themselves with minimal exceptions. Further, the slippery slope logic here is that if we remove the userbox, editor may just move that to user userpage prose, or may mention it in passing in talk page discussions: do we ban those editors immediately? That's thought policing which has become an increasing problem in the last several years, and absolutely not part of the foundation of WP. It's less a concern on the specifics of the marriage box or the right wing box or whatever ideology or political movement is at the center of this, but the fact we are specifically targeting broad ideologies that may be controversial but do not specifically target any WPians, and saying to those editors that hold those views they are personas non grata before we can judge how they actually contribute to WP, potentially turning away valuable contributors and creating double standards related to other ideologies. It's why its better simply to get rid of all userboxes related to ideologies and politics, warn users they shouldn't really talk about these on WP (though aren't restricted), and let their actions in terms of how they edit speak for themselves, so that we're not engaged in any type of thought-policing. --Masem (t) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem, userboxes that indirectly target a minority group are not acceptable, period. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with trust and safety, and a welcoming environment. Controversial views are fine if they do not directly or indirectly target a minority group and/or their rights. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion userboxes that indirectly targets ANY group aren't acceptable, minority or majority. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about removing editing rights or other stifling editing here in anyway. It's just taking removing a form of expression that is deemed not acceptable for Wikipedia. Your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water because the next step is NOT banning anyone it is just continued enforcement for the rules set forth by Wikipedia users. One of them being do not display anyting that is divicive or racist or homophobic. The MFD was enforcement of those norms, the MFD did not create any new rules or anything. Hate and bigotry are not ideolgy or a political movement, despite what proponantes try to do to legitimize their views, and trying to defend these as such reflects on the person more than the reality of the situation.Valeince (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, I figure a userbox that makes only a purely theological statement about marriage - for example, "This user thinks polygamy and gay marriage are not biblical" - would be acceptable? Unlike the deleted userboxen, such a userbox would not say anything about the universal definition of marriage, only about the biblical definition. You can draw conclusions about my beliefs based on me asking this, but your conclusions will likely be wrong. PJvanMill)talk( 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Baprow: Persistent WP:DE and WP:EW; WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE

Baprow (talk · contribs), an user that has seemingly garnered a troublesome collection of edit warring and disruptive behaviour-related issues throughout the last months (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), has engaged on it again on a number of articles. Most of the ordeal has been in place at Talk:President of the Valencian Government and President of the Valencian Government, but the issue has extended to Leader of the Opposition (Spain), President of the Principality of Asturias and President of the Community of Madrid as the user has attempted to engage in WP:GAME conduct in those to prove their point.

The content issue at dispute is actually minor (i.e. design aspects of timeline charts), but their edits are rather random and ultimately based on their own whim, and this has led to a number of severe behavioural issues (mirrored in other articles in recent times, like Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel or Hugo Chávez, with the involvement of users Asqueladd, ZiaLater or NoonIcarus in those cases):

• It's seemingly impossible to make any change to anything of what Baprow edits (with they claiming things such as "I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes. I could ask you the same." diff), which they will frequently (and persistently) revert in a clear show of ownership behaviour. They have backtracked these initial statements ever since, but their own possessive behaviour has persisted.
• In a way to prevent any change from going further, they keep filibustering and gaslighting by raising additional problems when older ones have been addressed (or, similarly, engaging into circular arguments or outright fallacies). This is very evident on the issue of interim presidents: first, they claimed that there were allegedly two concurrent interim presidents and than that was the issue (diff); then, it was that other Wikipedias allegedly did not include those (though this was never backed up with evidence either; diff); then, that the name has to be "put well" (whatever that means; diff); then, that one-week tenures are (for some unexplained reason) not worth enough to be added into the chart (diff); finally, that the name "destroys the aesthetics" of the chart (a truly fallacious argument with no other evidence than their own whim; diff).
• Another example is them reverting justified reverts with statements of the sort of "I was going to answer your verbiage, but it happened. The changes are correct. Point.".
• They have engaged into personal attacks by dubbing me as "incapable" just because of not seeing the alleged "aesthetical issues" that they suddenly claim to exist (diff1 diff2), though this can be extended to their very first reverts when they patronized me by claiming that I "didn't understand" something as in a "But I know the truth!" situation, despite me having previously explained the rationale of my edits.
• There is the aforementioned issue of editing other articles to seemingly enforce their points in the discussion at Talk:President of the Valencian Government (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4).

Note that this extends to the discussion itself, which I had started almost immediately on 14 September in an attempt to give them the chance to explain their motives and seek out a compromise, if possible. This ended badly:

• I asked several times for them to revert their own edits until the discussion was over, for the sake of WP:BRD and politeness (diff1 diff2 diff3). These requests were not only unattended, but also left entirely unaddressed, something which I pointed out to them when they unilaterally edited the article (while the discussion was still ongoing) in a twisted interpretation of a compromise alternative which I myself had proposed for discussion, but with which I had not agreed yet (diff). They seemingly think that "consensus" and "compromise" mean some form of "I will accept your edits if you accept mine"-bargaining chip that can be imposed without further discussion (diff).
• They only keep replying in the discussion as long as any edit is done on the article: once I stop doing so, they go silent. They have done so several times: on 15 September, when they simply stopped replying to my own concerns, and a second time on 22 September; in this case, it was much more eggregious since I specifically pinged them not once but twice (diff1 diff2), with an additional comment in-between that was also unattended (diff3). They only re-started replying briefly on 21 September (after I re-edited the article as a result of they having abandoned the discussion) and today (for the same reason).
• Looks like, since July, they've been systematically removing any warning notices from their talk page (diff1 diff2 diff3). That's their choice to make, as it's their talk page, but this only self-evidences an outright unwillingness to seriously engage in constructive, consensus-building behaviour or to acknowledge their own misdeeds.

Either this user lacks the competence to work collaboratively, or they are simply not here to build an encyclopedia, but to pursue their own personal satisfaction (by essentially enforcing edits that are pleasant to him and him alone, even if they are contested by everyone else). In either case, this behaviour just needs to stop by whatever means required. Impru20^talk 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your base argument is "Your edits are wrong because in Wikipedia things are done the way I'm saying they are done. Look at all these examples!" But when I show you other examples that not all things on Wikipedia are done that way, your counterargument is "Aha, you're using the same argument as me, then I'm right and you're not." And now you are saying that in a timeline there can be names in blue and in black at the same time, something that I have not seen in any other timeline (where the names are in blue or in black, never mixed). In other words, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says or what the majority say, but what you want to impose.--Baprow (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of behaviour I'm speaking about. It's just impossible to have any kind of agreement or compromise be reached when you systematically consider, regard and/or label the other party as an enemy as you do with others. Your editing history is out there, and it shows it's you the one attempting to impose your edits everywhere all the time and than that's the only thing you do in Wikipedia. No one but you has attempted to "impose" anything; in every situation I've linked it's your edits the ones being contested, and instead of backing down and discuss them when you get (legitimately) reverted you keep re-imposing them over, and over, and over, and over again until the other party backs down out of pure tiredom, or until you threaten with extending the disruption to so many other articles that other editors just cave in to prevent it. Please note that this is not a venue to discuss about content, but about behaviour, and yours has crossed the line by a large deal already. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to complain, I would say that it is difficult to reach an agreement with a person whose starting point is "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones", when it is obvious that my editions are as valid as his editions because there is no such closed and unappealable uniformity that he claims (except when it suits him, as can be seen in the case of the time line that he defends, whose aesthetic differs from any other).
It doesn't help that this person doesn't try to make any kind of compromise and doesn't bother to understand what I'm talking about either (another possible explanation is that he doesnt care about). He even allows himself the luxury of telling me what my own words mean and, when I explain it to him, it would not matter if I did it with words or with Morse code, because he has already reached a conclusion and you can't get him out of there and, of course, his conclusions and valorations are the only valid ones.--Baprow (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, care to source your accusations if you will. I've never ever said "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones" nor anything even minimally resembling that kind of behaviour, unlike what you actually did. Baseless claims and personal grudges are of little consequence here. Impru20^talk 20:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Long term addition of unsourced quotes, trivia and WP:BLP violations

I came across Khaosjr (talk · contribs), because I've watched the hellacious edit history at Rollergames. These edits encompass many articles over an extended period, culminating in recent dreck at List of twins, where we've been graced with unsourced celebrity miscarriages. Please have a look at the edit history, and consider a long block. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, in addition to all the unsourced trivia, this is what I mean by BLP garbage: [74]; [75]. These are not encyclopedic contributions, and may merit rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For someone to write HONORABLE MENTION, in caps, and then list the miscarriage of twins, is absolutely repulsive. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • See also related account 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs), sometimes used in tandem to restore deleted edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reporting user : BH72

BH72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user randomly comes on and repeatedly do disruptive changes, disruptive reverts to the page and copyright violation. I am not sure if the user acknowledge EdJohnston warning. Kent Bargo (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kent Bargo:Just FYI, two of your linked diffs were the same. Both of the diffs linked are definitely bad edits, but I'm sure someone needs to dig deeper. Also, you should just paste the diff links, and not wrap them in ref tags. Just wanted to let you know in case you accidentally copied and pasted the same diff twice. Also a note to those reviewing this, Kent Bargo (talk · contribs) reported this same user 7 days ago for edit warring. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

1st source fixed. It was suppose direct to the earlier report, but i am now reporting user again for disruptive behavior again and obvious copyright violation. Kent Bargo (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Bcliot33

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bcliot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bcliot33 is currently blocked for edit warring at Laura Loomer but they have a concerning enough history we might as well go over it now. They started off trying to simultaneously mainstream Loomer (downplaying her far-right politics and removing "conspiracy" from Loomer's conspiracy theory that Ilhan Omar married her brother for US citizenship) while also labeling Rashida Tlaib as "left-wing" or "leftist." ([76][77][78][79]). After this, they tried to add "left-wing" and "radical-left" to the Rashida Tlaib article ([80]), where NorthBySouthBaranof reverted them and explained on their talk page that we normally don't start off articles with "-wing" labels, especially when sourced to an opinion column. He didn't say "we never do this" and he didn't cite policy, but Bcliot33 proceeded to cite this post in the Loomer article to force an all-or-nothing false equivalence before launching into an edit war (still at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bcliot33_reported_by_User:Ian.thomson_(Result:Blocked_for_72_hours_)). The apparent reasoning being that if Tlaib is left of Loomer, and sources don't primarily label Tlaib a leftist, then we can't call Loomer far-right (even if sources mainly note her for her extremism). No matter what anyone else told Bcliot33, they kept citing that post by NBSB over and over, insisting that they were the only person following the rules.

While this was going on, they cited Marvin Stuart Antelman in a discussion about whether Adam Weishaupt was Jewish (a point that is mostly pushed by antisemitic conspiracy theorists and only accidentally reported by a couple of non-antisemitic non-specialists). I pointed to this RSN discussion where other users and I have pointed to the website of the author of the main source in the Illuminati article (as well as other comparable specialists), which Bcliot33 tried to say was me "using a conspiracy theorist website to discredit National Geographic magazine and Winston Churchill". This, in isolation, could be seen as them failing to actually look at a source because they're pissy at me and so opposed to anything I say. Their attempts to emphasize Jewish involvement in the pornography industry ([81][82]) could also be taken as innocuous enough in isolation. Buuut in light of attacking someone for pointing out that the Nazis used the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory to justify the Holocaust, and edit warring to assert that Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) is right about Jews and not a conspiracy theorist ([83][84][85][86])... it's not hard to be suspicious of their motives.

Then there's their activity in the article on fascist mystic and antisemitic conspiracy theorist Julius Evola, where they previously tried to argue that he wasn't a conspiracy theorist (despite advocacy for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and also removed claims sourced to a Routledge-published work to downplay Evola's racism. It's also interesting that he chose to cite the website of Greg Johnson (white nationalist) instead of the original book. And apparently Evola wasn't a misogynist because it's only natural for men to dominate women because women are spiritually inferior (not just a one-off).

Then there's emphasizing the role of Jews in the Communist revolution at Jewish Bolshevism (not just once, or twice). This isn't even touching their previous edit war on Communism to assert Masonic involvement (e.g.), which they didn't abandon.

I think it's pretty clear what we're dealing with here. At a minimum, they need to be topic banned from articles relating to politics and Jewish people. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agh, sorry about the rollback! That was indeed a watchlist misclick. Thanks for reverting, Pawnkingthree and sorry about that Ian.thomson! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Given how the discussion at Talk:Adam_Weishaupt has gone, it seems like User:Mdaviskinodblue must be a sock? --JBL (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

JBL Since people cited me I'll give my two cents. Since XDev was caught lying in the wikipedia and in his article (which was used as source), plus considering the fact other editors have used his article as a "source" to censor information, there is nothing else to do other than people create a conspiracy there is a network of nazis. User Ian.thomson was strongly promoting XDev fraudulent sources for quite some time and this is suspicious. I'd suggest investigating if they were collaborating in using fraudulent sources other than in the "Adam Weishaupt" page.Mdaviskinodblue (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And that response has me thinking that we need a CU to determine if you're either a sock or a Joe-job providing an excellent example of why Bcliot33 needed to be blocked, because I don't see any other options. I would be surprised if you were an offsite associate of Bcliot33's because your behavior is just too similar to his (that and accusing XDev and me of offsite collusion would be extra stupid). The source I was "promoting" (really just pointing to in the RSN discussion on NatGeo) was written by the author of the sources in our article on the Illuminati (which IMO meets WP:SELFPUB). XDev outed himself as that author in question. Now, if you can provide WP:DIFFs showing that either XDev was wholly responsible for the Melanson cite in the Illuminati article and can demonstrate that no one else would have considered citing that source, you might have a point against him... Buuut using that to try to accuse me of offsite collusion comes off as the sort of really desperate attack that Bcliot33 wants to make. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't lie in the article. The National Geographic piece on Weishaupt was brought to my attention by Josef Wages and Reinhard Markner, the two editors of The Secret School of Wisdom: The Authentic Ritual and Doctrines of the Illuminati. They didn't really debunk the errata in the NG articles so I went ahead and posted a more lengthy response. Jeva Singh-Anand was the translator of the previous mentioned book and I have been friends with both him and Wages for years. That I didn't cite the sources Jeva had in turned used to investigate Weishaupt's life was a mistake that I corrected. That is all. As for me "lying" in the talk page. I corrected myself multiple times after investigating further. That's what everyone should do. The Churchill/Webster argument was a big waste of time. Churchill himself cites Webster and Webster's French Revolution. So your point is moot. XDev (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, I blocked the Mdavis account just a few minutes ago for WP:NOTHERE given their comments on the QAnon page and recently removed thread here, and the very likely chance this is a sock of a blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

Here, by Bcliot33 to Ian.thomson. Bcliot33 then self-reverted. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have extended the block to indefinite based on the evidence of POV pushing presented above, plus the legal threat which was blanked but not unambiguously withdrawn. Any administrator who disagrees can reduce the block duration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has blanked the block notices. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, that means they read them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They're now on their third account, Menihn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- it seems like stronger measures (including page protection) are needed. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• CU was warranted and confirmed all these suspicions. If someone wants to start a pro forma SPI, they can do so. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censorship and legal threat by MianHusnain007

MianHusnain007 has been blanking images for religious reasons and expressed an intent to officially file a case against Wikipedia for this blasphemy. See [87].— Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, indefinitely blocked. Glen (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there a policy regarding such depictions? Shritwod (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Shritwod, it would be WP:NOTCENSORED LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Shritwod See also Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent Pigsonthewing, thank you. I suspected there'd be something more detailed somewhere. Shritwod (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Koavf seems to be acting intractable with regard to the issue of their userpage disrupting the MediaWiki interface per WP:SMI. They adamantly refuse to even discuss the issue when I've raised it on their talkpage. I'm raising this here since I don't know where else is suitable for this. Thanks! --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for alerting me to this. Instead of editing my userpage based on what you think the standard is, it would have been better had you written me first and asked me to edit it. I would have denied it but would have been willing to discuss it. Writing on my talk page again after I told you not to is borderline harassment. Nothing about my userpage has ever made anyone else question if it is breaking the MediaWiki interface in 15 years and there is nothing that actually stops anyone from interacting with or navigating any part of the sidebar, so I don't think your concerns are valid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Page seems to work fine for me, can you specifically explain what is so disruptive? We tend to give users a fairly wide berth on styling their userpage (a little less on their user talk pages). MAYBE the styling is a little disruptive to links if you are in cologneblue skin - but if you pick that skin you deserve what you get! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: On the "modern" skin, the image completely obscures the first 4 elements of the sidebar. A lesser problem is that in "Vector", the image clips behind the "Main page" link and ruins the contrast of the blue text, making text on the page hard to read, which is also discouraged by WP:SMI.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  17jiangz1, and? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Click on the Wikipedia logo = problem solved. I don't see why there's a need to care over sidebar links being obscured when you can simple click the logo and then continue from there...., 17jiangz1 may I kindly suggest you focus your time and energy on articles and not nonsense such as this?. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Temp

Temp (talk · contribs)

I have recently blocked this user for 48 hours for vandalism/edit warring. This is their response. My inclination is to ignore, remove TPA, and increase the block to indef, but thought I would post here for further review first. GiantSnowman 11:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, would find it hard to object to that. WilyD 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, except probably for Temp. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. GiantSnowman 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised they've been around for so long, considering this edit from 2015 and the four immediately preceding it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Could be a compromised account, as those edits back in 2006 look sound, at least the few I looked at were. Quite a big break from editing in between then and now too, although a moot point with TPA revoked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:JIMBOB8

I'm bringing this to AN/I rather than the 3RR noticeboard as I think there's a broader issue than just edit warring.

JIMBOB8 (talk · contribs) I think is showing some real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendencies, and probably also WP:NOTHERE. He has been blocked for edit warring before, but he doesn't appear to have learnt from that. He's spent a good portion of today and yesterday edit warring on Marcus Rashford, by my count violating 3RR. Communication is something he tends not to engage in, as he regularly refuses to explain his edits or go anywhere near a talk page, including his own. In fact, his talk page is a litany of warnings, which makes me think he's WP:NOTHERE, but you wouldn't know as he keeps blanking it — Czello 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like he self-reverted his last revert at Marcus Rashford, so there's a sign of hope. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil behavior by user TowlieRocks/193.56.252.196

The user above, due to disagreeing with an edit made on another page they were watching, has followed me on my Contributions page and reverted edits in bad faith on TheReportOfTheWeek under both their username and IP address, despite having been warned to cease such disruptive behavior. Needless to say, said behavior is highly inappropriate and violates Wikipedia's high standard of behavior for those engaged in the editing process, and the matter must now be regretfully brought before the administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have just warned the user! Happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 02:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solicited by a group to edit Wikipedia

I offer copywriting services on freelancer and Upwork and it's not out of the usual to get approached by 'fake' clients who offer to buy my freelancing verified account. They mostly target verified users from European/NA as they can then fetch decent gigs for a higher price than they normally would if they were verified in a third-world country. Anyhow, I was approached on freelancer with an offer to apply for paid Wikipedia jobs through my freelancer and Upwork verified account. I was told I wouldn't get into any trouble and I'd simply have to apply to the jobs that I'd get a heads up on. I turned them down, but being the inquisitive type, I cross-referenced the user on Upwork and alas, they seem to be really be in the business and it's not actually a scam. The user's profile (https://www.upwork.com/fl/franciscopiano) is open and the job history even has a screenshot of a completed Wikipedia job (talk about precautions): Neysa Blay. There are many other Wikipedia jobs completed on the profile and I know paid editing is prohibited, so I thought I'd give those spammers and fake clients what's coming to them. - jwaznsh49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaznsh49 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neysa Blay: deleted once as G11, then NPP-accepted on the second try, but should probably swing by AfD based on the sources (1 x dead source, 3 x self-promotion, 3 x listing). Exbio: has not made a peep about having been paid for this job (as well as the Spanish version), neither on their user page nor on the article talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• AfD would probably be the better option. G4 doesn't apply to PRODs and in fact a PROD can be restored on demand even after the fact. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. In view of this conversation on Seraphimblade's page, which is obviously not truthful on Exbio's part, I have blocked Exbio indefinitely as an undisclosed paid editor. I've taken a screenshot of the relevant Upwork page with the Neysa Blay article given as an example of their work, in case the page should happen to change once I've blocked them. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

• Update: my crystal ball worked good. The profile that Jwaznsh49 links to above was open when I looked the first time, but now it can only be seen by logged-in Upwork customers. I'm glad I took that screenshot. Bishonen | tålk 20:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

Did you see any other articles listed on the screenshot, Bish? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No. There was a link titled "Want to see more?", but I didn't follow it, and didn't think it likely to contain more Wikipedia pages, but other kinds of jobs, from the way it was phrased and laid out. Perhaps User:Jwaznsh49 followed the link? I only took one screenshot, out of a longer page, partly because the rest didn't contain any smoking guns (it was mainly recommendations from satisfied customers), and partly out of a non-outing instinct. I have just tried in vain to upload it to Wikipedia, while being asked a bunch of questions that don't fit, but I'll be glad to share it by e-mail on request. BTW, of course Exbio's Draft:Andrew Kingslow is now under suspicion, to put it mildly. Bishonen | tålk 04:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

• @Jwaznsh49: "I know paid editing is prohibited" It isn't; please see WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Paid editing isn't in and of itself against the rules, but the Terms of Use for Wikipedia and its sister websites requires that you be honest about it and disclose who's paying you and where edits under each arrangement will be made. The issue with Exbio wasn't that he was a paid editor, it's that he didn't disclose and lied about his paid status. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

Seems to be an edit-war going on here!! Govvy (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Both users warned. GiantSnowman 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of request

Hello,

Few hours ago I placed assistance request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#How to deal with this?. It seems it is still unattended. Frankly I do not know what is right course of action and when to inform on admin notice board. I hope some one can review that request.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Major Concerns Regarding Briscoe Cain

After putting a little work into touching up and expanding the Briscoe Cain article the other day, I couldn't help but notice a number of COI red flags throughout the entire revision history of the article, many indicative of the possibility that the page is being routinely monitored and revised by either individuals associated with the subject, or possibly the subject himself. This was first brought to my attention last night, after user Marquardtika (talk · contribs) had reverted every edit I had made to the page over the course of the past few days (many of which were no more than grammatical fixes or structural improvements) with the only rationale provided being "these don't look like improvements. Tweets aren't WP:RS, for one." As far as the claim regarding the Tweets goes, I assume he was referring to the two instances in which I had used Tweets made by Briscoe on his verified, personal account, which I was (and am) under the impression were, given the context, appropriate sources as per WP:TWITTER. Regardless, and as I alluded to just now, these only accounted for two of the numerous changes I made out of good faith to the article, without so much as even leaving a talk page message explaining why.

After reviewing the article's revision history in its entirety, it came as no surprise to discover that Marquardtika was the page's original author, and is quite obviously engaged in some degree of OWNING. Following a subsequent review of Marquardtika's user page, it appears as though they claim to be a former journalist from the same city as Briscoe Cain, and furthermore appear to only be interested in creating and editing articles concerning Republican politicians from Texas (for the record, I too am an American conservative, and by no means am presenting this with the intention of persecuting Marquardtika for their political leanings). I'm not sure if this behavior would fall somewhere within the NOTHERE range, but it would most certainly be worth looking into imo.

I also happened to notice a huge body of suspicious IP edits in the article's revision history, including the second and third edits ever made to the page, which originated from an IP address that appears to belong to the Texas State Legislative Counsel, and has a reverse DNS entry on state.texas.us.

So to say the least, it seems like something super fishy is going on here. I'm not sure exactly what, but hence why I'm here. felt_friend 01:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Felt friend: It would likely be better to bring the COI stuff up at WP:COIN. About the disputed edit, I see a lot of use of the subject's personal website and other primary or not very good sources like the Texas Legislature bill history page, and at least one of the Twitter things looks very dodgy since it seems to be an attempt to make the subject look bad sourced solely to the subjects Twitter. So I'm not particularly surprised it was reverted. But in any case, as always, take it to the article talk page, and use WP:dispute resolution if you can't solve it by yourselves. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the OP didn't notify me of this discussion as is required. Beyond that, if I'm Briscoe Cain, I'm sure doing a shit job of managing my page 😂 Marquardtika (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-stop disruption and block evasion by some IP hopper: Range block request

• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:583F:48A7:1EE4:EA28
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:1830:B4FE:69F3:61BE
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:3575:8B07:14E5:28BB
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:C9B9:3026:7270:5C7
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:F11D:DAC1:17E1:B385

This IP range belongs to blocked user Special:Contributions/Xana. Xana is blocked for their nationalistic rants and personal attacks on Talk:Kurds. After the block, an IP hopper appeared on that talk page and continued Xana's quest. The talk page was protected[88] but it seems it was not enough to stop that user because they have returned again. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated semi-protection for a month on the talk page (may be revised by another administrator who examines the situation). Note, I have not carried out a checkuser review of the IP range to check for collateral damage, so have not considered blocking the IP range. Another checkuser may feel it appropriate to do so. Risker (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Semi-protection is helpful but the blocked user is obsessed with that article/topic. If the used IP range is not shared/dynamic, I suggest 1-year range block. Just blocking anonymous editing. If the blocked user creates new accounts, SPI will deal with them. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The /64 is stable going back ~8 months on Talk:Kurds. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2601:646:8F81:8770::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one year for block evasion. /64s in the most common configuration are one user, equivalent to a discrete IPv4 address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Wario-Man (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Random numbered subpages of Draft:Sample page

• Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page

As of this edit there are 119 eight-digit-number subpages of this nonexistent draftspace page, all created since mid-August. Some of these do look like very weak drafts, but most I've checked have been patent nonsense, outright hoaxes, or pages that are otherwise unsuitable for the project. The fact that they all seem to be created by IPs with either "created sandbox" or another canned edit summary suggests this is part of some Wikipedia welcoming process, but there's no indication as to what. All I can see is that an IP created the main "sample page" on 28 July as a redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox, which was deleted a few minutes later. Does anyone know what's going on here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted some of these Sample pages that were tagged for deletion but I don't have an answer for you, Ivan. Recently, I have noticed a lot of speedy deletions that were pages made for a young editor's video game character...I'm beginning to think that it is part of a game dare or quest to create a Wikipedia article for your avatar. There are so many streamers on Twitch these days, I can see someone offering this idea up as a challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this in July 2020 at WP:AN here. Hope this is helpful. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, yes that is very helpful, and relates to Help talk:Introduction#Adding interactive components. @Sdkb: your implementation of custom sandboxes for logged-out users is causing the draft namespace to be filled with randomly-numbered test pages, some of which contain material which is unsuitable to host here. Did you ever look into an automated way of cleaning up these sample pages? I see an adminbot was suggested in one of the prior discussions. Also, the random number generator doesn't seem to be very random: several of the billion-or-so possible page titles have already been reused several times, unless unrelated IPs are somehow finding the deleted pages and recreating them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It looks like you've found the origin discussion; in short, the sandboxes are designed to provide new users a more interesting environment to experiment with than a blank page. Most are going into subpages of userspace for logged in editors, but for users who ignore the advice earlier in the tutorial to log in, they're sent to draftspace (thus why they're kinda bottom-of-the-barrel). I don't know of an admin-bot that's been created to clean them up yet; it should hopefully be pretty easy to create since the pages all have the same form. We'd certainly be grateful for anyone who decides to code that or comes up with another way for IPs to have a sample page to experiment with. Also, if I recall correctly one of the links was changed following the previous discussion, which didn't do much since it wasn't the main one. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sdkb, and good work on improving the intro by the way. I guess the way forward is a bot request. I'll see what I can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Contacting Wikipedia directly

Good evening. I am hoping someone can advise how to contact Wikipedia directly, the actual people who operate this site, about an issue concerning a banned user who also is now deceased. Basically, over the past two years there has been an issue with this user's real world identity being researched pretty heavily by a small group of people who then apparently contacted his employer, family, as well as institutions with which he had been associated. In the beginning, we tried to contact parties on Wikipedia directly, however every time we did we either received no reply or quite a nasty response. At this point, we are just trying to stop these incidents of unwanted messages, especially to places like universities, libraries, and government agencies who are still getting emails to this very day about this user and how bad he was on Wikipedia. I am also not posting the banned user's ID here, since that too has often led to messages being ignored or, in a few rather disturbing cases, accusations that he wasn't really dead and that this was some scheme to get his account re-opened. This is not about his account, but rather what is going on with this investigation of his identity and emails being sent to 3rd parties. PS, we already contacted the oversight email address already. They were helpful but didn't address the emails that are being sent to 3rd parties about this user. Thank you for your help. This is a good website and I don't believe most of the people here would support or condone what has gone on with this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4001:4460:B045:4922:DC2:468E (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. There are no "actual people who operate this site" other than the volunteer editors and administrators who are active here on Wikipedia and many of whom watch this page. We have no bosses here and trying to find them is a waste of your time. If random people are sending unwanted emails, then please block those email accounts and encourage other people to do so as well. The oversight team can help with things that take place on Wikipedia but not elsewhere. I am not commenting on this specific case because I do not know the details, but there have been a number of cases of Wikipedia editors whose misconduct was so intense and compulsive that it negatively affected the real lives of many innocent volunteers. Of course, people want to look into that for the purpose of stopping the harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. THey ae better equipped for this sort of situation that the Wikipedia Community, which is just for encyclopedia building. Their contact page is HERE. Perhaps that would be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If this is true, doesn't this seem like a bright-line T&S off-wiki harassment scenario? Contacting the WMF is almost certainly the right play here, especially the Trust & Safety team. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you register an account you can use the "email this user" facility to contact me, or any other admin you think would be supportive, and we will courtesy-blank the user space and watch for any mentions of the real world name. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to hear this. However, I'd like to mirror the suggestion that the first place to contact should be the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team. Contact details are available at Trust and Safety team. I'm am not sure what can be done unless those continuing the harassment have accounts here, but I belive that T&S would be able to confidentially advise you on how best to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, User:Bilby, that's what I was looking for. Their email is cawikimedia.org --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Puri (surname) page overwritten then moved

Puri (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was overwritten, then moved twice to Aayush Puri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The page needs to be restored and history cleaned up. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

All mopped up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing similar behavior, randomly moving pages around to different titles, from User:Meaning Translated and User:Mastersofediting if anyone could check on these two accounts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: It looks to me like all pages moved by either of those accounts have either been deleted or moved back already. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I was concerned about the editors, not the pages. I cleaned up after Meaning Translated earlier today and then I noticed Mastersofediting did something similar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: The accounts are  Unlikely to be related; they're editing from different continents.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked Mastersofediting from article space indefinitely. I am familiar with their WP:G11 deleted drafts and see this as an attempt to bypass WP:AFC, FWI, they have a PAID declaration on their user page. Feel free to reverse if you feel I have over reacted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Meaning Translated has also move warred from draft to article space with that page now deleted per WP:G11. They have made requests at WP:REFUND for restoration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Bogus Shield

I hope this is the write place to post this. If not, my apologies in advance: Could you please look into the entry for Columbia University? The user User: XXeducationexpertXX had initially uploaded a bogus shield for Columbia University, which was a photoshopped amalgam of Columbia College crown + shield + seal all put together in this mish mash. I removed that and put the official shield of the school approved by Columbia and published in their visual identity guide: http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf The user User: XXeducationexpertXX continues to remove the correct shield though on bogus claims. This is the correct shield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University#/media/File:ColumbiaUniversityShield.png This is the bogus photoshopped shield made by the aforementioned user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_Shield.png Thank you, Karl Montague (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that needs to go to Talk:Columbia University. Karlmontague, you were warned to not edit war and then you reverted again. I'm not going to block as I'm involved in this a bit, but another admin might take action. only (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts repeated removal of maintenance tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lugnuts seems to have a problem with people adding maintenance tags to articles he has created, often manually reverting them without explanation. [89][90][91][92]

They also seem to have an issue with the existence of the noplot template, going back for a while now [93][94][95]. They chose not to respond to attempts to discuss the topic at the time and the behavior does not appear to have changed since then. [96] Greyjoy ^talk 23:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Greyjoy, seems reasonable to me. Plot summaries are a haven of WP:OR. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, if I am incorrect in thinking this is a problem I will happily leave it alone. Greyjoy ^talk 23:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are very much a matter of opinion, with some viewing them as more useful than others. Particularly, stylistic ones applied to stubs that are obviously missing significant things are often viewed as completely unhelpful. The only one in the diffs that you linked that was potentially identifying a significant policy problem (one instance of {{blp sources}}) was being removed from someone who had recently died. Overall - yes, communication could be better, but removal of low-priority maintenance tags is generally allowed. ~ mazca ^talk 23:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok looks like it was a misunderstanding of policy on my part, apologies to Lugnuts. Greyjoy ^talk 02:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate maintenance tags. I think Lugnuts is on point more often than most. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding maintenance tags to stubs annoys me, also. If it's an article needing some scrolling to finish, and the tag is on point, I don't mind it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think maintenance tags are useful for people doing organised cleanup. For instance I am doing some sporadic cleanup of the buzzword-salad articles and have found the relevant tag invaluable for finding them. This has also allowed me to discover more than a few copyvios; vacuous marketing pap has often been copypasted from elsewhere. If people were just removing these tags because they didn't like tags, or because the tags had been there for a while, then that would be disruptive because it would make copyvios and shite articles so much harder to track down. Reyk _YO! 06:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. You know what happens when someone sees a "needs plot" tag? Sometimes they go straight to IMDB and copy & paste the plot from there. Which then makes copyvios. Anyway - Greyjoy, I accept your apology. No harm done. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to go through every diff here, but how was this underlinked? Similar with other diffs--"no plot", meh. In those articles, those stubs, a lot of things were missing, which is what it means to be a stub. And maybe Lugnuts should have said "there's plenty of links" or whatever, but it's a fact that a lot of times, as here, the tags weren't explained either. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've raised the underlinked tag with the same user before. There are others that add that same tag too, and I used to raise this directly with them, with a varying results. But I don't really bother with that any more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained removal of DS notices

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A quick perusal of Vahurzpu's contributions page will reveal a large number of unexplained removals of DS notices made with an edit summary of Update discretionary sanctions notice. Rather than updating the notice the editor is removing it. This seems to me to be a case of NOT HERE. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Users are entitled to remove such notices from their talk page (and much more besides). Removal of such a notice is regarded as evidence that the user has read it and is cognizant of its contents. AIUI: in the subject context, this noticeboard would only really interested if the user were to ignore the notice. I agree that the edit summary might be seen as misleading, but the user, after all, is updating their talk page by removing a DS notice. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

But this editor is removing notices from article talk pages, not the user talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

He's not deleting them from what I see, but having the boxes all in the same format. For example on Talk:Eugene Wu he set the DS Notice with the text {{Ds/talk notice|ab|long}} rather than the tmbox formatting. Nothing was removed, at least to my eye. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@86.164.169.96: But the editor is not removing from their own talk page but article talk pages. Also RickinBaltimore, check out the diffs on their contribution page, they are simply blanking out all text from the DS. Examples: 1 2 3 4, there are very many more similar ones, simply check the diff for any of the multitudinous entries on the user's contribution page that have the same edit summary. This is not acceptable, - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, I just checked a couple of them - aren't they replacing a bunch of transcluded text with a template? I don't know whether this is a problem or not - if the message is still visible on the page is it an issue? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No they are not blanking them. They are replacing the discrete text with a templated box that says substantially the same thing. Where is the problem in that? 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: The templated box says the same thing as the DS notice with the long text. It's just cleaned up that's all. I compared versions prior to and after their change and there is no difference. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: I did not remove the discretionary sanctions notices; I just replaced substituted copies of the templates with the original template to make it clearer why the sanctions were in effect. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had a look at those as well. On the article talk pages, the notices are either substantially the same (but having the templated box rather than a wiki constructed box) or he has corrected a malformed box as here. AFAICT: Vahurzpu has done nothing likely to be of interest here. Unless anyone can post a diff that I have missed (I didn't look at them all, only a sample). 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I also cannot find anywhere where this has been taken up with the reported user prior to being brought here. 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: I've reverted you at Talk:Answers in Genesis, as the editor added the correct DS notice, replacing one that gave no clue as to what Arb case was involved. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I see what is going on, sorry about the false report, when I checked the diff it just looked like the editor had simply removed the notice. I'll try to be more careful in future. Can someone close this as filed in error? - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joanne Pransky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Joanne Pransky
• RobotDaneellives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would an admin please have a look at Talk:Joanne Pransky#After feedback, I am trying to improve the page. I found a JoannePransky.com page that appears to be an official page. The other page is Robot.md. ? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bishonen (as I see has already warned the affected user, who I am about to notify). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I indicated yesterday that I have no faith in this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

IMO the editor should be cbanned or just indefinitely blocked (and in this case when I say indefinite I do actually mean probably never should be allowed back). After weeks of pushing about how she has no degree [97] and isn't a real scientist [98] etc then 1 day or 2 ago someone registers joannepransky.com [99] which says she's a self proclaimed expert, has no degree etc, and of course RobotDaneellives soon "finds" it and posts about it? And comparing https://robot.md which looks like it really belongs to the subject and that dodgy site, the differences are stark. WP:DUCK, it's obvious what happened here and this isn't someone we want anywhere near Wikipedia especially not BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen indefed for WP:NOTHERE [100], I think we're done here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor likely trolling

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

This IP is either trolling or very incompetent (I strongly suspect the former). I brought this here rather than WP:AIV because they have some legitimate-looking edits, but the following exchange is so egregious that some sort of administrator action is needed.

• [101] - false edit summary
• [102] - reverts my fix and doubles down on their false description
• [103] - removes WP:Short description with false edit summary and is highly uncivil
• [104] - posts on my talk page that I don't know what a short description is, when it is them who is pointlessly removing it
• [105] - mocks me in reply to my warning of them about personal attacks
• [106] - attacks me, rest of reply shows they do not understand the issue
• [107] - claims my edit made no sense since I said theirs made no sense

Something needs to be done. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a block-evading sock puppeteer. Hard blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor removing images from articles

An editor keeps removing images from the articles Daria and The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode) without giving a reason. This has been going on since August 25. They keep coming back to those articles with slightly different IP addresses to remove the images.

• 2600:1007:B026:740B:33D9:E8C2:23DD:FBB (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2600:1007:b0a9:f52a:d3c3:d0df:7:9944 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2601:407:8681:5EF0:353B:4FFD:B69F:A77B (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2601:407:8681:5EF0:784A:C271:4A29:31B0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2601:407:8681:5EF0:CDA:ED42:BFBC:E87F (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2601:407:8681:5ef0:7de7:e984:ea53:687e (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

I've tried to discuss the change with the IP on Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)#Image removal, but I've had no luck. They've been given multiple warnings now. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected both pages for two weeks. You can use WP:RFPP to apply for another round of protection if the problem persists once the protection expires.— Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Category IP

This IP has been blocked before for disruptive editing with regard to categories. Will editors here take a look at the IP's latest edits and see if there is any reason to be concerned about them? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about "concern", Flyer, but I did block them for that disruption, yes--thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified threats by blocked editor

Temporarily-blocked editor User:Ben Preston OHLA has just threatened editor User:Yamla in these edits: [108] Captain Calm (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not worried, but I'll follow WP:EMERGENCY. I'll take the liberty of revoking talk page access; any administrator is free to override my action here, of course. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Abuses by user:Amitakhya Phukan Chaipau

Amitakhya Phukan Chaipau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) is mimicking my username and vandalizing various articles ([109] and talk pages [110]. This could be related to the global block of a sock Hachengsa (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who vandalized my page on as.wikipedia.ord [111]. Chaipau (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked, TPA revoked due to an abusive unblock request, revdel applied. Further work may be needed including possibly revdel of the username in edit histories. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I had reverted the edit on my talk page, so the source text is still visible in the diff. This also needs a revdel. Same in User talk:Msasag. –Austronesier (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Got those for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this also needs a revdel: [112]. Chaipau (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MujeebMalikPK

MujeebMalikPK keeps disregarding TP messages and recreating pages, sometimes slightly changing the name. Some have been CSDed, others redirected. Shabqadar MC-3 is back now. It doesn't appear that anyone has looked at the overall pattern. MB 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/Mujeeb1715, blocked a few weeks ago for nearly identical edits. Captain Calm (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed socking. I'll go through and clean up what I can.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that MujeebMalik17 might well be the same editor. I've looked for a relevant WP:SPI but haven't been able to find one. Have I overlooked something? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ThatMontrealIP

The above editor has been bullying and intimidating me in edit summaries of Cherryl Fountain, on Talk:Cherryl Fountain and on the talk page of User:Valereee. Please help. I could cope if it stopped. But it doesn't. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any bullying. Please link to a diff. From perusing the different areas provided - their behavior and summaries looks constructive. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: I am truly sorry if my comments have upset you. I could have been more diplomatic, but I don't think any of my comment are bullying. I would encourage you to stop calling me a bully all over the wiki, and also to perhaps take constructive comments less personally. It's not personal. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• The comments aren't bullying, don't constitute harassment, they seem entirely descriptive of editing issues, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes people can come across as terse but it doesn't necessarily imply malice. I'd honestly suggest just taking the criticism on board and continuing, nobody's infallible. SITH (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's no bullying or intimidation at all here, but just discussion of Wikipedia edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For example, I published the article Cherryl Fountain and 35 minutes later the editor in question fixed its talk page with wikiproject banners, and used that as occasion to reprimand me for not doing it first. As it happened I was fixing the What Links Here aspect of the new article first. Is there a rule saying that I must fix the talk page with wikiproject banners within 35 minutes otherwise it's an offence? (there is no diff for that because it's two different pages).

The editor in question said that I made up some theory about specific Wikimedia Commons images influencing the artist Cherryl Fountain to create particular paintings in response, which is nonsense. I put the pictures there to show the background context for the art and the artist, because most readers haven't been to Sheldwich and Badlesmere in Kent, England to see it for themselves. But due to that misunderstanding by the editor concerned, I was accused of making things up and OR. That is offensive. If the misunderstanding had been explained to me, I could have re-written and clarified the section with the pictures, or I could have removed it myself, and all would have been peaceful. It was the approach and accusations which were bullying and unnecessary.

Re "constructive comments": it is not constructive to fill in the talk page within 35 mins of publication, before the article creator has had time to do so, and then accuse the article creator of causing problems and suggesting AFC on those grounds. That is inappropriate, it is not constructive. It is intimidating, unnecessary, and therefore bullying.

Re being "personal": It is personal, because the editor concerned kept using the word "you." I kept asking them not to talk to me, hoping to end the conversation, but they kept replying with more issues, such as pretending that I was trying to ban them from the article talk page. Of course I was not trying to ban them from the talk page - I was asking them not to talk specifically to me. The only way to end issues with bullies is to end the conversation. I have tried to end the conversation but it won't go away.

I am not arguing about edits that the editor concerned made to the article. You can see that by the way that I dealt with it by saving any removed elements of the article on the talk page, while carefully explaining the value of those reclaimed sections. My distress is caused by the accusations and insults, and the belittling of the (female) biographical subject. Example of belittling - the editor in question complained that it was not an achievement for the artist to have had work accepted for the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition over 28 different exhibition years, yet if you look at the listing you'll see that that only the minority of artists have achieved that. Storye book (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, cut your losses. Wm335td (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the tone and the content of some of ThatMontrealIP's comments, such as "First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort." Since when are any of these things mandatory for articles? Where is the basis for this statement in policies and guidelines, ThatMontrealIP? Where does the documentation for the autopatrolled right say any of that? So, I will disagree with several of the comments above by other editors. I consider ThatMontrealIP's comments to be inimidating, needlessly aggressive and not based in policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with Cullen on this and go further. While I have tagged many articles for Wikiprojects, there is a reasonable view that it is up to the WikiProjects that are active to tag articles for their Wikiproject. In this case it seems that Storye book agrees with tagging for WikiProjects, they just didn't do so in the first 35 minutes - not something they should be criticised for. As for not rating the article they contributed, is it ever OK for an editor to put a rating on an article that they have significantly edited? Surely we expect editors to let an uninvolved editor rate an article that they have written? I'm sure I have never rated any article that I have started. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I agree with you both. TMIP, autopatrolled doesn't mean "Creates perfect articles from scratch." Why in the world would you start heavily editing an article while the creator is still editing it? Your assertion at the article talk that Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort is both rude and incorrect. I move drafts to article space as soon as I'm convinced the subject is indeed notable and then continue to work on them in article space. It often takes me hours and sometimes days to realize I've neglected to insert default sort and auth control or that, oops, didn't add X wikiproject. And as for large removals, give the creator a chance to get the article where they want it, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I already retracted those comments yesterday. See below. I did not notice this was a new article when I saw it. it was very well developed, as it was two weeks old by the time I came to it. See here for the cut and paste move.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: as I said above I could have been more diplomatic in how I phrased things. The autopatrolled jumped out when I checked out the editor (I have the gadget installed that shows editor permissions when you roll over their name). This article was chock full of the errors mentioned above, and there was a section called "Some rural influences" which was something Storye Brook created from images of Kent found on Commons. That was WP:OR. I also had the sense that the importance of the article subject was being puffed up. Since then, another editor just tagged some claims for primary sourcing and failed verification on two claims, and yet another editor removed a section that was apparently synthesis. There are other items that I mentioned to them on the talk page that, together with the above, make me wonder about the editing being done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, the problem is that the things that you call "errors" are not errors and not required, so when you berate an editor for non-existent errors, you have stepped over a line. You should withdraw the incorrect accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, I am so glad you are an admin. ThatMontrealIP, I think it is a good idea to listen to Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328. Thank you for this. It is all to often that when attempting to rebuff bullying behaviour, one is told to "cut your losses." But I think the main problem is that when people intimidate online, they fail to realise that intimidation online can frequently cause the recipient to either just give up or to turn the problem inwards and consider suicide. Online intimidation cannot be resolved by either denial of intimidation by bullies, or by supporters of bullies saying "cut your losses." I have been editing for Wikipedia for 15 years. I have uploaded over 14,000 images to Commons. Like a lot of other dedicated WP editors I pay my own expenses for research, for travel to research or photoshoot sites and so on. I don't expect anything in return, apart from politeness. Is that really too much to ask? Storye book (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: Sure, I formally and sincerely withdraw the accusation that not having wikiprojects, the talk page, authority control and default sort on a new page is an "error". My claim was not supported by policy. However I would like to point out that it is a reasonable thing to wonder why an editor might be autopatrolled when there are things like WP:OR in an article, which is required not to be there by policy for autopatrolled users. Four editors have made significant edits to the article since it was published, meaning there were some problems to be corrected. I looked at SB's other article creations, and they all looked good. It's strange that this one had so many problems (in my view). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, since "wondering" is a mental process invisible to others, you can wonder whatever you want. But when you assemble a bunch of false assertions and use those to impugn the work of another editor, calling into question their suitability for the autopatrolled right, then you have gone beyond simple wondering to the edge of harassment. I encourage to to rethink your approach to interaction with your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: I'll certainly follow your advice. Note also that I was not the only editor to claim to have found OR in the article: another editor found WP:SYNTHESIS in the article a little later. This is not expected to be something one would find in new articles by users with the autopatrolled right, per the autopatrolled policy. That is a valid concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen this happen before when intimidating tactics haven't worked, and the editors concerned attempt to shorten or weaken the article with the intention of deleting it instead. They are doing this now on the article talk page under the subheading Sourcing. I would like to see the article protected now. What happens is that if you remove enough of the article it no longer makes sense or hangs together. If you remove the sentence about the artist's father and the shooting, the patronage no longer makes sense, and neither does the artist's work, which is full of pheasants and so on. A lot of that material is context. They have removed the links to the pictures from the External links section, so you can no longer see the artist's work with the farm produce, pheasants and so on. I think the page should be reverted to its original condition, then re-edited by a neutral editor (preferably an administrator), because the current editing is no longer about improving the article, if it ever was. This same thing happened with a previous female biography that I created, and it was very fortunate that an administrator came in and called a halt to the editing. The admin then edited the article and it has remained stable since then. Storye book (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: The section you mentioned was about notability. Someone suggested the topic was not notable. I replied that the topic is likely notable, because they are in two museum collections. I went and found the sourcing for the second collection, pretty much guaranteeing that the article will be kept.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"not having wikiprojects... on a new page is an "error"." Articles with no WikiProjects do not get rated, they are difficult to locate, and may lack input from editors with interest in their subject matter. Adding WikiProjects yourself was a good idea, ThatMontrealIP. But accusing the article's creator for neglecting to add them is not a sign of civility, and doing so less than an hour following its creation is unreasonable. The article was still under construction. If you want to help out with a new article, do so without starting a needless fight. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Re my previous comments about non-constructive editing, I am concerned about the removal of mentions of the artist's work on the grounds that the works are described as works and not as exhibitions. Regarding notability, WP:BIO says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This requirement for notability has been met. But there is more to a biography than just notability. (For example, in the Winston Churchill biography, the article has not been pruned of everything that is not strictly necessary for notability. A sentence about his "black dog" depression is still there, for instance. But it is there for context.) All biographies need some sort of context that relates to the subject. To get a rounded picture of an artist's work, you need to read all about as many of their works as possible. However the editor in question has attempted to remove mention of a lot of works by Fountain which are not in exhibitions, and (oddly) a lot of works which were in an important exhibition. None of this is constructive. I ask again that the page be protected, reverted back to its original condition, and re-edited by a neutral editor, preferably an administrator. Thank you. Don't forget that the living subjects of these biographies are reading this stuff, and probably wondering what is happening when so many of their works are deleted when they have been properly referenced and are genuine. Storye book (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: Now you are really just talking about a content problem, which does not belong here. As I said above the notability is not in question; they are in two museum collections. Several other editors have been over the page and showed no problems with my edits. I think we're done here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, and you need to make your case on the article talk page, and build consensus there. Disagreement about content does not justify full protection of an article. Administrators are not "super editors" and have no more power or authority regarding content than anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll just mention that I have restored the longish section at Talk:Cherryl Fountain, containing posts from 26 and 27 September, that Storye book archived on 28 September. I don't know why they did that, and there is no explanation in the edit summary.[113] Storye book, you can archive your own talkpage whenever you like, but archiving article talkpage discussions that are just a couple of days old is not a good idea. Archiving is for moving old, no longer current, stuff from the talkpage; it's not for putting up-to-date discussions out of sight. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, their explanation, made on Valereee's talk page, is that they contained BLP violations. However all I can see is discussion of the painter's notability in Wikipedia terms. I don't see how that can possibly be off-limits for discussion on a talk page.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I announced my reasons for archiving on the talk page (Why the rush? section), before doing so. After archiving, I announced that I had done it on the same talk page. The BLP tag at the top of the talk page says that if there is contentious and unsourced material about a living subject of the biography in the article or on the talk page, then we must delete it. I did a gentler thing by archiving it. But would you rather that I followed the BLP tag instructions and deleted the contentious comments instead? The talk page is for improving the article. That does not include judging the work of the artist, or judging the artist herself. Expressions like "run of the mill artist" are judgmental and there is no citation for that, anyway. There are other examples of contentious judgments there, if you want a list. Storye book (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I should add that the above resumption of this conversation is about editing (specifically archiving), which I believe should be continued elsewhere. May I suggest that if anyone has more to say, it is continued on the article talk page? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wrote up an answer for this page, so I'll post it here. An explanation anywhere other than in the edit summary is kind of useless IMO, Storye book. People who see your removal, with the single word "Archived" as explanation, ought not to be expected to read through the talkpage looking for the reason. But I'm glad to now understand why you did it. I don't think those are BLP vios, but of course, as you say, they wouldn't be any fun for the subject to read. It's hardly fair to others, though, especially ThatMontrealIP, to unilaterally archive their recent text. If I were you, I would ask on the talkpage if it was all right — you know, "Does anybody mind if if I archive section such-and-such?" Preferably in a separate, clearly headed section, rather than as part of a long post in a mysteriously headed section ("Why the rush?"). Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

I've just answered SB also on my talk, where I've encouraged them to communicate. I agree that the comments don't rise to the level of libel, but they certainly could be hurtful to a human being, and it might be kinder to archive them if that discussion is complete, but it's also better to communicate your reasoning clearly. —valereee (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible widespread birthplace vandalism

• Special:Contributions/140.213.2.27/24

I happened to see a recent unsourced addition of a birthplace to an infobox from this IP (not supported in the article), and then checked the contribs from the associated /24, and I see lots and lots and lots of unsourced additions of birthplaces. I have no idea if any of the changes are accurate or not, but they're certainly unsourced. I also haven't checked any wider of a range than /24. Extra help/eyes in examining this would be immensely appreciated, as would any suggestions in case this is determined to be a problem. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have checked out some of the IP's edits and they are outrageous. For example: Carmelo Garcia is a New Jersey legislator and the only mention of a birthplace within the article is "Garcia was born in 1975 and lived in Hoboken his entire life." but the IP placed the birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. I have currently checked twenty edits and all of them are without sourcing. - Jon698 talk 2:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also edits by 140.213.5.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and similar ranges. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled back a bunch of changes going back to early August. I didn't check edits that weren't shown as "current". Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Extreme racist and offensive attacks on Chinese women and people.

BLANTANT RACISM AGAINST CHINESE

Bablos939 have been warned of his behaviours by any editors previously because of his edits against Chinese women and Chinese men

User talk:Bablos939 Despite several warnings and reports he continues to be offensive to Chinese.

Extreme racism and offensive insults against Chinese women, in a aggressive manner. Under his own talk page ( at the bottom ) someone wrote a message of peace to him and he wrote extremely offensive things towards Chinese women and Chinese people It's under his talk page User talk:Bablos939

He wrote this in 11:24, 17 June 2020 User_talk:Bablos939 ( is right underneath at the bottom, I also removed many of his fake links that he added with exaggerations that get's in the way of readin)

I was fed up with your madness, so I looked for the cause. Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. Mongolians owned most of the Chinese women. "

And wrote it again recently just 2 days ago in 10:31, 29 September 2020 ( He made it more offensive ) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage&diff=980938562&oldid=980920514

Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. htMongolians owned most of the Chinese women. Maybe you are jealous of Mongolia, Korea ,Arab for this reason. but I have no interest in Korea or Mongolia that you hate. I'm not interested in your fight. If you have any objections, go to the Chinese media or the Korean people and complain. Don't disturb the debate "

FALSELY ACCUSING ALL EDITORS WITH OPPOSITION TO HIM

He had falsely accused many wikipedia editors for having a opposing opinion to him. Accusing editors with no evidence and had been warned of not providing accurate evidence. A sockpuppet investigation had already been made previously but he accuses all of themhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive and had been warned.

41.34.93.140, 102.44.199.16, 41.232.35.139, Bamnamu, Shinoshijak 70.77.154.228 , that Bablos939 had falsely accused repeatdly. My own opinion at least half of them recieved the same message I did or learned it through, this is my own speculation. But all of them were checked and found to be unrelated with eachother but that doesn't stop Bablos939 from accusing everyone as a sock by making false claims and lies on all of them. Bablos939 completely abuse his wikipedia authority, over-exceeding, repeateadly SPAMMING the same repeteaded accusations to a total of 6 admin editors or people in charge.

User talk:Dmartin969 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartin969&diff=962664818&oldid=961763647 )

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 )

User talk:Yamla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=960504938 )

User talk:Mz7 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7&diff=prev&oldid=960332846 )

User talk:Netoholic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=prev&oldid=962848475 )

User talk:John B123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_B123&diff=prev&oldid=960357945 )

Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782

He was previously warned in ISP but ignores it anyway ( Roysmith replied to Bablos939 twice all at the bottom ) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive

Vamlos (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe 'Vamlos' is 'Buzinezzs doll.[[114]] He's using an external website to blackmail me.[[115]] He repeatedly created IDs to attack me and talk page. He repeats his comments about Korea on a topic that has nothing to do with it. He repeats over and over again.......[[116]] Users who participated in the debate is at the point of getting sick.....Bablos939 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Silence all of these kids for a week. And then add a 24h block each time any of them dares to use weasel words to describe a quantity, e.g. "many", "numerous", "perhaps hundreds of thousands", "most", and so on. Give precise values, each of them backed by a quotation, or stay silent. In the same vein, add a 24h block each time any of them dares to provide a non-working reference. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 points to the replacement of "casualty" by "Emergency Department" made by User:Dekimasu in the Murder of Victoria Climbié article. Work harder, or keep away. Pldx1 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Albertheditor and User:SevenSpheresCelestia

Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry from User:Albertheditor

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention 'sockpuppet' at any time. I just had the founded suspicion that you were using 2 accounts, which, as I later added, it's allowed by Wikipedia: Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what's mentioned at the above link, he keeps removing the ANI notice from his talk page. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what he's trying to do on his talk page now.... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)​ What Albertheditor seems to be doing is blanking their user talk page which is what they're allowed to do per WP:BLANKING. You notified them of this discussion as your required to do; so, please don't do this again because it won't help resolve the other issues you seem to be having with this editor. When an editor removes a notice, it's going to be assumed that they've read the notice; you shouldn't keep re-adding it if they remove it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I do note that they tried to add the semi protect tag on their page on the misguided notion that that would semi protect their page. Which would not work anyway since only admins can apply semi (a fact that they seem to have realised) and semi only works against IP and non-autoconfirmed accounts anyway. On the substance of the complaint, accusing editors of socking better be backed by evidence. Suggest that Albertheditor be warned about this. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on Talk:Proxima Centauri c and what happened at Proxima Centauri c, there is no disruptive editing, and the WP:BRD process is being followed. Please talk to each other nicely on the exoplanet talk page, and sign your comments, and assume good faith. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I think SevenSperesCelestia misunderstood me, because I never said he was a suckpuppet, and I actually told him that it is right to have several accounts (I have strong evidence that he is using several accounts - ConnallES and Ardenau4). With respect to the Proxima c editings, we have different opinions on one of the edits (he claims 1 source can confirm an exoplanet and I claim that at least 2 sources should do it, especially when all the others say in their titles that the exoplanet at hand is a candidate so far), that's why I suggested him to stop reverting my edits before consensus is reached on the TalkPage with more old editors (I believe he is using several accounts, which is allowed). Thankfully, a moderator intervened in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Proxima_c_isn%27t_confirmed agreeing with me. However, I'm forced to now report him below due to different disruptive editings from his part.

”(I have strong evidence that he is using several accounts - ConnallES and Ardenau4).” Show it. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

”Thankfully, a moderator intervened in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy agreeing with me.” ChiZeroOne didn’t say anything about the sockpuppet (or multiple accounts, if you insist) accusation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from SevenSpheresCelestia

After several warnings to the user SevenSpheresCelestia , I'm forced to report his behaviour to the administrators. This user keeps disrupting the same editings without reaching consensus in the TalkPages. For example I indicated this article Proxima Centauri c as a stub (instead of a start-class as he himself classified the article he made) and he keeps reverting the edit without achieving consensus in the TalkPage (I think he might not know that a stub is just an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, which is just an encouragement to expand the article - I believe it would be better if the article isn't classified until consensus is reached in the TalkPage). He also keeps reverting the unconfirmed status of Proxima c after consensus was achieved here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Proxima c isn't confirmed

He isn't actively participating in the TalkPage discussions, and instead of waiting for other old users to reach consensus, he is just reverting edits, (which is something not polite to do it seconds after I make them and say why I made them). He did the same in my Talkpage; he kept editing it again and again showing the same ANI notice, and I'm glad an administrator asked him (in his own ANI against me, above) to not do it again. In other TalkPages he is also asking to delete several pages made by other people including me (we work hard on searching for new articles and creating them). I know he is allowed to suggest deletions, but what I want to point out is that he seems to show little respect for other's work except the few pages created by him.

I haven't had any problem with any other user. He is new in Wikipedia, and given his behaviour after several warnings, I would like to kindly suggest to warn him for the last time and reverse his disruptive editings (I believe consensus should be reached in the TalkPage by old users - because I think he also uses accounts under the name of ConnallES and Ardenau4). I honestly don't want to spend more of my time with that type of people, it takes me time from working on existing and new pages. I won't check any further replies from his part here or anywhere, so my apologies that I don't further reply him. Thank you for your time. Regards. (Unsigned comment from user Albertheditor (talk · contribs))

”For example I indicated this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_c as a stub and he keeps reverting the edit without achieving consensus in the TalkPage (I think he might not know that a stub is just an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, which is just an encouragement to expand the article).” The talk page indicates the article is Start-class, if you think it’s a stub you need to get consensus from WP:AST.

”He did the same in my Talkpage; he kept editing it again and again showing the same ANI notice, and I'm glad an administrator asked him (in his own ANI against me, above) to not do it again.” In this case I assumed you weren’t allowed to remove the ANI notice, which was incorrect.

”In other pages he is also asking to delete several pages made by other people including me (we work hard on searching for new articles and creating them).” A merge is not a deletion.

”He is new in Wikipedia”: Nope, I’ve had an account here since February.

”(I believe consensus should be reached in the TalkPage by old users - because I think he also uses accounts under the name of ConnallES and Ardenau4).” See the above section. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

”He also keeps reverting the unconfirmed status of Proxima c after consensus was achieved here:” Do you know what “consensus” means? Only one other user has commented, and didn’t explicitly agree with either side of the argument. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: now he is editing the own text I wrote in a TalkPage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proxima_Centauri_c&action=history 13:57 and 14:00 I believe this is totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

“Update: now he is editing the own text I wrote in a TalkPage:” Alright, question: are we allowed to edit talk page section headers written by other people? Albertheditor claims we’re not. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

On that last thing, see WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Second update: I'm asking for semi-protection of a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proxima_Centauri_c&action=history) and he keeps deleting my request again and again so a moderator doesn't see it. As far as I'm concerned, he isn't allowed to do that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are vandalizing the article. The message requesting page protection does not belong on the article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Albertheditor, requests for page protection should be placed at the request for page protection noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't aware of that. I will ask for page semi-protection because he has been disrupting my edits without justification and even changing my own text I wrote in TalkPages, which is totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

”[...]and even changing my own text I wrote in TalkPage, which is totally unacceptable.” See WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I read it: Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. Stop your behaviour. I will mute you right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Break

The edit warring didn't stop on its own, leading to an RPP request, which I handled by partially blocking both of them from that article for 24 hours. @SevenSpheresCelestia: Users are allowed to remove ANI notices (and most other notices) from their own talk pages. Don't put them back afterwards. @Albertheditor: If you have evidence that a user is a sockpuppet, then open a report at WP:SPI that includes said evidence. If you don't, then don't make the accusation. Both of you: Discuss your dispute on the article's talk page. If you start edit warring again when your blocks expire, you'll be blocked again. And don't accuse each other of vandalism for edits that you just happen to disagree with. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

”Users are allowed to remove ANI notices (and most other notices) from their own talk pages. Don't put them back afterwards.” As I’ve already said several times, I do understand this but assumed at the time that ANI notices were an exception to that rule.

”And don't accuse each other of vandalism for edits that you just happen to disagree with.” Just to note, the only time I accused Albertheditor of vandalism was when he put a request for page protection on the actual Proxima c article, which definitely is vandalism. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@SevenSpheresCelestia: when he put a request for page protection on the actual Proxima c article, which definitely is vandalism No, accidentally misplacing an RPP request isn't vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

This bot's edit male the cusabo article false — Preceding unsigned comment added by CusaboEmpress (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@CusaboEmpress: No, it's working correctly. Articles don't use "I" in them. Imagine reading any other article and seeing someone's personal notes there. Doesn't make sense for a collaborative summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, right? We don't use original research or personal claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually "we" and "this person" [117], the "I" [118] only came after the OPs complaint and wasn't reverted by Cluebot, but same point. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand the question, nor the answer. This could be one of the reasons why I am unable to provide a meaningful comment. Pldx1 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The context is, this is a WP:SPA who is trying to edit the article to reflect their personal POV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox says 'extinct'. One source says 'practically exterminated by Spanish slavers' and thereafter, circa 1715, 'utterly extirpated' by the Yamasee War. This is not the same. But infoboxen aren't supposed to care about sources, are they? This is orthogonal to the fact that the sentence "I am a Cusabo" contains the word "I", as robotically detected by a robot. And also to the fact that such a sentence can't be used as a proof of anything: who is "I" ? Yet another kid "playing the WP game", or someone who could/should/maybe gain credibility by writing and publishing in the real world ? Hint: 1715-2020, this is rather a large gap. Pldx1 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note as I said above, "I am a Cusabo" is not the sentence that was reverted by Cluebot. What the bot reverted said "the person making this edit" [119] and other things but never said "I" not even in the edit summary. This had been an ongoing problem [120] [121] [122] but AFAICT, "I am a Cusabo" was never used in any of them nor was Cluebot or any bot, involved in those earlier reversals although the Huggle script was used. The closest was "Cusabo are NOT extinct as I, my family, and thousands of other misnomered" in an edit summary. The "I AM Cusabo" did come later in a single edit after this thread had been started, but AFAICT was not reverted by a bot or even any identified user script [123]. Huggle was used later, I'm not sure if it detects such things but in any case the "I am" bit was also not in that edit [124], nor in the next edit where again it doesn't look like a script was used [125]. If Cluebot is making changes based on predictions of what the IP editor is going to do under an account in a future edit, it's a lot more sophisticated than I thought. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Anger0104

The user keeps removing sourced content from the article Tia Dalma. --HPfan4 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know what content you thought was unsourced, but their removal of that "her personality is flirtatious" was fine: that kind of writing should not be in an encyclopedic article. Nevertheless I blocked them for disruption and edit warring--their second block for edit warring, I should note. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• BTW they provided an edit summary in this edit, their second time; you had reverted the first time without an explanation in the edit summary or on the editor's talk page. And an IP, possibly the same user, also provided an explanation. You should have done better there, and there was no need for the ensuing edit war: you could have just explained what was wrong with the edit, warned them, and reported them. And I fully agree with the idea that this whole flirtatious thing was sexist, though I don't (yet) see the racist point. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Again we have an edit war over a pretty bad article. The whole flirtatious thing didn't have to be written up in the style you usually find in lists of anime characters; one of the book sources (notes 3 and 4) actually lays that out, though it would have to be contextualized and properly ascribed, not laid down with some vague "she appears to be". The two sources in those notes actually provide enough information to write a pretty decent article which discusses the various sexualized stereotypes that her character is built on (or suffers from). And if someone had read through this they might also be tempted to add to Jack Sparrow's article, which almost completely disregards any queerness and possible gender fluidity in his character. (Was he drunk or gay? What a choice!) And JSTOR produces a full-length article on her; the article is awaiting an editor who is interested in doing the subject justice, using the appropriate sources, so we won't have yet another article on a fictional character full of plot summary, original research, and trivialities: Samuel, Kameelah Martin (2012). "Disney's Tia Dalma: A Critical Interrogation of an "Imagineered" Priestess". Black Women, Gender + Families. 6 (1): 97–122.. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks: accusations of racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nfitz has repeatedly slandered me with personal attacks that I am a racist. Nfitz unfairly suggested that I "harbour anti-Muslim racism." When I respectfully asked them to remove that personal attack, they escalated their claims, saying that I would have to be "very racist" to say what I said and added the edit summary "we need to ban racists". Per WP:No personal attacks, "Serious accusations require serious evidence". I would appreciate if they removed their claims. Editing Scapegoat (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is some precocious editing, and you are taking things slightly out of context.

The first post, Nfitz is getting way too close to the line, wasn't the best place to bring it up, and they should have linked a WP:DIFF when they said it. But is a post that in essence says "hey, another post recycles a talking point used by racists" actually a personal attack? I don't think so.

The second post is well out of context but a sign that both of y'all are failing to assume good faith.

If you do not harbor any Islamophobic or racist attitudes, you need to understand where Nfitz is coming from instead of feeling threatened by them. Racists do abuse the "Islam isn't a race" technicality to hide racism that happens to coincide with cultures with significant Muslim populations (which is why Sikhs and other Indians were attacked by racists after 9/11 -- they were brown and that was all that mattered).

That said, while I see where Nfitz is coming from, I think they needed more evidence, I think they brought it up at the wrong time/place, I think they phrased it poorly, and I think they needed to link to the post(s) that worried them.

Best thing to do here would be for you and Nfitz to back down and understand that both of you did say stupid things. Nothing actionable here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't call Niftz anything. I just said that discrimination towards Muslims was not racism. Many Muslims are black, or white, or brown. It is a univesalizing creed. All I said was that discrimination towards Muslims on account of their religion is Islamophobia. Niftz called me racist for that. To place it in another light: If Niftz has said that China is socialist rather than Communist, and I had called him a Communist, would I get away with that? No. I haven't done any name calling towards Niftz. All I want is for them to remove those hurtful accusations.Scapegoat (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the good faith interpretation of "racist" would be. Should I assume that they actually meant that I was "Mr. Rogers"? Scapegoat (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And now you're misrepresenting what I've said, which is not going to make you look good. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I am of the opinion that scapegoat's username is not being particularly helpful here; I question the reasoning behind it based on their talkpage. If Scapegoat agrees, perhaps a new username might be of use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, I am not filled with confidence...first non-user space contribs are to Proud Boys talk, then Joe Biden talk, then Beau Biden...that is a very contentious set of topics to dive into straight away. Scapegoat, you may wish to stay away from controversial topics until you have a bit more experience. What sort of things are you interested in editing about, perhaps I can help point you in a good direction? Personally, I like birds and ships a lot; its good to find a niche you like working in that isn't always so controversial, and occasionally chime in on politics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Then there's the images on their talk page, which could be read as ironically accusing Jews, Muslims, and homosexuals of racism and discrimination against straight white people. Now, I wouldn't have considered that if Editing Scapegoat hadn't responded in a threatened tone when I pointed out that "Islam isn't a race" is an argument used by racists. But yeah, heading straight for the Proud Boys to downplay their bigotry, feeling threatened when anyone explains that "Islam isn't a race" is an argument used by racists, WP:PRECOCIOUSly filing this report over it, and then putting up Nazi propaganda and two neo-Nazi protest signs under a vague heading? It just doesn't look great.

@Editing Scapegoat: If you are not racist or Islamophobic, you seriously need to stop and think about how others are perceiving your actions. We're not going to ask for or expect an apology (which might be empty) but actions to demonstrate that you're capable of understanding how your actions come across (such as removing those images, withdrawing this report, and finding less contentious topics to edit). If you want to come across as yet another alt-right troll that we need to block (or at least keep an eye on until you do something blockworthy), keep misrepresenting what anyone says in an attempt to draw attention away from your words and actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. If you had actually paid attention to the diffs, you would understand that the bigotry involved in my edits, which I ultimately changed to "crime and racism", occurred almost a half century before the Proud Boys were even founded. You are misrepresenting what I say and are cherry-picking my edits. Just look at what I wrote about right-wing pundits. Positive? No. Please tone down the language. I'm really surprised to hear this reactionary language, especially from an admin. Scapegoat (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet more misrepresentation of what I'm saying, which doesn't make it look good when you whined when removing the problematic images and implied stupidity when adding userboxes advocating tolerance. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, how funny, I just watched that video for the first time yesterday... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek I've linked to it often enough that Bcliot33 (and/or his socks, don't recall) have accused me of "promoting" that very informative series. It should be required viewing for anyone going into WP:NONAZIS territory. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

oh, this is wonderful!--Jorm (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous... Scapegoat (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing Scapegoat, Which part is ridiculous? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tryna' find any good faith here.--Jorm (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Implying another editor is racist is obviously never a good thing to do. Probably should just move on and not do that again. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't imply they were racist initially. I simply, and politely, clarified that being anti-Muslim is racist, and suggested they research this further, and not repeat propaganda. I did however get firmer in my response when they continued to make such bizarre claims (which ... good grief, would mean that persecuting white European Jews wasn't actually racist, which would probably surprise those believers in a master race)!. Yes, I admit I should have been gentler and more diplomatic - but given the very brief but highly sophisticated editing history, I did fail to assume good faith. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang

Beyond the possibly (but probably not) innocuous uninformed beliefs about what is and what is not racist, I've made the following observations about this brand new, but highly sophisticated, editor.

• Editing pattern (well-formed ANI complaints, sophisticated User page. This is clearly an editor with a previous history. Can User:Editing Scapegoat disclose his previous identities on Wikipedia? Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• First edit outside of their own user space was the talk page of an article for a violent neo-fascist group linked to white-supremacists called Proud Boys questioning a quote about Muslims and racism in New York City.
• Second edit, three minutes later was false claim on the same talk page that anti-Muslim isn't racism.
• Third edit a minute later (which didn't give any time for talk page discussion) was to Proud Boys changing "escape the racism and violence of New York City" to "escape the troubles of New York City'" in what appears to be an attempt to whitewash racism. Not surprisingly, this edit was reverted a minute later.
• Fourth edit a minute later was to revert the revert. Which violates Arbcom's discretionary sanctions allowing only WP:1RR for articles relating to American politics. While one could argue that a new editor might not be aware of this - it's pretty clear that they are not a new editor. User:Editing Scapegoat should have already have been blocked for this.
• Fifth edit, 3 minutes later, was to suggest that a recent treaty negotiation that might put a well-known anti-Muslim individual, (Donald Trump), in better light be put in the lead of that article.
• Sixth edit, only yesterday, was to claim that my expression of concern after his fifth edit about his anti-Muslim editing history here was a personal attack.
• Username seems a little ... not quite what to say here ... gives me the feeling they have an ax to grind.

A very odd pattern of editing for a new user. I fear a CheckUser would find that this user has used other accounts and IPs. At the same time, to make an ANI complaint, after repeating racist propaganda, does suggest that perhaps it's not so much that they are racist, but are under the influence of systemic racism - as it's possible that they aren't actually thinking that they are racist! Which I have heard does actually happens in some less developed places. I'd suggest banning them for the blatant 1RR violation for a week or so, and see if attitude improves. At the same time, I do need to remember to remain 100% civil even with those who appear to be making racist comments - for it's possible that they don't understand that what they are saying is racist. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation

I made the mistake of accidentally only reviewing the above subsection rather than the entire thread, and so, I wrote the following (again, about that subsection and its evidence only):

Having looked at those diffs, I do not believe they warrant sanctions to Editing Scapegoat. Possibly a warning. But Nfitz' accusation that Editing Scapegoat "harbour[s] anti-Muslim racism" is a personal attack of exceptional severity. There will only be one warning about these types of attacks, and this is it. Also, the article is not currently subject to 1RR — only in potential. Anyway, from a cursory impression, it looks like the sort of changes Editing Scapegoat has been advancing are unlikely to end up enjoying consensus. But (and maybe I'm missing something), I'm just not seeing where Editing Scapegoat has crossed WP:NONAZI lines and the sort. El_C 05:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Significantly, my warning to Nfitz stands. But I am also seeing some serious concerns about Editing Scapegoat's focus and direction in the opening section. A topic ban from American politics for a few months could bring some well-needed stability. I am prepared to impose such a topic ban as a discretionary sanction, but before doing so, would welcome any input. El_C 05:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that User:El_C that I didn't accuse them of anti-Muslim racism. I expressed concern that may be the case. But also note that even after being politely told otherwise, they then insisted on the undeniably racist claim that being anti-Muslim isn't racist! Whether that be out of racism or ignorance I don't know. That's a very clear black-and-white line, and I think expressing concern is the only responsible action. I fully admit though, I could have been gentler ... but in this day and age, I have littler tolerance for ignorance on this issue ... particularly with something suspicious going on here, with such competent editing, in such a hugely controversial area, without any disclosure of previous editing history. But I admit that racism (unintentional or not) does very much trigger me ... which is why I tend to avoid the subject ... and why my editing on that page was mostly about soccer! I'm not sure how 1RR doesn't apply ... but I avoid the topic of foreign politics mostly, so that's presumably ignorance on my part. Is a notification on each page required to trigger the sanction? Nfitz (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse them of anti-Muslim racism. I expressed concern that may be the case — I thinks that distinction is a bit of a play on semantics, Nfitz, which does not lessen the potency of the attack. As for 1RR, yes, there does need to be an edit notice noting it is in effect attached to the article itself as a prerequisite to any enforcement. El_C 06:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• In regard to the subsection above, Proud Boys was the most viewed article in the day after the debate. This means we should also expect new editors to show up there and in related articles. DS does not have exemptions or allow assumptions to be made on knowledge, and surprising levels of knowledge for a new editor have specifically been stated not to be sufficient grounds for a CU-check. Do I find them concerning, somewhat, but I don't think that subsection alone reaches sanctionable levels. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion I am sincerely sorry for any pain that may have been caused. I condem all forms of discrimination and will no longer edit Wikipedia. Scapegoat (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This was just closed by Editing Scapegoat, on the grounds that they had retired. I have undone that, with the addendum that I have blocked them for being WP:NOTHERE. Should they unretire, they can appeal their block, but this whole thing does not sit right with me, and I do not believe they should go back to editing without first explaining that they understand how to be a harmonious editor, and perhaps an AP2 topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, it looks like you blocked and then unblocked the account. I don't want this complaint archived with the final words being that the editor was blocked when they actually retired. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, I should have left an addendum here. I have unblocked them so they may retire in peace. Should they come back, we can deal with them at a future date. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:HistoryOfTheMiddleEast

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

1. "since when Rawanduz was Assyrian? you are a terrorist Wario"[126]
2. "stop being a terrorist, I have provide 5 sources Hurrians were Kurds, what else do you want? you should be banned from wikipdeia, I will send an official email to them about your anti Kurdish terrorism"[127]
3. "No matter how many times you try to undo the contributions, I'll undo yours, stop the cultural genocide against Kurds"[128]
4. "The Persians over here no matter how hard you try to distort history (...) Do your best to discredit the Kurds, by hating the Kurds you will not get anything except a heart attack."

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say "HistoryOfTheMiddleEast" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The reported user may be an alternative/sleeper account of recently blocked User:Key Mîrza or User:Resource sharing because he/she writes very similar nationalistic rants like theirs. A quick checkuser would be very helpful. See this WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff too. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I also reported this editor at AN3 for edit-warring, but given their behavior, this noticeboard seems more relevant. The reported editor reverted several times three different users :

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]

Please check their edit-summaries : "you are a terrorist Mario"[133], "stop being a terrorist, I have provide 5 sources Hurrians were Kurds, what else do you want? you should be banned from wikipdeia, I will send an official email to them about your anti Kurdish terrorism"[134] and they obviously intend to keep edit-warring "No matter how many times you try to undo the contributions, I'll undo yours, stop the cultural genocide against Kurds"[135]. Sounds like a WP:NOTHERE case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You the persians are killing Kurds in Iran, you are hanging them in public, and here you are distorting the Kurdish history. You should not be allowed to misuse wikpedia to promote your Pan Iranian propaganda. You guys are TERRORISTS! you're committing a genocide against us in Iran and hre on wikipedia. you think by blocking Kurds you can change the history? I provided TEN sources that say Hurrians are Kurds and you have ZERO evidence that Sassanians were Persian yet you remove the Kurdish pages and keep the false information on the Persian wikipedia pages. I dont give a damn if you block me or not. You cant change history. you cant silence us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryOfTheMiddleEast (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To anyone see my comments:

Lousi Aragon and Wikaviani are two Persians wasting their time on the web spreading anti Kurdish hatred, and here on Wikipedia they are removing correct information on the Kurdish pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryOfTheMiddleEast (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And after THAT beautiful little rant, I've indeffed this user. Clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Followup quesstion: Who's faster -- the Hurrians or the Russians? EEng 07:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone using a slew of IPs to vandalise Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Check out this revision history, lol. I have no idea why this person has been using so many different IP addresses to make the same aggressively in-your-face stupid edit, but someone should make them stop. jp×g 09:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

JPxG, the page has been protected. For future reference, WP:RfPP is the best place to report stuff like this. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I see; ty. jp×g 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gojiej

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Almost certainly a sock of User:Ginrei & co, and, more to the point, seriously disruptive editing including vandalism by way of moving pages (see Help:Help:IPA for Japanese)). I'd say this user is WP:NOTHERE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Ginrei, so I'm not sure if they're a sock or not, but they're definitely on thin ice behaviorally: they've also removed CSD tags from pages they created, and recreated them after being deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up there messy moves, clearly WP:NOTHERE, would suggest a block. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley vandal

An IP has spent much of September vandalizing articles by adding a false writing credit to "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley tm".

Editors include

• 2600:100B:B122:3D0C:0:32:B4FA:DB01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B112:6E16:0:44:8F7D:7801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12B:D5BF:0:4B:E3ED:6801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12C:E73A:0:43:63D2:5401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles include

• Where Are You Christmas?
• Long Trip Alone
• Sugarland
• Stay (Sugarland song)
• Firecracker (song)
• Me and God
• All My Friends Say
• Long Trip Alone (song)
• Anyway (Martina McBride song)

They started back up this morning on All My Friends Say and Where Are You Christmas?. Is there anything that can be done short of watchlisting ever article hit and reverting? Helper202 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is vandalism. Looking through the articles provided it seems the IPs are trying to add information about the writer of these items... "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley". I do not know if this information belongs in the articles. I could not be bothered to look. Lightburst (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not finding evidence that this writer (ELEWP) had anything to do with the songs. But I will see if any other editors find something. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no source to show this at all anywhere. Revert if it's changed, and handle it like normal vandalism. If possibly a range block might be used as it's coming from one IPv6 range it appears, however I'm not an expert on range blocks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone has been adding that false credit to various lyric databases which are user edited. The only other mention of a person of that name is a blogspot blog and a similar facebook page where the person makes some less then credible claims about being "Katrina first responder, NASA, FEMA, ARMY,05-08. Liaison to President George W. Bush. Member of Cambridge Who's Who 09. Prayer/Pledge bill. Katrina Renaissance Village Art by eloris presley in 4 museums. Obama aid. Contract with Guinness World Record." Helper202 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate for an edit filter, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the disruption is continuing today. A filter would be great. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The vandal started up again over the past few days. I requested a range block for 2600:100B:B100:0:0:0:0:0 (talk · contribs). That will hopefully take care of the problem for a few months. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Fringe focused editor pushing COVID-19-related original research

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

• Special:Diff/974200931/981594379
• Special:Diff/981594481/981594767
• Special:Diff/981601129
• Special:Diff/981595838

This isn't the first time neutrality problems have been pointed out to the user; their talk page and diffs such as Special:Diff/733715529 and Special:Diff/907069779 seem to indicate a persistent problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, user doesn't seem willing to engage in any discourse. Article space block may be in order. They're also about to breach 3RR

Glen (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Glen; I guess we both would already have blocked them if we weren't involved. They have been reverted again, and reverted again since this discussion was started. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one week as an edit-warring block, and I've warned that they'll face Covid-19 sanctions should we see any further disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and socking

User

Freshmen160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment

This user is only here to promote non-notable musicians and repeatedly creating deleted articles under different titles and then removing speedy deletions tag using IP addresses (please see Kilo G (musician)). They appear to have copyright and undisclosed paid editing issue as well. GSS ^💬 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

+1. It's getting pretty tiresome to revert the CSD removals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. For the record, this is probably Codo2411 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created

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

The user above appears to have semi-automatically created thousands upon thousands of pages using WP:AWB in their userspace—e.g. User:Starzoner/3117, User:Starzoner/3116, User:Starzoner/3115, ... see their recent userspace contributions. According to XTools, they have created more than 32,000 pages in their userspace. I was alerted to this situation last night by DannyS712, and I provisionally revoked their AWB access pending an answer to a query about this editing, see User talk:Starzoner#Mass page creation (permalink). Their rationale was I just created some pages so that I can built off of them later. In the future, when I get to them, I can just continue where I started, instead of copy pasting content later on. As I stated on their talk page, I don't fully understand this rationale unless they intended to create a bot that could create articles, which would have certainly needed a WP:BRFA and quite possibly also an RfC before starting. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure what should be done with the 32,000+ pages, and so I could use more eyes. Should they be deleted? If so, I could use some help deleting them. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears the user has also created at least 850 articles in mainspace, most of which are one-line stubs that they indeed used WP:AWB to create, e.g. Schefflera simplex. So it seems this issue is not restricted to userspace. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  They were also massively moving categories out of process recently (manually, not via Cfd) but they stopped after they got a warning (which is still at their talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've come across similar plant stubs in NPP over time and I ask to please not try and move more plant stubs into mainspace when they are a single unreferenced sentence. Numbered stubs are an absolute waste of time. We aren't going to run out of article any time soon, so you don't have to grab them all up. (And if we do, now I know where to find some free ones.) Natureium (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Since he seemed to respond well to the warning, hopefully a firm "request" to not make new pages of any kind until his total number of "incomplete" drafts is under some reasonable number, like 20, AND that he be given an opportunity to ask for a mass-deletion of these drafts. As for the stubs he created, I'll be happy to skim a representative sample for notability. If the fast majority are notable, just leave them alone, if too many are non-notable and have no other page history, mass-deletion under WP:TNT may be the answer. If it turns out he's not willing to play by the rules after being told what they are, well, that's what AN/I is for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of their new articles are about taxons which are all notable. I do not see any issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, I should clarify that they were apologetic in response to my query, and they said they were okay with me deleting the userspace pages if I wanted to. I don't think I'm necessarily looking for any sanctions here, but rather some more eyes to see just what should be done with all these pages. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment continued: He has "page mover" user-rights, which is useful when moving drafts of notable topics, such as the taxons that Ymblanter just mentioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is my impression that Starzoner has previously experimented with an "assembly line" approach to taxon articles, which resulted in plenty of problems and about ten screens worth of comments by me and other NPPs. After some teething troubles, the current stubs are generally fine (although still in need of the odd touch-up) but that seems to be contingent on them not being stamped out from templates - whenever they fall back on that, we get inapplicable refs, deactivated cats, and replicated grammar issues. I'd really hope the take-away from that would be not to mass-produce stubs, and certainly not on that gorgeous scale. Hint, hint. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): I concur with Elmidae's comment. An example is one of the articles moved into mainspace today: Vernonia goetzenii. The species is notable and the Infobox is valid. But the botanical author should always be referenced, in this case the provided reference is fine. Also the botanical author should really be linked if applicable, in this case to Karl August Otto Hoffmann. That it's a perennial plant is not in the provided reference. For a single article these points might be nit-picking. But when we're talking about hundreds of stubs being mass-created, these small things add up. In fairness, I don't think there's a whole lot more than can be said about Vernonia goetzenii, it's a little-documented species. But I'm not sure the same can be said for all the other stubs. And from Schefflera abyssinica (originally created in February) to today, these stubs don't really seem to have evolved much beyond the "is a plant" level of detail. Declangi (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection of the IPNI entry and the supposed protologue, Vernonia goetzenii is a nomen nudum, despite appearing as "accepted" in POWO and the Global Composite Database. As such, it can (and should) be deleted for lack of notability. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the critical monograph (Kalanda & Lisowski 1995) which might explain whether the name has ever been validated or why it remains undescribed. Choess (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good catch and outweighs my "nit-picks" above. And serves as a good reminder of the value of double-checking otherwise seemingly accepted names. Declangi (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Declangi: Actually, it's not and I stand corrected. On closer inspection, a description was added in Götzen's "Durch Afrika von Ost nach West" (p. 382). IPNI seems to have split an entry in Index Kewensis that held a reference both to the nomen nudum and to its subsequent validation. Will try to add a bit of description when I get a chance. Choess (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I disagree about a total ban on mass-producing stubs. However, "you are responsible for every edit you make" should be the rule of thumb. As a general rule I would say when it comes to semi-automated edits with tools that aren't proven to be reliable nearly 100% of the time, the editor should review the edit before saving it. The same of course applies to "assembly line edits" even if done manually. In other words, I don't see any problem running a script or "manual assembly line process" that rapidly creates taxons or whatever kind of stub from a list of clearly-notable topics, where having a bunch of stubs is clearly better than having a bunch of missing pages, as long as I preview each and every one before hitting "save" and take full responsibility for each and every save. If my script is well-written and my input data is good, I should be able to crank out 100-200 stubs an hour this way without harming the encyclopedia. If it's 90% good then I'll have to stop every 10th stub and do fixups, which might slow me down significantly but it will still be faster than doing it all by hand. The problem comes when you don't preview your edits well, or at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they aren't stopping to fix those problems. On 11 August I left a note on their talk page about problems with articles they created in February. They didn't respond, and deleted it with several others (including an earlier message I'd left them about a different problem) rather than waiting for them to be archived. The problems with the articles remain. Perhaps they're waiting for someone else to fix them? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no administrative issue to address here. Having helped out with some of these userspace drafts, I think those objecting are failing to see the forest for the trees. We have an established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles. Frankly, given the number of identified species, we are absolutely going to need some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). BD2412 T 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment)(and new to ANI) They're not in correct shape, despite multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision. What's the next step after a user is unresponsive to these requests? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  The initial complaint raised here was with respect to the thousands of pages the user has created in their userspace. So long as those remain in userspace, it doesn't matter what shape they are in. BD2412 T 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  Does a new issue need to be opened to address our related concerns or can that be rolled in here? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  We can address it here, but the mainspace content issue is a much smaller set of pages. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  "multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision." What is preventing these users from performing some of these revisions themselves? Starzoner does not own the new articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  We are...but since their edits are semi-automated, it takes a lot of one-by-one effort after the fact to fix them each. Better to do it right from the outset, which is why there is are bot review processes, right? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Where is the established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles? Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. You'll find strong consensus at WP:TOL that all species merit standalone articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Hyperik! I think that line in SPECIESOUTCOMES contradicts the global consensus at WP:N that nothing is inherently notable. I see that there is consensus at TOL (apparently since 2012, when SPECIESOUTCOMES was added), but the consensus of a wikiproject is local consensus and cannot override WP:N. Just a heads up, I'm going to boldly edit SPECIESOUTCOMES to match WP:N; I expect I might be reverted, at which point I'll probably start an RFC. Lev!vich 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this why we have Wikispecies? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is, but that is a far less trafficked project than this one. We have previously established that all confirmed species are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which may be a separate discussion to undertake. BD2412 T 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe now is a good time to eliminate that issue by not accepting stubs that are nothing more than a horizontal taxobox. Send them to Wikispecies, which is the proper venue. WSp cannot hope to expand without material. Build it and they will come? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That is a whole other ball of wax. I think it's hard - you can only create Wikipedia once. I would just as soon fold Wikispecies in here. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, nothing more. It doesn't have information on the distribution of the species or about its biology. Even the stub example chosen above as a "bad" example goes beyond the scope of a Wikispecies article on the taxon name, if there was one. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

oh what should I do then? but first, what are the back door discussions where someone is telling another user to keep an eye out? Maybe I should just forget contributing to Wikipedia here and move to Wikispecies since clearly some people have issues with my contributions here. :( Starzoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Notable or not, we don't need a stand-alone page about every species. In fact, that's a pretty poor way to organize the information. Multiple species can be covered on a single page about the genus or subgenus, for example. If all we have to say on a topic is one sentence (or as Atsme says, a horizontal tax box), then there's really no reason to put it on its own page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which should have articles; it's not a database of species containing data on species (that's WikiSpecies). BTW, mass-creating pages with a script is always a bad idea, whether it's articles or portals or redirects, it just adds to the maintenance work without really adding to the encyclopedia. Even if someone reads the stub, they get almost no value from it, because it contains almost no information. It's better to create lists (e.g. lists of species in a genus) than to mass-create one-line stubs (and I wish we could come to consensus on that because there are a number of editors who mass-create stubs by the thousands). Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This right here. We have decided in the past that WP has functions of a gazetteer so that's why we have articles, if just stubs, of every gov't recognized town and village, but I have yet to see anything that says we are doing the function of WikiSpecies here. No notability guideline gives this advice, it's not WP:OUTCOMES, etc. I agree that that higher levels of the taxological classification system will have each item notable but not at the species level, not when that numbers in the millions. --Masem (t) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Species form individual entries in works such as floras and zoological monographs, which are generally structured to provide a description of the characteristics of each species and usually some information on how to distinguish it from other species within scope. I would consider such works, like many other things, a type of specialist encyclopedia; the fact that the first pillar enumerates gazetteers does not alter our charge to subsume many specialist encyclopedias, of necessity unenumerated. Choess (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE is supposed to cover. I don't think WP:OUTCOMES needs tweaking: essentially all of the stubs created in this way, by various people, would meet the GNG with a little bit of digging, and trying to refine the current wording would, I think, create as much trouble as it would solve. But these stubs as written add nothing to the encyclopedia. The rationale for doing so seems to be that replacing redlinks with stub will catalyze the creation of useful articles, but people have experimented with this for years (not just in en.WP; Lsjbot? has mass-created taxon stubs on some of the other Wikipedias) and I haven't seen compelling evidence that the existence of stubs actually accelerates the creation of articles on taxa. Furthermore, the taxonomic databases have a low, but detectable rate of errors (I carry on a more or less regular correspondence to fix them), and these mass-creation strategies propagate and perpetuate those errors. If they added value to the encyclopedia, that might be tenable, but a stub that just re-iterates the taxonomic position of a taxon adds nothing. Putting that in prose adds nothing whatsoever to what one would get from referring to the external database. It's the empty calories of content creation: makes one look very productive and generates big numbers in articles created but doesn't really add *meaning*. We've historically been reluctant to formally raise the bar on minimum viable new articles, for fear of disturbing our incremental content-creation process (although maybe AfC has sapped this), but I'd heartily encourage Starzoner and other users thinking about projects like this to read WP:NOPAGE and carefully consider whether this really helps the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Starzoner: After reading through this discussion, I think the solution for now is simply to slow down. Instead of trying to create thousands of articles at once, shoot for a much smaller number (davidwr suggested 20 above). Try to be more careful when publishing articles—it seems a number of editors have identified certain issues with the articles that you are publishing, which is concerning when you seem to be publishing so many. After reading the discussion above, I don't think there is a compelling administrative need to go through and delete all 30,000+ pages in your userspace, as long as you're carefully the drafts you are publishing to mainspace for quality. I apologize for making you feel that you're contributions are not welcome here. I do appreciate your dedication to the project; I was merely concerned by the rate at which you were doing it and whether that might lead to errors that will affect our readers. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

ok. Starzoner (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked users are appearing again to disrupt the debate.

Hi~

I previously reported a blocked user threatening me and he was blocked. [[136]]

He appears on the discussion page after he regenerates his ID and is interfering with the discussion.[[137]] His ID 'Vamlos' His claims and actions are just like his previous dolls. There's no doubt about it. He even indirectly testified to the same person as the blocked IP [[138]]

I don't want to repeat Sockpuppet investigations. He is causing too much damage to the Wikipedia.Bablos939 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To the wikipedia admins please understand that Bablos939 had been warned multiple times for wrongfully accusing many editors as sockpuppets because of opposition to his opinion

Bablos939 had been repeatedly warned before of opening SPIs by not giving evidence of any claims. He accused many accounts as sockpuppet and were proven wrong by never providing evidence. I also like to point out that many previous users knows he is a Korean and that he writes anti-Chinese edits in wikipedia.

Editor/or admin RoySmith in 13:18, 8 June 2020 said " If you have specific evidence that there's socking going on, please present it in the form of diffs, i.e. editor1 made this edit, and editor2 made that edit. Vagues assertions of socking, links to talk pages, etc, aren't useful. At this point, this is borderline disruptive because it's making a lot of work for people to process your requests." --

And I also found this, forgot to edit this too " Closing this with no action taken. I have requested that Bablos939 refrain from participating in SPI until they get more practical experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)"

Bablos939 has a history of accusing many editors withouth edvidence.

My first post to the diccussion page is that there was perharps sockpuppetry going on in casting aditional votes. And I present my evidence with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sockpuppetry#Casting_additional_votes

IP address of 116.123.12.44 shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea

IP address 220.117.225.165 also shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea ( if you search the IP with another it shows Seongnam a satellite city of Seoul )

Bablos939 also shows that he from South Korea based on the fact that he has Korean google translation.

All 3 of them shows a clear Korean link and could be casting additional votes to help eachother and I suspect they are all Bablos939. An Ip address sockpuppet investigation should be done to see if all 3 are related if this continues. Because not only are they all from South Korea , they are all basically from the same city. Vamlos (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos: how is it you know so much about Bablos939's history considering your account only started editing a few days ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've known him through several months already. People have posted his username in multiple online forums. I've recieved a message in my inbox from reddit and was provided a link to wikipedia and to other forums. I didn't interfere though since the others were handling it

FOR EXAMPLE. In these Noticeboard forums.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/

https://samreally.rocks/showthread.php?t=776742

Everything he wrote was anti-Chinese, insulting Chinese women and defaming Chinese men. Also when I first read that forum I though he had obession with Chinese women and people but in general I realize what he really hates is Chinese men. Vamlos (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Second reply to Nil Einne

I also want add 2 serious reports about Bablos939 which are extremely offensive. I want to add of these IP address and accounts. 41.34.93.140, 102.44.199.16, 41.232.35.139, Bamnamu, Shinoshijak 70.77.154.228 , that Bablos939 had falsely accused repeatdly. My own opinion at least half of them recieved the same message I did or learned it through, this is my own speculation. But all of them were checked and found to be unrelated with eachother but that doesn't stop Bablos939 from accusing everyone as a sock by making false claims and lies on all of them.

Bablos939 completely abuse his wikipedia authority, over-exceeding, repeateadly SPAMMING the same repeteaded accusations to a total of 6 admin editors or people in charge. And lkater reported on the administrator board wt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmartin969 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartin969&diff=962664818&oldid=961763647 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=960504938 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7&diff=prev&oldid=960332846 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=prev&oldid=962848475 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_B123&diff=prev&oldid=960357945

Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782

Extreme racism and offensive insults against Chinese women, in a aggressive manner

Under his own talk page ( at the bottom ) someone wrote a message of peace to him and he wrote extremely offensive things towards Chinese women and Chinese people

It's under his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939

That was in Bablos939 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020

And in a talk page he wrote this the same thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage&diff=980938562&oldid=980920514

That was in 10:31, 29 September 2020, he said this two times without and his last one was a racial attack and far offensive than last one Vamlos (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that you just happened to get a Reddit DM/Reply Message,(I think that its important to know which one, as people refer to getting a ping from Reddit as getting something in their inbox) is really just, setting off some alarm bells. also the fact that you want to skip a Sock Puppet Investigation sets off bells for me as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Racism at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

@User178198273998166172: mentions: ".., I realize that, and it seems Wikipedia's many Turkish editors are subjectively editing to support the narrative of the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments." and adding that I push "governments narrative", although I do not even support the Turkish government. @Mr.User200: stating: ".., but he have bias because he is Turkish" and accusing me of pushing my personal views, which is not true, please check my edit history, almost all my contributions are still present. These comments are clearly racism. Being Turkish doesn't make I have bias. I try to edit neutral as possible and avoiding any edit war. This is not the first time I met these words. Beshogur (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a past of POV pushing and edit warring on many Trukish related articles. You dont "avoid edit war" 1234 5. And not one or two editors, a lot of editors and Admins have warned you of the edits you usually make. This issue have been set to settle here.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen any 3RR violation on that article? Considering your history, does not look good at all. Since you have a more recent block. While my last block was 2 years 9 months old. Beshogur (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of them are fresh BTW 29 August and other user response and also this is not the first time you acuse other of "being racist". Mr.User200 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I got blocked for reverting a Sockpuppet that was editing with the same POV you have. And that is noted by the Admin that handled the case hereMr.User200 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked too for 1RR and edit warring So what are you talking about??.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You keep reverting content on the Nagorno Karabakh article like you did here editors keeps asking themselves why important information is being systematically errased. Like you did also today.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of your POV push today.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would hope than an admin would take a look at this. This isn't some kind of "handbags at dawn" dispute about cars or professional wrestling that we too often see here, but about a real life conflict where people are being killed. What do we pay admins so much for if it's not to get involved when such issues turn up on this noticeboard? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've often said our admins are worth twice what we pay them. EEng 21:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've left a comment at the talk page where the accusations that Beshogur is complaining about were made to warn people not to cast aspersions without evidence and that further incivility would be met with blocks. I'd advise editors here to stop fighting over past dirty laundry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Dvtch, if there's anything I can't stand it's these vague smears, "However, a certain user...". I'm going over the rest of the talk page, and that's the kind of talk that really spoils the atmosphere. Phil Bridger, there are few things as difficult as trying to get a whole bunch of editors to adhere to our guidelines if they have serious POVs on both sides and care more for their cause than for the quality of the article. As for payment, we only get paid for blocks, not for successfully negotiating some dispute resolution, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies With all due respect I was directly smeared multiple times. I was accused twice of being a sockpuppet. I was accused, alongside the majority of editors of "extreme POV pushing". Perhaps that wasn't the most respectful way of going about it, but I was directly smeared by said user who continuously stonewalled consensus and ignored my calls to talk and edited over people. Best. Dvtch (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • That may be so, and you are certainly correct that that "wasn't the most respectful way". More importantly, you're doing it again, here in this very thread where we are trying to get at what the problems are in hopes of solving it. Phil Bridger, I will ask the WMF to double your salary if you figure out what all is going on and what needs to be done. One obvious problem, and it's almost always the same in these problems, is that it's current developments, much of which not verified by internationally recognized sources in English. NOTNEWS applies but is always disregarded, and thus accusations of POV are as readily available as stones for a mob. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I would love to take up your offer, but don't think that I can oblige. I have several skills, but diplomacy is not one of them. I just wish that WP:NOT#NEWS would be enforced, and that we would wait for proper independent reliable secondary sources to emerge before having an article, but consensus seems to be that we should pretend that news reports are secondary sources rather than being the primary sources that any student of history knows them to be. If I could have usefully added anything to the talk page discussion I would have done so before issuing my cri de coeur above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Just a note: Beshogur is blocked again. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Revoking user talk page access

I tried to make this report on WP:AIV but it was removed by a bot since the IP is blocked from the article namespace: 2001:14BB:490:6FAB:FDCA:D4A1:BBE:BE33 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Personal attack, removal of CSD tag on own talk page. User is blocked, but should IMO have talk page editing removed because of this edit. I think that edit is serious enough to take to this page. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure this one out, but I agree. Deb (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We need to stop the bot from doing that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Goswami666: Promotional editing & other problems

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § User:Goswami666: Promotional editing & other problems

 – — Newslinger talk 11:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of content removed from pages.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user 185.139.36.241 has spammed multiple times link to his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.227.149 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've created a report at WP:AIV, the correct venue for this kind of pure vandalism block requests. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 10:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, please ensure that the subject of the ANI report is notified of it as indicated at the top of the page. I have done so for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SlaterDeterminant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I am more than a little discomfited by SlaterDeterminant's edits since returning after a lengthy hiatus. You can see how an inexperienced user (registered 2008-01-03 but only 61 edits) could think this is appropriate [139], but the argumentation at talk:David Duke suggests a surprising resistance to Clue and a fondness for someone who is, to put it at its most charitable, widely considered to be less than stellar. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment), yes, this worries me as well. I would keep an eye on him before reporting him to administrators. Heart ^(talk) 07:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait you are an admin. Heart ^(talk) 07:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

See also their comments on the No Nazis essay on how Wikipedia should allow contributions from people with "far-right or non-conventional views on race". 86.23.86.239 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What is basically being said there is that, fine, have those views, but don’t express them here. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just felt that the essay goes too far in excluding people based on their views instead of their behavior. The quote makes more sense in its original context. I do not have far-right or non-conventional views on race. The quote does not apply to myself. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SlaterDeterminant, no, it's fine: Nazis are bad. We settled this in the mid-1940s. There was a war and everything. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I am Jewish. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to make clear that I am not here to promote propaganda or any type of agenda other than writing an encyclopedia. The edits I have made to Infowars and David Duke are just guided by the facts as I see them. Even for people and groups that have seriously messed up beliefs, I think we should avoid just throwing the kitchen sink at them and still try to be accurate and neutral. I don't understand the phrase "resistance to Clue", by the way. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WP is guided by the facts as reported by reliable sources, not "as I see them". Miniapolis 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I see them in reliable sources. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those sources include David Duke's podcast and also, apparently, the white supremacist website VDARE. These are not reliable. I advise you to start consuming better sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Let us take this edit related to VDARE as an example. VDARE was listed as endorsing Lauren Witzke, based on the reliable source https://delawarestatenews.net/government/sen-coons-skipping-ud-debate/ which actually states that "She’s also received support from far-right website VDARE". I found that VDARE says on its own website https://vdare.com/articles/peter-brimelow-interviews-gop-candidate-lauren-witzke-on-the-idea-of-an-immigration-moratorium that it does not endorse candidates in an article about Lauren Witzke. I decided that the VDARE website, on the question of whether it has endorsed a specific candidate, is likely to be reliable when there is no contradicting information in another reliable source, and because the phrase "received support from" is not the same as "endorse", there was not contradicting information. It seems like a pretty clear open-closed case to me. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See, given that you started off on the Duke page saying that you were listening to his podcast, and then only later backtracked to acting like you were checking it out after other reasons (while still defending listening to the podcast), I have to wonder whether you were reading the VDARE site before or after you looked at that Delaware election article.

Really, the only assumptions that we're left with here are that either you're another alt-righter pretending to just be naive in order to hide behind WP:AGF or you really are that naive and you're completely missing why anyone would consider the first option. In either case, your best bet would be to back off, and yet you just keep going.

Now, making the mistake of opening the source you cite, after it says it endorses ideas, it mentions one of those ideas and says that Witzke is the candidate supporting that idea in that election. That's a roundabout endorsement but it's enough for an actual RS to call it as such. But no, you want to take the Nazis' words over mainstream sources for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, shit, you couldn't understand how a Duke quote calling black people animals was supremacist. Honestly, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankly it is white supremacist based on my personal definition. I was checking for consistency with Wikipedia's "white supremacy" page. I think the word "endorse" basically has a binary meaning in the context of political candidates, it is deceiving to describe "roundabout endorsements" or "partial endorsements" as just "endorsements", but if you want to discuss it, let's discuss at the Delaware election wiki. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SlaterDeterminant, VDARE? Srsly? See the perennially discussed sources page foir our views on that particular site. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I used the VDARE website as a source about itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves SlaterDeterminant (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef per the above. Sandstein 18:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COVID-19 pandemic current consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[140] that page needs a look, user vandalising thanks --Investigatory (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually the user has a point just not WP:CIVIL --Investigatory (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
2. You are required to leave a template on the user's talk when opening a discussion about someone's conduct here. You have not done that.
3. No further administrative action is required here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i just couldnt edit it, needed an admin, which led to the actions thankyou --Investigatory (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there. I am feeling harassed by a user here on Wikipedia. I told them I wasn't willing to engage in discussion with them anymore, and yet they keep on mentioning me in comments, trying to make me engage in discussion with them. The user is very rhetorical and "subtly offensive." I'm a fragile person and I'm feeling harassed. While I understand that blocking a user (that is, from my part) is not feasible, I hope somebody will ask them to stop texting me, at least on this matter. Here are our last two comments. The user disagreed with me on the usage of a word in English language. He has followed my activities for a while, and made minor edits on several of my articles on art and painting. However, now the matter isn't the disagreement over the usage of the word oeuvre in English language. I'm feeling harassed. You'll find our conversation here and here. Here are our last two comments.

Your previous comment (whose original form will remain accessible forever to reviewers, editors and readers) evinces both your partiality and pretentiousness. You have sough out to grieve me with the speculative and uncalled for comment "yet I have no problem imagining that you are not an artist despite your editing articles about art", while my pointing out that being Belgian doesn't make you the better fit individual to tell an English speaker how to write English was a functional comment, and a fact. I won't engage in discussion with you anymore. Be careful on how you behave on this and any other similar websites. This is a joint effort to widen people's knowledge and help them out, there's no place far edit warring, cheap rhetoric and harassment. And that's it.--Max9844419087 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087 since you raise no substantive objection to WP:MOS, can I take it that you have dropped your opposition to applying it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Max9844419087 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any harassment here. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, thanks for your reply. Perhaps not from the point of view of a non apprehensive person, or without having read the conversation through. I believe it is discernible from the conversation, but anyway, feeling harassed is still something you just feel. Which is the case for me.--Max9844419087 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087, I read through the conversations on Talk:Diana and Callisto (Bril) and User talk:Andreas Philopater, and to be honest, your comments appear more aggressive than the other editor's comments (examples of your comments: I do accept suggestions (on my English) when they come from people born into an English speaking family and country. – partiality and pretentiousness – cheap rhetoric and harassment – we can wait the opinion of another ENGLISH speaker editor – it may come across pretentious only in the head of an illiterate or biased person). You seem to have drawn the conclusion that AP's connection to WikiProject Belgium means that editor is not qualified to edit on en.WP (Please, edit on Belgian Wikipedia. And abstain fro vandalism.). I see a content dispute about whether to use oeuvre to refer to a single painting, and I see AP making civil, reasonable objections, and I see you taking umbrage.

You are entitled to tell AP not to ping you. I have not been able to find anywhere that you have done so. (Saying "I'm done" does not convey that.) You are entitled to tell AP not to post on your talk page. If you do not want to continue the discussion about oeuvre (which another editor has since removed from the article), don't. If another editor's civil objection to a word is that upsetting, maybe you should consider taking a break from wikipedia for a bit? Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, please, edit on Belgian Wikipedia is probably the most amusing thing I'll read this weekend. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading your contributions to Wikipedia? Or looking at usself in the mirror?M Imtiaz (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max9844419087 (talk • contribs)

After this discussion began, the OP left a rather vicious comment on User talk:Andreas Philopater. I have notified AP of the discussion here as they had not been notified. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

...and, OP retired. I think this can be closed. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, Schazjmd. I have not in any way harassed Max9844419087. All our interactions have been on one article (talk) page and on my user page, and the issue at stake is not even a content dispute, but simply a question of wording which as far as I can see has already been satisfactorily resolved by Max9844419087 themself. I have pinged them a couple of times in my replies to their comments, but was unaware that they would regard that as intrusive. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A cursory review of a past version of Max9844419087's talk page shows several other cases of them making various insinuations (and some outright accusations) of harassment, blackmail, bullying, spying, censorship, racism and suchlike against good-faith editors who have politely and routinely pointed out to them relevant Wikipedia policies. Referring one such editor (diff) to Lawsuit constitutes a legal threat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• "I think you either have some kind of problem with me or with the Slavic people, because you attempted to undo whatever I explored and added as regards Slavic people, for some reason. I hope you are not a racist..."
• "you are trying to do your best to hurt me in some way or the other"

on two user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Andy. It puts my mind at ease that I didn't somehow precipitate a meltdown. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smokva26 adding unsourced or questionable source

Hello, I see that Smokva26 adding youtube as a source in Muhammad Ali of Egypt which is not WP:RS for me. What opinion from other users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.205.155 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have (independently of this) asked for page protection of the Muhammad Ali of Egypt-page. YouTube-videos are obviously not WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tamilreporter123

• Tamilreporter123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor started making edits in the Indian BLP and religion subject area, exclusively marked (incorrectly) as minor edits. Special:Diff/981290840 said the government was illegaly [sic] using temple funds, and that the temple was run by an evangelist, neither of which were sourced. I left them this note after others had reverted their edits, dealing with the controversial topic requiring cites, the misuse of the minor checkbox, and the need to manually fix the auto-fill of citations from Times of India (they did provide one source for something).

They responded here and here, doing us the favor of "fixing their mistakes this time".

After they ignored the note and made another edit marked minor incorrectly, I responded here to hopefully clarify their understanding that there were three separate issues, since, AGF, they may not have seen the one about minor. They continue to make unreferened, derogatory edits regarding religion, like Special:Diff/981754283, despite multiple warnings by myself and others, responding only with "I have proof". I responded more strongly Special:Diff/982057666. This morning, I find that bonadea was on the watch (thanks!) and reverted this accusation of racism from my user page.

Note they created Draft:Thf.

Apparently not mature enough to care to follow the rules, especially in such a contentious topic area, and jumps to a totally baseless personal attack when the message is delivered more emphatically. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Clearly lacks either the intention or the competence to edit collaboratively, a nice mixture of unsourced controversial material, misrepresented sources, and personal attacks. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, thank you for the speedy deletion, it was very cool. I was requesting it privately. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Abbie Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Munich Philharmonic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tom kearsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned about Tom kearsey (talk · contribs)'s agenda, with edits on behalf of Abbie Conant across the platform and addition of non notable musicians to several articles. A persistent addition of WP:BLP violations to make a point here: [141]; [142], with a reliance on primary sources and court documents. Hasn't responded to WP:COI message. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs) hasn't helped, twice restoring the unacceptable content and warning me for edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:INACCURATE, outright removing the content which you deem suspicious is not the solution to this matter. Your edits have been reverted for content removal. Please see WP:RMV for more information. Thank you. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to include After Celibidache's sudden death in 1996, the alleged child sex offender James Levine took over as chief conductor of the orchestra, serving until 2004. To lean on WP:INACCURATE as justification begs the invocation of WP:CIR. This, or a variation, has been added to the article four times, twice by Transcendental36 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this a WP:RELIABLE issue exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong. but there exists 5 reliable news sources backing that statement. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit in question for reference Transcendental36 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There ought to be nothing inherently wrong with trying to amplify the voices and include women in these lists who have been neglected or ommitted in reference. Just because their articles don't exist yet should not mean they can't go on the list with good references. It is ignorant to call any of these people non notable. Mentioning that Levin is an alleged sex offender should not be precluded from his mention in ANY context. To actively suppress these allegations is abhorrent.

I'm sorry about being a Wikipedia novice and making a big section on Celibidache's sexism without proper page talk concensus. I have acted on other fellow users' comments to include it in a more appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom kearsey (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Transcendental36 is an account created just five days ago, but very clearly not a new editor. They have 148 edits in the article namespace, and every single one is a revert. That does not look like someone who is here to build an encyclopaedia to me (I noticed this discussion when looking at their edits after they reverted one of mine with an inaccurate edit summary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.152.81 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@46.208.152.81, I must disagree. I have recently taken an interest in fighting vandalism here in the English Wikipedia, and wish to contribute as best of my abilities that I can. The contribution you made included additional content that did not seem referenced, and so I reverted the edit in good faith. Transcendental36 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit did not include any additional content. If you cannot reliably describe an edit, you should not revert it. And your sudden appearance just five days ago, zealously reverting and warning and quoting policies at people, is beyond suspicious. I hope someone is looking into your history. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• While the SPA concerns seem valid, this is not a "non-notable musician". The harassment that Ms. Conant received after passing the (then-unusual) blind audition made a lot of headlines in the specialist music press, and was something of a wake-up call for orchestras in Germany especially, but also the US. A woman making a living as a lead trombone is a Very Big Deal Indeed (brass are quite unreconstructed, ask at the bar after any classical concert, if you can get to it through the crush of brass players). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the article on Abbie Conant is OK with respect to policy (maybe a bit promotional), but the Munich Philharmonic article ought to be rolled back to the 26 September version and fully protected. This would allow time for discussion of the contentious items on the talk page. There is probably no defamation, but there could be questions of WP:Due weight that would need editor consensus to resolve. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've now fully protected Munich Philharmonic for five days on the current version. This means that the Abbie Conant material stays in the article for the moment, but it omits 'alleged child sex offender', which had been reworded by User:Ohnoitsjamie. The text now makes clear that Levine denied the charges. WP:BLP applies to James Levine who is still living. Consider using the talk page to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And what about the overzealous reverter with the 5-day-old account, who caused problems here and is clearly not new to wikipedia? 46.208.152.81 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you. The WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP aspects of that stood out, and I was frustrated by a second account's determination to restore it. There was no debate over the notability of Ms. Conant, but rather the tone of content that was being added at several articles. My initial post noted that other names were being added to articles without notability having been established. Finally, we haven't yet addressed the prevalence of court documents as sources. Access to such data often helps to indicate COI, but regardless, aren't there policies that discourage relying on these? There seemed to be a crosscurrent of responses to my report, and I'm returning only to clarify intent. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that references 22-27 of the Abbie Conant article are to legal documents. Why not propose on the article talk page that they be removed? At the same time you could describe how to change the text so it no longer relies on those sources. If you want, you can propose this using {{Edit protect}}, though if so you should supply the complete wording you want. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, EdJohnston, I just can't remember how flexible our policy is re: legal documents as sources. If we don't allow it, I can proceed with a clearer understanding, and the onus will be on the contributor to supply acceptable sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what about the overzealous reverter with the account just a few days old, who caused problems here and is clearly not new to wikipedia? 100% of their edits to articles are reverts; they have contributed nothing to any article, and yet they are threatening people with blocks, attempting to arbitrate article content, and instructing people on how they should edit. No week-old account has the standing to behave in such a way. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that any admins will take further action on this thread. The way is open for you to contribute more on the talk pages at Talk:Abbie Conant and Talk:Munich Philharmonic. You can propose how to reword the article so that the legal citations can be taken out. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anything to do with those articles. I'm talking about the account just a few days old which was criticised in this discussion, and has made zero substantive edits to articles, yet is going about instructing people in how to edit, threatening them with blocks, quoting policies at them, and generally behaving as if they have been around for years. Despite their attitude and knowledge of how to edit, they have explicitly denied any prior editing history. This is obviously problematic. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:46.208.152.81 may be of interest. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GGT one purpose account and POV Push on Masacres and Killings - Cyprus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Single purpose account, only edit Cyprus related articles, with a POV push of errasing all kind of information regarding killings, masacres and Human Rights abuses on Greek Cipriot citizens. On September 21On 22 SeptemberOnce September 29Two times September 29.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Man, this is ridiculous. As one can see from my user page, whilst I used to be very active around here, now I’m only here every now and then to check out on my watchlist. That usually involves reverting vandalism and/or POV-pushes from both Greek and Turkish nationalism. I’m mostly active over at trwiki where I’m more needed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve noticed a certain tendency for nationalistic POV pushing from the Greek nationalistic side. This guy has basically been wikihounding me for the past two days. Ironically, the content he insists on reinserting is content I myself wrote years ago - I added the large part of the material on human rights violations against Greek Cypriot civilians, rapes and the death toll during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, years ago. I know it when this content is being taken out of context and pasted/manipulated on other Wikipedia pages as a “massacre” that it is a POV push, because I freaking wrote it! I know it when massacres that aren’t really “massacres” are being added to a list because I was the one who initially researched actual mass killings of Greek Cypriots (like in Asha and Sysklipos) and added them to the list! And I know that sources like greece.org, which he insists on adding that can surely be seen by any reasonable person as a highly POV source on a Greek-Turkish dispute, is highly biased and unreliable for the purpose of rapes because, well, guess what, I wrote the rest of that paragraph too! Now, enough with this harassment and this ignorance. Also one may want to remind this brave anti-POV crusader of what an SPA truly means. —GGT (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• It's nonsense to call GGT an SPA. I have seen them make numerous positive contributions to Northern Cypriot election articles over the years and while we have had disagreements once or twice, they have always been civil and constructive in discussions. Number 57 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Number 57. Now that I've got access to a computer, here is some more evidence to back that up. Here is me adding content to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article about rapes of Greek Cypriot women. Here is me adding more stuff on it. All the way back in 2015. Now, here is the content that our oh-so-sensitive user on "Cipriot" topic insists on reinstating, which I had previously removed as a manipulation of sources/POV push. Lo and behold, same sentences that I myself authored! It is to be appreciated by anyone with a sound mind that it's a different thing to have mass human rights violations/rapes/civilian deaths in a conflict and it is an entirely different thing having massacres. Now, here is me adding information about a massacre of Greek Cypriots, perpetrated by Turkish Cypriots/troops. This was back in 2015 as well. I wonder what an idiotic POV pusher this could be! Perhaps there might be a slight chance that I'm familiar with the global scholarship on Cyprus and know that the material being added is a nationalistic POV push that is utterly false/manipulative? Now I really would like some administrative attention here because as evidenced by their userpage full of lists of "POV pushers", this user filing the request clearly has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I really dislike having my contribs followed and mass reverted like they did yesterday, and it's really not nice to be accused of pushing POV when you've worked hard for years (as one can see in the history of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article) to maintain these articles free of nationalistic POV. And someone really should explain to this person what an SPA means because it really is very disruptive to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like that and there should be consequences for it. Ah and also perhaps the user may wish to refrain from dabbling in the articles of countries whose nationality he can't even spell properly? (As a "Cipriot" [sic] I find that pretty ignorant, I don't know what "Amerikans" would think!) Like, at this moment I could be helping out on tr.wiki rather than writing this totally unconstructive wall of text. Cheers. --GGT (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Dont use that language on me. Have you cared to read the Edit Summary of the previous editor. Your edits are a mass deletion of sourced content, and is not the first time you attemp to do that.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You really need to stop calling people SPAs, stalking them and misspelling their nationalities before you can complain about their language. And boy, you really don't have a word to say against what I am saying. This is the umpteenth time this user has (perhaps unwittingly but nonetheless) reinstated massively POV content, despite the reasons being clearly explained to them and WP:BRD requiring them to explain the rationale for the inclusion of the content on the talk page and a reversion into the stable version (without the added content) until we establish consensus. Seeing the battleground mentality evidenced by this user's userpage and their general comments against "Turkish" speakers below, I don't see that happening. I don't intend to escalate this to an edit war but I am massively unhappy with the aspersions above and the insistence on reverting to inappropriate content. This is clearly inappropriate behaviour and admin input will be much appreciated. --GGT (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, your taking all personal here. Im talking about your edits nothing personal against you.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Calling someone an SPA is more than a personal attack, it is an aspersion on their entire reason on being on Wikipedia and is clearly massively inappropriate. You would first need to retract that claim, give up trying to restore POV versions of articles and reason with me on talk pages. Otherwise, as I say, admin attention is very much warranted on your inappropriate behaviour. --GGT (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Mr.User200, you've had blocks in the past for edit warring. GGT also had blocks in the past but not for many years. So how about we let both of you off with a warning, and you both do your best to discuss changes constructively on the article Talk page before making those changes? Deb (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deb, thanks for your input. I think the best course of action now is to close and archive this as we have reached a consensus at Talk:List of massacres in Cyprus and there is no risk of escalation. I will also respectfully disagree with you that my behaviour merits a warning - I did not instigate new changes but did my usual cleanup as I have done for ~5 years, when my edits got mass reverted and I got called an SPA! Then I explicitly refrained from escalating the situation. And it's a bit unfair to you know, refer to blocks I got when I first started out with Wikipedia, had no idea about how things are around here and didn't even speak proper English (lol). Anyhow, no point in discussing anything now that this is resolved. --GGT (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rudeness by HurricaneNerd

HurricaneNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps rudely calling users "liberals" on Talk:Donald Trump, and has said on their talk page that they will commit sockpuppetry if they get blocked. Also, I am concerned that this account has been compromised, as this is outside their normal editing pattern. Goose^(Talk!) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

They just confirmed on their userpage that their account has been compromised. Goose^(Talk!) 01:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A CU would be able to help verify this, right? If they're telling the truth, then I think we just need to keep an eye on them for another day or two. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The result for CU was  Inconclusive, so we do not know if HurricaneNerd's account was actually compromised or if HurricaneNerd is engaging in good hand bad hand editing. Goose^(Talk!) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why would someone hack a random account with few edits? Much easier to just make a sock... Also, how can we really confirm Hurricane has access to their account back, unless someone has previously emailed them and HurricaneNerd can email them confirming they are in control? I am of a mind to simply block their account and tell HurricaneNerd to make a new one, but I'm not sure other's thoughts on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • CaptainEek, do it, and ask if they were responsible for those comments on the Trump talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is more than a little suspicious that they discovered they got hacked just 8 minutes after the last "hacked" edit, but with email notifications of talk page messages, it's not implausible. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree this is suspicious, but who said random? It seems to me more likely it was a friend fooling around or something. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Vigerslev176DD

Vigerslev176DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Very recent block and is now disruptively editing Robin Drinkall, a salted page which was just moved to draft by GSS. (And declined at Draft:Robin Drinkall in June.) Think a further block may be warranted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this account. Their only edits have been to spam the encyclopedia with disruptive nonsense about Robert Drinkall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Cnyirahabihirwe123

Cnyirahabihirwe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry to be spamming ANI today. This user has created a number of blatant copy-pastes recently, with no signs of being deterred by the numerous warnings on their talk. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and yet another blatant G12, right after the last one was deleted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and given them a 24 hour block for copyright violations. Hopefully this will get their attention. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Clear personal attacks

An editor who got caught misrepresenting sources then resorted to personal attacks:

• "Stop being a vile and petty moron and go get a life".[143]

Warned here, but personal attacks are continuing:

• "You're just a bored boor whose only trick is pressing the undo button. Go read, bumpkin!"[144]
• "I have no patience for unintelligent, uneducated people like you. Take your depression angst elsewhere, please. I have no vendetta against anyone but unintelligent people like you. If you continue to defaecate on my talk page, you will pay a commensurate price for it".[145]

He is also violating BLP by alleging Manu Sharma being involved in "PR agency's dirty trick",[146] and reliable academics to be "conspiracy theorists".[147] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Trickipaedia for 31 hours for harassment and personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Block is correct. I'll suggest that it was very lenient, as well. Still, we'll see what happens next, WP:ROPE and all that. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this is the editor's first block, it is my hope that a relatively short block will stop the personal attacks. If the attacks resume, I am prepared to block for longer, and I am sure that many other administrators are as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't let this sort of behavior go on. BD2412 T 19:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:TravelTavern on El Ligero

El Ligero is a professional wrestler who was accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and manipulation on social media. These accusations were part of the Speaking Out movement, and as such are repeated in reliable sources.

User:TravelTavern. As can be seen from his contributions, he has no edits that don't relate to El Ligero. First he tried to remove all mention of allegations, claiming he did it "for protection of individuals", and then that he was removing them by request.

After some edit warring between TravelTavern and other users, User:WikiDan61 stepped in to help TravelTavern rewrite the article to remove the names of the accusers. With this, Travel Tavern went inactive for roughly 2 months.

He returned to the article to add an unsourced statement that the sexual assault allegation was retracted and removed. He has slow-motion edit warred to keep that statement in the article despite being reverted several times, with his edit summary always being some version of 'situation updated'. I reverted him last night; despite being inactive for roughly a week he reverted me within 24 hours.

Here's why I am bringing this to ANI rather than treating it as a content dispute. One, it involves a slow-motion edit war. Two, this is a BLP situation. I did a quick google search and found nothing about anyone retracting statements against El Ligero, but if there was an actual retraction, it should absolutely be in the article with a proper source. Three, there is possible bad-faith editing on the part of TravelTavern, who seems to be acting with the intention of whitewashing El Ligero's article. I feel this situation is best brought to the attention of the community. 184.15.52.85 (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned about the sourcing for this content - most of it is sourced to 411mania.com, which has the following disclaimer on its 'About us' page: Our writers and contributors are not paid staff members or employees, they are independent bloggers. 411mania is therefore, by my reading, an unreliable source (WP:UGC), and should not be used to support any assertion on Wikipedia, much less stuff about sexual assault allegations on a BLP. PWInsider I'm less certain about WRT reliability, but that source is very scant on details - while I appreciate the OP's SPA and potential COI concerns, I'm inclined to remove the entire section unless better sourcing can be found. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

PWInsider.com seems reasonably legit, they seem at least to have actual staff - I've cut the 411mania sources and anything not supported by PWInsider as a 'bare minimum' action, happy for others to indicate whether they feel that PWInsider is reliable enough for content of this nature. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: There is better sourcing regarding the allegations than 411Mania (e.g. ESPN), and the article can be appropriately upated. I do wonder about TravelTavern's motives here, as his original edit summaries indicate that he was trying to protect the identity of the accusers, but now appears to be trying to protect the reputation of El Ligero instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61, indeed - I've warned TravelTavern about adding unsourced assertions, and that their apparent COI means they should be using edit requests rather than editing the article directly. Please go ahead and add better sourcing to support these obviously contentious assertions - this is a BLP, we need to be cautious. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

TravelTavern has accepted on their talk page that they have a COI, and given an undertaken not to edit the article further but to use the talk page to suggest any edits they think are necessary. I believe that this can be closed now, but please come back if TT goes back on their word. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph and reduced it to minimum content based on the more reliable ESPN source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2a01:119f:31b:5d00:64b6:46ee:9910:1d2a/39

2a01:119f:31b:5d00:64b6:46ee:9910:1d2a/39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This shifting IP is becoming a bit of a pest.

I first noticed this IP range when I saw this message on my talk page:[148] It took me a while to notice that the IPs were related, but I think I have the range. (Please double check).

• Edit warring at Modulo operation:[149]
• Vandalism:[150]
• More Edit warring: [151][152]
• Trolling:[153]

-Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP address range is currently partially blocked.

On 16:15, 5 October 2020 Ohnoitsjamie blocked 2a01:119f:200::/39 talk from editing the pages Code page 1117 and Talk:Code page 1117 with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)

I don't think anything more is required unless they start disrupting some other page. This can be closed as "resolved". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to be unblocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems I was blocked by this user, BD2412, for this edits related to this message posted on my talk page. I can only assume however, as the user didn't bother providing a valid reason beyond the ambiguous "pattern of aggressive editing".

May I just say my edits on the presidential election subpages were in line with the accepted consensus that only candidates who have polled above 5% may be included in infoboxes. This was generally accepted until an IP account added a third party candidate who did not fulfil these guidelines, even another user agreed and reverted similarly. Trying to rectify this I reverted these edits and now I am thanked with a topic ban. Lovely stuff.

I'm not expecting my appeal to succeed as I've been treated with nothing but ill-intentions by several users for minute reasoning that only seemingly went against what they wanted. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: There are no records in your block log, so you have not been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I received this message from the aforementioned user, was this just an empty threat? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken:, you have been topic banned from post-1932 US politics, broadly construed. Why did you you not report the IP's disruption to a noticeboard instead of trying to take the matter into your own hands? —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually reverting based on an established pattern/stable RFC doesn't result in an insta-topic ban. I think this is topic ban is a bit excessive. spryde | talk 18:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, he was instructed to come here. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't believe the IP was acting disruptively intentionally, so I sought to rectify the problems myself. If you wish, I may report him against since the IP went out of their way to revert all my individual reverts themselves, so it seems they may be more disruptive than I anticipated. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn. Recommend overturn of ban. I notice that the one warning left on MPUWT's user page was by Tartan357, who, on 2020 United States presidential election in Nebraska, made the same revert that MPUWT had made previously. I agree that a topic ban is disproportional and unwarranted at this time. I'd recommend advice to make sure to use an edit summary, but I'm not even finding a 1RR violation by this user. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC) clarified 20:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Context: This appears to involve the IP address 2600:1700:8d50:1ff0:598f:16e2:403c:9a1a on pages including, but not limited to, 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2020 United States presidential election in Texas, and 2020 United States presidential election in Florida. I have alerted that IP to this topic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, I imposed the topic ban in light of issues indicated by posts to this editor's talk page over the last six months, and a previous case brought against this editor in May at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Proposed six-month U.S. politics topic ban for User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken. I am not aware that an actual block record is required to institute a topic ban in an area under discretionary sanctions. BD2412 T 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Let the record show that it was you who proposed the earlier proposition in an attempt to ban me as well, your current reference to it implies you have no connection and only just happened upon this revelation. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I trust this admin's judgment in this topic area, given their prolific involvement. This would have been better served by action from an uninvolved admin. The full protections of the Joe Biden allegations article was a bizarre move that didn't demonstrate a lot of rationality. BD should forego tool usage from anything related to the upcoming election. The recent issue regarding the creation of the death of Donald Trump page leaves a lot to be desired as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• How's that, C.Fred — you only see one warning on User talk:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken? Are you only counting warnings from October? I see a number of warnings from May 2020 onwards. Here's one from myself from May, endorsed by Doug Weller. Here's one from Mandruss from July. One from MelbourneStar in August. One from MrX also in August. I support BD2412's topic ban from American politics. Three months is shorter than I would have made it. Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Why am I just receiving this ban two months out form my last warning in August then, it only seems to fit my suspicions you and a handful of others are only interested in seeing me silenced with no questions asked rather than hearing whatever my appeal may be. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is your appeal and I'm assuming Bish, C.Fred and others have read this entire, short discussion. If there is other information that must be heard, now is the time to include it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The appeal can't be more clearer, I was banned the very moment I was warned about edits relating to my reverts on the subpages of the 2020 presidential election page. It's not a loose connection to assert BD2412 saw that warning and assumed bad faith and thus felt they had the authority to topic ban me without further inquiry. That's what we're discussing here, unless I should be held up on charges whenever whatever user finds it necessary to leave a threat on my talk page for some petty affair. It's not arguable I've contributed greatly to this website with such creations as Ancestral background of presidents of the United States, no, it is crystal clear my logical conclusion of such users looking for a reason to ban me holds true as that is what has been shown today exactly. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: With all due respect, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. I don't feel like either Tartan357 or BD2412 acted in bad faith when they warned or banned you, respectively. I do feel like the ban may have been a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction given the nature of your edits. I will go further to say that I think Tartan357 acted in good faith when they left a warning on your user talk page. Warnings are not threats: they are advisories that there is an issue with a user's edits or conduct.

To me, the issue now becomes this appeal. If, going forward, your appeal focuses on how you were trying to bring the articles back to established consensus and that you didn't revert the same article twice, you're making a case for being a good editor. If you keep going down the path of being a poor, persecuted editor at the whims of the Nefarious Forces on Wikipedia...you're not going to convince us that you're a net positive to politics articles. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this, but I did assume good faith on the part of MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken when I left that warning. The consensus for which pages Jo Jorgensen should be included on is a bit more complicated than some editors assume. There is consensus to include her on some pages but not others. But removing or adding her is really a major change that should at least be explained with an edit summary. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tartan257 was never referred to when I claimed bad faith, I thought it clear I was solely referring to BD2412 when I did. Indeed I'm not backing away from that claim, why should I? He instantaneously topic banned me off that single warning with full, unbridled force; how am I to assume good faith off that? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As was noted in the previous discussion, User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken has established a pattern of making claims along the lines that there is an effort to "silence" their voice, and that this effort was predicated on the editor's "anti-Democrat sentiment", rather than his aggressive editing conduct. He was advised about discretionary sanctions in this topic area under a previous account User talk:Bold and Brash#Discretionary sanctions alert, and continued to engage in conduct such as creating a talk page section titled "Kissing Whitmer's backside" to describe article content with which they disagreed, and engaged in this exercise in soapboxing. Even after the previous ANI discussion, the editor continued to engage in contentious edits in this topic area, for example with the edit summary stating of User:MrX, "if this isn't obvious enough for my stalker, MrX". We are at the time of the year when silliness of this kind reaches its crescendo, and when we must regard disruptions most strictly. So far as I am aware, a ninety-day topic ban is a fairly light sanction, but I would be fine with substantially reducing it. BD2412 T 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Democrat sentiment"? From who and where are you dredging these quotes from? I assume this must've been a sarcastic comment from me, however you choose to use it with no sense of context in another effort to smear me, as you seem to make a habit of.

Your topic ban of me was predicated off of a revert of which I performed based off the established consensus which was then broken by an IP user is, must I repeat myself, a bad faith effort in your now second attempt to see me removed from your chosen domain. Your first one was predicated off an attempt to assert I was somehow a sock puppet, when I corrected you I never even received so much an acknowledgment you were wrong. You have no regard for the rules only to achieve your aims. It's a disgrace. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You specifically stated in this edit "Of course I'm expressing anti-Democrat sentiment so I'm sure I'll be raising the alarm bells of the other editors as I haven't expressed more "sensible" opinions such as suggesting Trump won't be reelected via weasel words"; the concern would be no different if you were complaining of expressing "anti-Republican sentiment". BD2412 T 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me correct, how one cannot see the complete sarcasm in my tone I fail to see. For all your assertions of balance, you fail to recognize I was responding in protest to the preceding comment which read, "Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic." How this isn't what you claim as "anti-Republican sentiment" I'm totally flabbergasted by. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There are appropriate forums to raise concerns about the conduct of other editors in a discussion, rather than engaging in one-upsmanship in the discussion. BD2412 T 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't act the superior when you indulged in what you're now preaching against mere moments ago. I'm only doing as you have done yourself right here on this very thread. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am raising your conduct here because this is the appropriate forum for so doing. BD2412 T 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And I raise yours as your conduct has equally come into question by me and several other users. You are the one who enacted the ban thus it's fitting we look into you as much as you will into me. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That comes with being an administrator and enforcing discretionary sanctions in contentious areas. BD2412 T 21:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we're at an agreement then. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I only see one recent one, then nothing back to August. Further, the only issue I see with the recent edits is the reverting. Had there been other conduct issues, then a block probably would have been more in order than a ban. Mr Ernie also raises a salient point about BD's involvement, and BD was the editor to initiate the previous ANI request for a topic ban. I don't think that completely taints the ban, as BD's request might have been in the capacity of admin seeking agreement for the action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Recommend overturn of TBAN I think the TBAN was out of process and as Ernie has stated this is also possibly a violation of WP:INVOLVED by BD. BD could have sought consensus for the TBAN decision since the project was not immediately at risk. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: Can you point out where you think there is a WP:INVOLVED issue? I have never edited the article over which the most recent objection was raised. I have, of coursed, pushed for zero tolerance of misconduct in political articles (and have done so without regard to political leaning). BD2412 T 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep TBAN I've seen no convincing indication that the current TBAN is onerous or inappropriate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Than you mustn't have read it. Understand the ban was enacted because of my enforcement of a consensus, to assume anything else is to acknowledge this ban was ruled off my following the rules, and because of my following the rules I must face subsequent punishment. I could've faced a topic ban at any time but I was banned not even an hour after this, and the precedent this sets forces any and all users to walk on eggshells lest they face a ban they have no say in for the slightest of errors. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You are aware of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and the Law of holes, right? Thirteen comments (43% of the comments in this section) is a bit much. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is detracting from my appeal and I'm asking you to focus on that and not pedantics. This is my first response to a !vote on this section and most of my other comments were in response to another user in one singular thread. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn TBAN - BD2412 is evidently an involved editor: asking for a sanction against an editor, and then later implementing it yourself. What's worse is the attempt to mislead editors with a previous case brought against this editor in May by failing to mention the key fact that that case was brought by you. I would consider this abuse of the tools, but I also know the admins here wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it. Practically, MPUWT, this TBAN isn't going to be overturned (I'm sure you don't need to be told why). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note by editor who made the comment: Striking a comment proven wrong by Black Kite and Floquenbeam. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  That is not what WP:INVOLVED means. I would also suggest that you strike your personal attack asserting an "attempt to mislead editors". The assertion that "the admins here wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it" leaves me wondering why you are posting an opinion on the administrator's noticeboard at all. BD2412 T 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hard to know exactly where to hat this, but this all has zero to do with the appeal. -Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're a liar by omission. Deal with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked, for 31 hours, as this is conduct clearly unacceptable on this noticeboard. BD2412 T 23:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC) So you don't like being called out for being involved then trying to hide it... so you make another involved block of someone? I think the law of holes applies to you here, BD2412. Absolutely absurd, and Mr rnddude should be starting the arbcom case request now, given that this happened during a discussion of your involved actions. 198.90.109.60 (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC) The IP does not belong to me. I have not ever set foot on the Americas (either of them). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Sigh) - WP:DUCK block for obvious block evasion. BD2412 T 23:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC) I would undo that block, if I were you. Whilst that was clearly a personal attack, blocking him yourself in the middle of a discussion about INVOLVED is a spectacularly bad idea. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC) The WP:INVOLVED discussion is a red herring, and should not be allowed to serve as a distraction. If we do not maintain a baseline level of civility in these discussions, this becomes just another forum on the internet. BD2412 T 23:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC) It's your call, of course. I would have left it to another administrator to decide, however. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC) BD2412 You are misusing the tools IMO. The Black Kite is correct. Please undo that block. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC) I have reduced the block to one hour. The IP that appeared for the first time on Wikipedia to echo the cadence of the blocked editor is typical of block evasion, and I have no confidence in the editor's denial. However, I have no desire to get further into the weeds with additional sanctions. BD2412 T 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC) You have given the editor a scarlet letter. Sadly. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC) We don't call each other liars in this forum lightly. I have raised broken windows theory in this forum often. If we allow such violations because we are trying to prize an appearance of sensitivity over the rule of law, we only invite further violations. BD2412 T 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Thank you for striking the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Multiple editors and an Admin have referred to me an asshole on ANI and never caught a block. When I struck it with (Personal attack removed) it was unstruck. But I have no tools and nobody else cared including the admin who said it initially. We have two standards here. Some editors get wide latitude. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion has tended to go off the rails, I will step back from it and allow the rest of the admin community to address the underlying question of whether the topic ban should remain in place for some period. BD2412 T 00:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• My read on this is that BD made a[n understandable] mistake in seeing a string of edits removing prominent information by a user who has done some concerning things in the past. No, BD was not involved (putting aside the other block that happened in this thread) but I'm having trouble seeing any tban worthy edits made by MPUWT this month. The series of edits was indeed in line with consensus and other recent edits seem innocuous enough. Looks like people used this opportunity to jump on both BD and MPUWT, which is unfortunate, and given the way this thread went I can't blame either side for being a bit resentful at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak overturn (non-admin comment): Most of the recent reverts that MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken did were supported by consensus. The Indiana revert was not, but I imagine that was simply an oversight. I don't see anything related to the warning I gave as warranting a topic ban, although I am unfamiliar with MPUWT's history outside of this incident. I suggest that they make better use of edit summaries to avoid the appearance of disruptive editing, especially when making large, potentially controversial changes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think MPUNWT's tban should be overturned but I also would suggest they consider that, if we are here, chances are they are doing something wrong even if that something doesn't warrant the penalty at hand. MPUWNT, I think something that a number of experienced editors figure out over time is how to make their edits appear calm and focused on the content, not the editors they disagree with even when they are certain the other editor must have implanted said head in said rectum. Try to stick to "just the facts" and if there is a question if an edit will violate an article level restriction post to the talk page first. Your edits here are bludgeoning the discussion and come off as very defensive. If you can figure out the core of the criticism, even if you don't agree with it, and make a statement that you will (truthfully) strive to avoid such issues in the future (ideally by doing XYZ) you will likely find a receptive ear here. Springee (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn all of it (sorry for the length)
  1. In the May ANI brought by BD about MPUWT's editing in the subject area of U.S. politics, BD wrote: I am avoiding taking administrative action in articles in this area, as I have edited substantively in the area, as was raised in a previous discussion here. The previous discussion (I assume) refers to the April ANI thread wherein BD full-protected Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. In that ANI, BD wrote, I have no problem focusing my admin activities elsewhere. and the ANI was closed with ... BD2412 has agreed to focus their admin efforts elsewhere ... I thought this "involved" thing was over in April, and I thought BD starting the ANI thread in May, seeking community discussion rather than taking unilateral action, was absolutely awesome, an example of thoughtful admin-ing.
     So it's disappointing to see BD unilaterally topic ban an editor because of an edit to 2020 United States presidential election in Indiana, which is the same topic area that BD previously said he would not use admin tools in. I don't know what happened between April and October, but I still stand by BD being too involved in the 2020 election to use his admin tools, and nothing can unring that bell. The ban of MPUWT should be formally overturned on WP:INVOLVED grounds as an outcome of this thread.
  2. The block of mr rnddude was also too involved. I'm a bit outraged by BD tarnishing a clean block log because someone called him a liar in a thread reviewing his admin actions. Admisn should not block editors for what they say in threads that are reviews of the admin's use of tools. It's an obvious and inescapable conflict of interest. To use a legal analogy, a judge can hold someone in contempt for what they say in court, but not in a trial where the judge is the defendant. Reducing the block to 1hr was also a terrible idea, because it sabotages the review process by making the block moot, without any acknowledgment that the block was very wrong in the first place. The block of mr rnddude should be formally overturned as an outcome of this thread, and thanks to Floq for fixing the block log.
  3. MPUWT's username is one of my favorites, and I hope they remain an editor in good standing just so the username doesn't go to waste. However, their talk page shows a bunch of complaints from a bunch of different editors about a bunch of different things, and that's always a bad sign. If MPUWT doesn't figure out how to piss off fewer people and less often, they're going to get voted off the island (which they already know). It'd be better for the encyclopedia if MPUWT figured out how to avoid that. In that topic area, it's going to require a lot of turning the other cheek, not responding in kind, biting your tongue and not making forumy posts like the May comment that Bish warned for. I hope MPUWT realizes that even if the tban gets overturned here, that doesn't mean they were right all along and everyone else was wrong. For the sake of their kick-ass username, I hope they figure out the necessary adjustments. (Springee has good advice on that above.)
  4. Finally, and in light of Tartan's comments here, I'm not seeing any recent (30 days) diffs that justify a tban. Lev!vich 05:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Levivich, but had any other admin blocked me, that block would have been unoverturnable (to coin a new word). As both Black Kite and Floq pointed out: it's a personal attack but somebody else should have handled it. My block log says the block was a 'very bad idea', that's more generous than I could have expected. The victim here is the IP who BD assumed erroneously was me and blocked as well. Floq overturned that block as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  I agree and if it were someone else who did the blocking I probably wouldn't have said anything about it. But according to BD's block log, you were the first editor BD blocked for personal attacks/harassment in over 10 years. The IP was the first IP editor BD blocked for duck/block evasion in over 15 years. I'd be more understanding if BD regularly made these kinds of blocks, but he basically never makes these blocks except in this thread about his use of tools. That was compounded by reducing the block to 1hr instead of just unblocking, and by continuing to claim in this thread that he is not involved because he never edited that particular article. Lev!vich 18:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Support trout as sufficient to close this. Lev!vich 05:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support reducing the topic ban to 30 days duration, keeping it through the upcoming U.S. election. Why? Because I think that the editor has shown in this very conversation a paranoid, confrontational and tendentious style of editing incompatible with working on election coverage at this time. As for Levivich's affection for the username, I beg to differ. I consider it borderline trolling, and am unaware of anyone with this style of username ever becoming a productive, long term editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

For curiosity's sake, how does my username qualify as "borderline trolling". MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn all blocks and sanction BD - the topic ban of MPUWT seemed a bit overdone and involved. But then blocking those critical of the ban? That's desysop territory. Not sure how User:Cullen328 finds the username as even borderline trolling - any more so than naming oneself after Cullen's anti-oil Bill C-328! :) Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  I believe—and would hope—that the issue between myself and User:Mr rnddude has been resolved at this point. I have, per discussion with that editor, struck my own comments regarding suspicion of block evasion. The IP has apologized to the latter for creating the appearance of an improper action, but is free to revisit the matter if they wish. I would clarify, however, that I have tried to engage constructively with those "critical of the ban", and only responded administratively to an attack that went beyond the civil bounds of that discussion. It would be helpful if your comment more accurately reflected that. BD2412 T 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see any clear reason they were blocked (which isn't to say that there might not have been something I missed. And even if there was one, I don't see how you should be the person doing it. Bluntly and simply stating a fact isn't massively uncivil - if the statement is wrong, it should be easy enough to resolve. I don't see why the IP was blocked either. Both blocks require one to have failed to AGF. That's 3 questionable blocks in a row, and 3 involved blocks in a row. That raises questions. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, it is not good you continue to misunderstand the reasons you as an admin should refrain from using your tools and position against someone that is critiquing your admin actions, even if they misstep and call you a liar. Had I seen the insult I would have asked the commentor to retract and if not left if for another admin to address. Then you blocked another for what you claimed was a DUCK IP ban evasion...without proof. All in a thread discussing your possible INVOLVED topic banning of another editor. All this on the heels of a few days ago whereby you created a tasteless "joke" page, and when it was deleted by another admin, you went and restored it.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BD2412&oldid=981476278#Speedy_deletion_of_Draft:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Donald_Trump]. I recommend you refrain from an admin actions for the near term as, and I mean this seriously, you seem to be nearing a point of a necessary arbcom case. I am hoping you might listen to what I am saying, as a one time admin who lost their bit for cause.--MONGO (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reading it again User:BD2412 - you did refer initially to a previous ANI case, but omitted to mention that it was you who had brought it - am I wrong there? While I'm not sure I'd have said that's a lie by omission, it does seem to be unnecessarily misleading - and I don't see that is a personal attack. Have I missed something? Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have faith that you wouldn't have said "You're a liar" to another editor over even an apparent omission. In our further discussion of it, Mr rnddude, has agreed that it was a personal attack. I would also note that I never actually blocked MPUWT (see their block log). In the previous ANI discussion in which I proposed a topic ban, I was told, specifically, that:

“ post-1932 American politics is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, to which the user has been alerted. So you can do it at your own admin discretion if you want to, you don't have to wait for a community sanction decided at ANI. ”

If that instruction was incorrect then the topic ban probably should be overturned. However, it is not my understanding that having previously raised the issue in an administrative capacity makes me "involved", nor have I substantively edited the articles acted on by MPUWT that led me to impose the topic ban. BD2412 T 16:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ban ... block ... Surely quoting "You're a liar" while omitting the "by ommission" is unnecessarily overstating and exaggerating the situation. Which ironically seems to be how this mess escalated! Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn TBAN, verbally admonish BD4212 I do not see a solid reason that this was enacted in the first place. BD4212 should back off on this and let uninvolved admins handle it. I think the discretionary sanctions' directions could be clearer too. Buffs (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  As this does appear to be a well-represented sentiment in this discussion, I am backing off of this. BD2412 T 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  A solid trouting and off you go... :-) Buffs (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn TBAN and sanction BD It was inappropiate for BD to have done that. Levivich said it best. ~ HAL333([154]) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Upon sober reflection of the foregoing, I am removing the topic ban from the log. I have been on edge during the run-up to the election, anticipating a substantial increase in election-related disruption and incivility, and clearly this has made me too reactive. I will take a Wikibreak from use of administrative tools. BD2412 T 00:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Good thought. And I think many of us are on edge, between that, Covid, etc. I've half-joked more than once that best thing we could do is just ban any American from articles on American politics! :) Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility of User:AleviQizilbash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I am not a heavily-involved editor with regard to User:AleviQizilbash, but I have noted numerous times over the past few weeks that other established editors are having problems with this relatively novice user. In my estimation, the problems he exhibits are not subsiding after previous warnings. In fact, he is quickly reverting new warnings being left for him. My observation includes the following:

• (Oct 6) accused me of harassment, obsession, endless stalking, and religious/nationalist hatred.
• (Oct 6) characterizes other editors as "triggered" and describes warnings as "useless".
• (Oct 6) invokes my name to complain about harassing and stalking (again), when the previous message was merely pointing out that AleviQizilbash had finally begun to engage in Talk page discussions before making contentious edits.
• (Sep 13) While the relatively novice editor generally expects respect for his views on the religious attributes of historical figures, he describes the mother of Jesus as "adulterous Mary who opened her private parts to Roman soldiers", which shows an appalling lack of decorum.

As I said, if I were more involved in the topical disputes surrounding this user, I could give better (or at least more) examples. But I hope that the above is sufficient evidence to suggest that the current line of "repeated warnings" may not be having an effect on User:AleviQizilbash that is beneficial to the Wikipedia community. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Given this user has been warned about active sanctions, I'd support an WP:ARBPIA ban. Incendiary griping on I/P talkpages is obviously disruptive, and an inability to keep calm about the subject matter seems to be the source of the current problem here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Although this user has a terrible attitude, he does have some knowledge. With an ARBPIA ban he probably would find it difficult to contribute. I'd prefer to start with a one-week block for personal attacks based on this edit and the others like it. I note that Huldra gave him some good advice at User talk:Huldra#Needs your help over preplanned conspircay and serial harassment against me which he seems to have ignored. Some of his comments are getting close to WP:NOTHERE so I hope some change occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"seems to have ignored" may be a small understatement: (blames his lack of politeness on not having the money to hire "sneaky lawyers" like we toxic Western culture folks do. (sigh) - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This user AppleBsTime is stalking and harassing me since the first day he discovered my existence ,I'm exhausted of his endless stalks and harassment , he just want to get me blocked by any means and I believe that he is the one that should be blocked and banned for life . The first day I met him was on the page of User "Paradise Chronicle" there was a dispute between me and her , for at that time she deleted all the academic sources that I provided on the article of Sheikh Adi Ibn Musafir which proves that he was a Muslim and venerated by Muslims , she cited " Yazidis don't like Muslims much" s an excuse of deleting all the academic sources ! then she said that " Jesus isn't venerated by Christians as a Jew " , so at this point I made the parable of Mary as How Jews view her as an adulterous , this isn't my depiction of Mary as AppleBsTime says , I was just using it as a parable of what Jews believe about Mary and Jesus to prove to user Paradise Chronicle that she is using a logical fallacy since Jesus and Mary are rejected by Jews while Sheikh Adi is venerated and accepted by Muslims , then I called user paradise ' Islamophobe" over her statement " Yazidis don't like Muslims much " since she used this statement as an excuse to delete all the academic sources that I provided , then User ApplebsTime appeared for the first time during this dispute and sided with her so i called him 'Islamophobe " too and suggested that they should get psychological treatment , at this point they reported me to Admin " Black Kite" and he interfered and asked me to desist and gave me a warning , so I desisted , deleted all the discussion on my talkpage as an evidence of good will and everything went well , here is the evidence of what I'm saying till now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleviQizilbash&oldid=979011240#Yazidis_and_Sheikh_Adi I didn't talk to them since then , however after about two weeks recently on October I came into a dispute with some users at the Begin–Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies who wanted to turn the article into promotional campaign for the center and they wanted to delete any Criticism laid against the center , I accused them of vandalism and editwar and they accused me of the same things , obe of them was user "Thhings6sz" and he left a message on my talk page and said ' stop edit war " then user with the name ' Wbiasis" sent me another message of editwar and threats of blocking , here is the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AleviQizilbash#Please_stop_your_edit_war and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleviQizilbash&oldid=981469023 However I found user Paradise chronicle making edit on Begin sadat during this dispute , so I felt that there was something fishy , so i entered her page to my shock I found user AppleBsTime was conspiring with her against me he asked her to enter the article and escalate a dispute in order to get me blocked since she has more edits than him and can do the escalation here is the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paradise_Chronicle#Sheikh_Adi_was_a_Muslim_and_your_behavior_in_deleting_my_links_is_unprofessional_and_biased

here is another proof where she went into one of the users account who were engaging with me in the dispute of Begin sadat center to incite him against me and offer him help , here is the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbiases Their conspiring behavior has made me believe that the other users who engaged with during the dispute of the Begin Sadat article were actually socks of either User Apple or user Paradise . Then user ApplebsTime and User Thhings6sz reported me and testified against me , however their reporting and false testimony of AppleBsTime was rejected and deleted (reformated ) here is the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=981530620&oldid=981519981 then Admins interfered again and just changed the statue of the article of Begin Sadat into protected article .The Article is now protected , only those with over 500 contributions are allowed to edit it so basically I'm excluded , now they took advantage of the article and deleted all third party sources that criticze BESA or even discuss BESA's policy papers and turned it into promotional work

1. Compare My last edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies&oldid=981492439

   With Theeir current edit here of user Wbiasis : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies&oldid=982051316

   check The toxic talk page about deleting all the anti BESA sources  : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies#BESA_and_ISIS

Then Yesterday I was making my first academic contribution to the article of Ismail_al-Jazari where I just cited academic sources about his ethnic background , that's all , while user Wario man deleted all the academic sources and cited " disputed , see talkpage " so I thanked him and abide my self with the issue after seeing the talk page and didn't revert it back again , here is the proof , compare the revision history of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismail_al-Jazari&action=history then to my shock I found him sending me a warning about neutrality and pushing my own commentary and personal analysis ! here is the evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleviQizilbash&oldid=982145323#October_2020 while it was just my first contribution to the article and I didn't push any view or reverted any of the academic sources that I provided ! but no problem I passed the issue , deleted the warning after reading it and didn't change the article again , anyway I wasn't making any commentary or offering personal analysis , I was just citing academic sources and Here is the revision history comparison between my edit of Ismail al Jazari and the edits of Wario man https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismail_al-Jazari&diff=982024044&oldid=982001009 Then to my shock again I found user AppleBsTime again is trying to incite user Wario Man against me , telling him that me deleting the warning on my very own page ! is not good sign and I have to be blocked !!!!! here is the evidence again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wario-Man#Quickly_reverting_warnings_is_not_a_good_sign , this user AppleBsTime seems to have a personal issue with me since the first time he discovered the existence of a Muslim Turk like me ! anyway then later I was discussing the issue of Begin Sadat article with User Huldra and asked her to do what she sees right whether it's ok to leave the article on it's current promotional work or change it , then user Thhings6sz entered the discussion and used the warning of User wario man against as a proof that I'm pushing my view ! I told him that User wario was triggered and the warning was useless since I was just citing academic sources , I wasn't making any personal analysis or pushing any personal view , here is the proof of what I'm saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huldra#The_Israeli_Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies_or_BESA_became_a_promotional_work , then now after my discussion with Thhings6z , I found now AppleBsTime is reporting me for calling the warning useless and wario man triggered , this user Apple is simply stalking me and just want to get me blocked , maybe user Thhings6z is just a sock of ApplebsTime since the two work like coordinators , and This user Thhings6z was also stalking me on my edits on Wikipedia where he insisted to call Alevis "Crypto Jews" ! and reverted old vandalism about the article which I removed long time ago then he started to bully me asking me why you don't want to be associated with Jews ! and syaing that I'm on a mission against specific group (Jews) for refusing to be called ' crypto Jew !!! I told him that we aren't Crypto Jews , and this is defamatory then he accused me of throwing negativity against certain groups ( Jews ) for refusing to be called " Crypto Jew " then he started to vandalize the article and I kept revrting it back , I felt that he was going to trap me again and accuse me of edit war to get me blocked , the both users work in the same way of harassing , stalking and bullying against me , here is the proof of the crypto Jews dispute with this most likely sock of AppleBsTime user Thhings6sz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AleviQizilbash#Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict_discretionary_sanctions_alert and here in the article of Alian Alevis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alians and here is the revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alians&action=history , I'm exhausted and drained because of these users stalking me and harassing me , they keep creating traps for me to get me blocked , they are highly toxic and draining my energy everyday , Toxic users on wikipedia have been reported on the media before like here https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/one-third-of-personal-attacks-on-wikipedia-come-from-active-editors/ and here https://www.vice.com/en/article/4xangm/wikipedia-editor-says-sites-toxic-community-has-him-contemplating-suicide , I didn't believe it till I experienced all this hatred , abuse , negativity and draining of my energy by these users , AppleBsTime Thhings6sz , Paradise Chronicle and Wbiases are the ones who should be blocked and banned for life . Now you have all the proofs and evidences . Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since he mentioned me as well, I'll clarify.

(1) AleviQizilbash pov on Besa center has been rejected a long time ago. (2) He came only to discredit and attack the page after he didn't like something regarding Alawites.(3) Third party NPR view is already there. (4) After being warned for repeated edit war he just deleted the warnings and kept on relentlessly. (5) More obvious POV: besides hinting support for Hezbollah days ago, as well as on Oct.6 openly calling the center "lunatic" [12:07, 6 October 2020 UTC] (5) Yet again, it seems a pattern of pov pushing... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleviQizilbash&diff=prev&oldid=982024195&diff=prev&oldid=982024195 as a general routine. One of AleviQizilbash is getting personal and lumping everyone into one thing or so called "conspiracy." All in all. No civility. Toxic, yes. All the way. Thhings6sz (talk)

As I have been mentioned I give my opinion as well. I have noticed AleviQizilbash as rather a difficult editor, others apparently as well. I guess the 1 week block is a rather tolerant solution (given the really many, many insulting edits AleviQizibash has), which gives him time to think about how to contribute to Wikipedia more effectively. To AleviQizilbash I give the advice to criticize more the content of the edits, than the editor.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) AleviQizilbash, if you want to continue being allowed to edit contentious topics, you need to demonstrate that you can keep your cool in tense discussions. The above wall of text does the opposite, and suggests that there may indeed be a need for you to step away from these topics for some time. That having been said, I think there is also some merit to the accusation that AppleBsTime has been hounding AleviQizilbash (administrators can review this diff including a personal attack that I later redacted in a comment that AppleBsTime made on a AN3 report against AleviQizilbash that had been filed by another editor), such that at least an informal IBAN is likely in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If User;AleviQizilbash were blocked one week I would see that as a last chance prior to an indef. I'd warn User:AppleBsTime not to post any more violent metaphors (needing rev-deletion) or risk a sanction. At the present rate I doubt if AleviQizilbash will be around long enough to justify the overhead of an interaction ban. But I would be happy in the unlikely event that they respond here and show a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Rosguill and EdJohnston. No need whatsoever for an interaction ban between me and AleviQizilbash, as I intend for this to be my final effort relating to him becoming a more civil editor. If he wishes to call me a sockpuppet or an Islamophobe again in the future, I'm just going to ignore it. Any check of my account and the other supposed sockpuppet account(s) should reveal absolutely no suspicious evidence whatsoever. Any "hounding" that I was doing was intended more to come to the rescue of other editors who were being defamed and disparaged by Alevi, not to stalk his every move. I felt called to action because it looked like Alevi was not favorably conforming to much of the advice that he had been given in September. As I said -- I consider this matter swept from my plate, so to speak. It's up to the Wikipedia community to decide how much more of this they will tolerate. I think if you view my edit history, the many "Thanks" that I give to other editors, the "welcomes" I leave for editors who recently join the Wikiproject that I belong to... it would be a difficult case indeed to show that I am the type to be harassing other Wikipedians. - AppleBsTime (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to define your attitude towards me as mere misunderstanding and end the "hounding" issue peacefully , however your 'hounding" wasn't about saving people from me honey , for when you just went to user Wario Man just to incite him to report me to get me blocked , it wasn't about saving him from my defamation , you just told him that I removed his warning on my own page and I deserve to be blocked ! while in reality I thanked him for reverting my own academic sources , here is the evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=AleviQizilbash&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[]=newusers , I was just shocked to find him leaving the warning on my page after I thanked him , but I didn't defamed him as you claim , I just deleted the warning and passed the issue peacefully , till I waked up today to find you making a huge issue out of it and inciting him against me , then user Thhings6sz went on Huldra's page to use this warning to discredit me , only at this time I told him that the warning was useless and user Wario was triggered then after seconds I found you telling wario that I said that he was triggered and his warning is useless then you reported me and this is why we are here now . ok I was wrong in telling Thhings6sz that the warning was useless and Wario was triggered , I apologize to Wario , can you end your "hounding" campaigns , make peace now and turn the page ? as for me , I'm totally willing , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong in lumping me with other users. I have my own subjects which I write. But your pov push and vandalism and incivility is too noticeable. Cease your obsession, personal "accusation" and lying. Thhings6sz (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone can check all the sources above as provided by all users including you and me and see who is the obsessed , vandal , liar and toxic AleviQizilbash (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

To check your

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AleviQizilbash not your cherry picked links.

Thhings6sz (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem , however nothing was cherry picked , all was directed about the issue AleviQizilbash (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thank You Eddy for all of your efforts to settle the dispute peacefully but I'm done , I can't handle all this abuse , bullying and hatred against me since 2 October till today , 5 days on row, my energy is totally drained and I'm extremely exhausted , I want to leave Wikipedia altogether forever , I just don't know how to delete my account , tried google with no success , so please as an admin yourself if you can delete my account please do so , I just don't want anyone to add anything on my talk page after I leave , just want everything to be erased , if you can't delete the account so please give me a guide or something to delete it , Thank You so much for all your good efforts and neutrality in solving all the issues on wikipedia , I apologize for annoying you all over the past days till today over the issue , Thank You so much AleviQizilbash (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

And 'if/when' you come back, if you see something different than your opinion (like your pro-Hezbollah view or other opinions you have) don't go on a single mission only to attack the page cherry-picking most radical diatribe one can find, or after anyone who has a different opinion than you. And when you falsely "accuse" and you realized you lied that I supposedly altered a reference, back off, at least. Take it easy in life and online. All in all. Nothing is personal from me. Teşekkürler Shukran Thhings6sz (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

<edit conflict:>

User:AleviQizilbash: ugh, my 2 cents to you: I have been editing in the I/P (=Israel/Palestine) area for more than 15 years here on Wikipedia: I expect each and every edit I do here to be scrutinised, and that various editors are "following me around": and you better learn to expect the same, or Wikipedia (at least the "hot zones", like the I/P area) is not for you. These are harsh words, but these are the facts. Having said that: clearly editors are following you around (eg. a couple of "new" editors for me posted on my talk-page after you had posted there), again, if you cannot handle that, then the I/P area is not for you.

Secondly, please don't ever use words like you do above ("obsessed , vandal , liar and toxic"): whatever you think: those are not words that will get you anywhere (except blocked)

What Schazjmd told you on your user-page: "remember to focus on content, not editors," is excellent advise: and if you don't immediately start following that advise, well, it is not rocket-science to see that you are heading for a block.

The 500/30 rule is there for a reason: so that new editors shall have a chance to "learn the ropes" before they start editing in the "hot zones": please respect that.

This is the last time I am telling you this: please never, never, never, never, never again comment on the behaviour of other editors (unless you are reporting their behaviour on say, WP:AN or WP:AN/I), Huldra (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

HuldraYeah sure , I'm not allowed to call them vandals , obsessed and liars or I have to be blocked but they are totally allowed to call me vandal , liar , toxic , crypto jew and obsessed so they may get hooked in praise and regarded as the defenders of the Wikipedia , they are allowed to harass and stalk me or as you called it politely "following me around " or as user Apple just admitted it and said that he was 'hounding me " , yes this is totally fine for them and I'm the guilty one ! for my energy have to be drained for days on row over all this stalking and harassment and I have to shut the fuck up or I will be labeled as the bad guy , and no it has nothing to do with my Turk or Muslim identity and it has nothing to do with their Zionist , Jewish and Kurdish identities , it's just a coincidence . Anyway , I admit it I'm not only unfit for the Israel Palestine sections , I'm totally unfit of the whole wikipedia's absurd project , I just want to leave it and delete my account but I don't know how , I would be thankful to you if you can delete my account please do so if you have the ability to do so , you have my full permission to do so , however if you can't do so then just give me a guide to delete it , I just don't want anyone to edit my talkpage after my leave , I want it to be erased and my whole account removed forever , Thank youAleviQizilbash (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AleviQizilbash, well if anyone calls you names, ...then you can report them. As for deleting your account; you cannot delete your contributions, but nothing stop you for leaving : If you want to rename your account before you leave, then go to: Wikipedia:Changing username. You can place a {{retired}} on the top of you page if you like, or just place a {{delete}} if you want the whole page deleted. And if it is any consolation: I think that less than 10% of the editors trying to edit in the I/P area "survives" for any lenght of time.... Huldra (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Huldra , Thank You , can I place both retired and delete on my talk page ?AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AleviQizilbash well, if you place the "retired" first and then "delete", then the "retired" will also be deleted. I you do it in the opposite order, then the "retired" will be the only thing on that page, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Huldra Thank you so much for your help , appreciated , Goodbye , you have my best wishes AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~7 hour delay at WP:AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please update at your earliest convenience. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Backlog has been cleared by now. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Telsho & LTA socking

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

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

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

• Singapore (no diffs for this one, since the vast majority of Telsho's edits involve Singapore)
• Culture of Singapore (while sometimes removing mention of other countries): [155][156][157][158][159], multiple edits to bubble tea, the creation of List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries, edits to Michael P. Fay
• Economy of Singapore (a sampling of numerous examples, including some shoehorning in of mentions of Singapore): [160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170], Hillion Mall
• Jewel Changi Airport [171] and Singapore Changi Airport [172][173][174], Singapore airlines [175][176]
• Lee Hsien Loong (no diffs needed here, since Telsho is all over the recent history, but diffs of pushing mentions of Lee in other articles can easily be provided)
• articles about Singapore transit: [177][178][179]

Quacking

• Telsho makes his one and only edit to George Floyd protests, which just happens to be a specific point a heavily involved sock was interested in[180]
• The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
  • Japanese Self-Defense Forces[181][182][183][184]
  • Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [185][186][187]
  • Lee Hsien Loong [188][189]
  • removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [190][191]
  • Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [192][193][194]
• A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [195][196][197][198][199][200][201](note that warring over redirects, especially with User:Horse Eye Jack/User:Horse Eye's Back, continues with Telsho and resulted in his current block)
• Tag bombing and edit warring over them, just like Telsho [202][203][204][205][206]
• Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [207]
• Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [208][209]
• This one I put in the SPI and consider a smoking gun, but bears repeating as a one-time visit to an obscure page just to reinstate a sock edit under the guise of reverting vandalism
• There is another connection between Telsho and an earlier sock, but per WP:BEANS I'd prefer to share it with admins privately, upon request

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

• (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([220][221][222][223][224]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.

  That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [225][226][227][228], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [229]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.

An oldy but goody

Casting of ass

persians
-EEng

• Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.

To summarize my thoughts:

• At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
• At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
• It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just so that everyone is aware Telsho resumed edit warring at Singapore–United States relations immediately after their block expired and is back at the edit warring noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The result was a warning issued by EdJohnston, hopefully they heed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This user is now reverting his article of the day to the slanted "consensus" version which was, in fact, created by him without consensus and which he edit warred to preserve. I don't know how this user can make it any more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE, regardless of the sock accusation. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IsaacSorry

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

This user has been warned multiple times by multiple editors for significantly changing lead sections to musician articles without discussion or consensus. This includes:

• Changing orders of paragraphs out of chronology: Note here that their edit reason here only mentions adding "more awards" (one that probably shouldn't be in the lede anyway), but also moves a section about Fleetwood Mac's 1993 reunion and subsequent activity from its chronological place in the third paragraph to the fourth one. That means the timeline skips from the early 90s, then to Christine McVie's departure, and then back to 1993
• Adding incorrect statements: Such as here; Hendrix did not die at a dwelling he owned at his home. The wording that was already here was fine.
• Adding excessive detail to the lead, which are supposed to be short: Such as here.
• Adding OR or otherwise unquantifiable statements to the lead: Such as here. The claim that " The Cure were one of the first alternative bands to have critical and commercial success in an era before alternative rock had broken into the mainstream" is hard to prove and has no source.

All examples above have been reverted, but IsaacSorry has either ignored or has been combative about all warnings they have received. They have continued to make inappropriate edits to lead sections after having been warned at least six times. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "his home" in the Hendrix edit says nothing about ownership (the location was not, though, his home). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrected Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user

• Ivan cihanou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tymoteusz Ptuś (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi admins, I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place but I can't find a more appropriate one:

Please have a look at User:Ivan cihanou. For one thing, I find his user page somewhat problematic.

This user, by his global user pages, is a native speaker of about 25 languages, English apparently being the one exception. He and his sock puppet User:Tymoteusz Ptuś have been banned infinitely on the Polish and the German Wikipedia. His contributions on the latter consisted of more or less incomprehensible machine translations from Polish articles, which seems surprising for a "native speaker" of the language. So you may want to have a look. --87.150.10.143 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please leave a notice on the concerned editors' talk pages, as is required by this noticeboard's policies. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you can probably tell, I am doing this for the first time on the English Wikipedia, and should I ever do it again in some distant future, I am sure I will be just as lost as today and certainly won't see that particular policy among those millions of policies that are all over the place here. --87.150.10.143 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable behavior that needs attention

An IP editor has been repeatedly posting on my talk page despite being asked and warned several times not to. They are unhappy about the way things unfolded at Cedar Point, and despite initially participating in a talk page discussion there, has been persistent to disrupt my talk page. Even after removing the disruption, the editor has been quick to add it back in some cases. Asking here to see if another experienced editor can assess the situation and see if protecting my talk page from this IP range is an appropriate next step, or if another administrative action is needed. IPs involved:

• 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:B90E:89C3:21DE:E8A5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

Relevant diffs from my talk page:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6

Warnings given:

• diff7
• diff8
• Lvl 4 warning

Activity after final warning:

• diff10
• diff11

Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP editor from editing your talk page for a month. This person is also using some other IPs to edit, so it's not a complete lockout, but it's easy enough to partially block them, too, if they become a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ninja: when you enabled the 'block', did you first also read all of the deleted mssgs (especially the ones on the Cedar Point article and talk page). p.s. please dont judge me by my fluctuating i.p.; i have zero control over it (and total inability to revert to my prior i.p.s.) thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:B90E:89C3:21DE:E8A5 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no need to read anything anywhere else. You were asked to stop posting on the editor's talk page at least twice back in August [230] [231] and to keep discussion on the article talk page. You need to obey the request and stop WP:harassing the editor. You were of course free to continue to discuss any article content issues on the relevant article talk page like Talk:Cedar Point which is where such discussions belong anyway. Instead you came back at the end of September and continued to post [232] and were asked again to stop [233] (and again later [234]). Yet you continued to post [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241]. Whatever else that is beyond your control, something that should be under your control is to stop posting when asked. All it requires is for you to stop visiting the editor's talk page or to stop clicking edit on the editor's talk page after visiting, or to stop typing out a message after clicking edit or to stop clicking "publish" after typing our your message; and if you really lack the self control for any of that then just stop visiting Wikipedia point blank. Since you apparently lacked the self control for any of that, you had to be forced to stop. Your lucky you're only stopped from editing the editor's talk page since frankly an editor who would continually harass someone like you did is not someone who should be welcome here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

why does it seem that the contributors who think that they are god's gift to wikipedia, cause more mahem (by p*ssing everyone else off) than their own contributions can possibly be worth. so, i wonder what happens when the vandals (which y'all created by p*ssing them off, with your "good intentions") finally out-number all of you? (anyway have fun indefinitely defending all of your hard efforts against the vandalism problem you yourselves create, because, sooner or later, you won't be able to keep up with it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:7D23:8AE1:46A7:126D (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They never said they were "god's gift to wikipedia"; in fact, this more aptly describes you, given your attempts to foist your viewpoints both on GoneIn60 and the page itself (see WP:KETTLE). You attempted to accuse them of conduct issues, which they thought was unfounded (and to be fair, I think it is; an essay can and usually are accepted as a semi-guideline), they chose not to accept it, but you repeatedly tried to harass them in order to coerce them into accepting it. They told you to stop posting on their talk page, and yet you ignored it, and thus here you are. If there are serious conduct issues, then other venues are more appropriate. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 01:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfair blocking of my IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

My IP address was blocked for a few days and I was accused of edit warring even though I did not edit war. The admin user:Serols acted upon a complaint by user:EDG 543 and in my opinion did so without properly investigating the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serols#Eastern_Anatolia_Region

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Anatolia_Region&action=history

I request that the admin's privileges be reviewed so he does not keep abusing his powers.

Kind regards, 157.167.128.180 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This IP has not edited the Eastern Anatolia Region article before. Would you happen to have been IP address 94.120.114.41? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

157.167.128.180 is a proxy server. [242] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sevice - he means this IP.

It is known that some Turks deny the genocide of the Armenians and I am not an admin. You were rightly blocked --Serols (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

157.167.128.180 has been bocked. --Serols (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bocked for three months, it seems. EEng 07:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obamanator1793

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over at Gab (social network) the user keeps on making POV pushy distributive edits marked as minor. [[243]] [[244]] [[245]] [[246]] They have been told not to [[247]], and are aware of wp:minor [[248]]

They have been a user since 2013, so not a new account.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No attempt at discussion or acknowledgement of talk page notices.--Jorm (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[249]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[250]]. This is now getting beyond a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to add any more diffs, just to say this is now an ongoing disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef to stop ongoing disruption, until they post a convincing unblock request. I don't need to be consulted by the reviewing admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, it was getting tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Out-of-process category deletions by user:Hyacinth

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Pupils_of_Olivier_Messiaen was closed as "delete" by Bibliomaniac15. The bot handled the emptying and deletion of the category.

However, Hyacinth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then proceeded to delete 32 similar categories (see log), each with the rationale "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen":

• Category:Pupils of Bernhard Ziehn
• Category:Pupils of Samuel Adler
• Category:Pupils of Henry Cowell
• Category:Pupils of Virgil Thomson
• Category:Pupils of Niccolò Jommelli
• Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger
• Category:Pupils of Muzio Clementi
• Category:Pupils of Moritz Hauptmann
• Category:Pupils of Maria Curcio
• Category:Pupils of Karlheinz Stockhausen
• Category:Pupils of Joseph Joachim
• Category:Pupils of Joseph Haydn
• Category:Pupils of John Cage
• Category:Pupils of Johann Sebastian Bach
• Category:Pupils of Orlande de Lassus
• Category:Pupils of Paul Hindemith
• Category:Pupils of Robert Erickson
• Category:Pupils of Samuel Adler (composer)
• Category:Pupils of Siegfried Dehn
• Category:Pupils of Simon Sechter
• Category:Pupils of Walter Piston
• Category:Pupils of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Category:Pupils of Jan Hřímalý
• Category:Pupils of Horatio Parker
• Category:Pupils of Frédéric Chopin
• Category:Pupils of Ernst Krenek
• Category:Pupils of Darius Milhaud
• Category:Pupils of Engelbert Humperdinck
• Category:Pupils of Charles Seeger
• Category:Pupils of Bernhard Klein
• Category:Pupils of Arthur Honegger
• Category:Pupils of Arnold Schoenberg

Hyacinyth then made 291 edits to articles using WP:HOTCAT, removing articles for from the deleted category: see the 291 edits.

This is an abuse of process. The categories were neither listed at CFD nor tagged as candidates for deletion. If they had been listed, maybe there would have been consensus to delete them too ... but we don't know, because they weren't nominated.

The result is that a lot of categories have been deleted without consensus, and hundreds of articles are now categorised in these deleted categories: see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/30916 or e.g. Category:Pupils of Darius Milhaud, which still contains 91 pages. So:

• Please can some admin:
  1. restore the deleted pages
  2. revert Hyacinth's emptying of them?
     Obviously, all without prejudice to whatever decision might be made if any or all of those categories is properly nominated at WP:CFD
• Please can Hyacinth be forcefully reminded not to abuse their admin tools in this way?

Note that Hyacinth has not been online for over 5 hours, and their userpage says they are based in Montana, where is now the middle of the night. So I come here first to seek a prompt reversion of the disruption rather than waiting for Hyacinth to re-emerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• (non admin comment) One name springs out in particular - Nadia Boulanger. She was the most famous classical music teacher of C20; and unlike the others, she was prominent as neither performer nor composer. List of music students by teacher: A to B contains around 250 of her pupils who have articles. Each of these categories should go individually through WP:CFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narky Blert, I wouldn't object to a group nomination, where discussion could show whether there was any support for treating one or more of the categories as an exception to any wider consensus. But there is no applicable speedy criterion, so none of these cats should be deleted without discussion.
    BTW, I have no view either way on whether any of these categories should exist. My objection is solely to the lack of consensus-building in the deletion of categories per a discussion where they were not listed and tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I can't see how that poorly-attended discussion on Messiaen sets any sort of precedent. The arguments centred around whether or not the people in that category were defined by having been his pupils. By extension, everything in Category:Alumni by educational institution would be ripe for deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree that it doesn't set any formal precedent.
        The substantive arguments for or against deletion should be made in a CFD discussion ... and the reason I brought this to ANI is solely that these 32 categories were not discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, agree. Nadia Boulanger is without question one of the most significant figures in the history of music pedagogy. We absolutely must have either a category for her many famous students or a list. As to whether to have a list, a category or both, that would be an ecumencial matter, but it definitely needs at the very least a deletion discussion to hash out the pros and cons. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: Strangely, we seem to have no article on that very important topic. Narky Blert (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, feck! Guy (help! - typo?) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The precedent is set by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen. Being a pupil of a teacher is not definitive and not thus not appropriate for a category structure which duplicates List of music students by teacher. Hyacinth (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Not true, @Hyacinth. That CFD decided that being a pupil of Olivier Messiaen is not WP:DEFINING.

That CFD did not make any decision about the other categories, because they were nether tagged nor listed in that discussion ... and there is no basis in policy or practice for deleting 32 categories because there was consensus to delete one similar category. You did not cite any speedy criterion, so this was straightforward unilateral deletion.

This is a very very basic consensus-building issue, and it alarming to see that an admin has such difficulty in understanding that. If you believe that the other categories should be deleted, then feel free to nominate them at WP:CFD, and to cite the Olivier Messiaen CFD as a precedent ... but do not abuse your admin tools to delete categories which have not been discussed. Please revert your out-of-process deletions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This isn't the first time there's been a problem with misuse of the tools with regard to categories under discussion. See the messes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Category:Square roots and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 7#Category:Square roots of integers. I brought this up on their talk page at User talk:Hyacinth/July 20 2015 - October 12 2018#Admin tools. Just like the response immediately above, this seemed to show a lack of understanding of the out-of-process use of admin tools and the problems that causes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Deacon Vorbis. The attitude displayed in 2018 is not compatible with WP:ADMINACCT, and the understanding of process is equally broken. If @Hyacinth doesn't change their tune, this could escalate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The sneak deletion of categories by emptying has been a problem for some time. Most people interested in categorization have always regarded this as unacceptable, and there is a proposal (started by me), still open but flagging, to amend the policies to say so, which they don't at present. Some people who do it genuinely don't know how it is regarded by most editors, while others know but don't care. The lack of a policy wording to point to is not good in tackling either group. There has been good support, but one strong objector, and a generally low turnout. Say no more. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Categories undeleted and emptying reverted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, @JJMC89. Great to have the damage undone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Out-of-process emptying of categories happens far too frequently and in the past week I posted notices about this to 2 experienced editors who continued on with this behavior. Since it is inappropriate but not uncommon, it was unclear to me whether this was blockworthy behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• This morning (European time) I had pinged Hyacinth to Category talk:Pupils of Johann Sebastian Bach, for undeletion of that category, but have seen no reaction thus far. I suggest all of Hyacinth's deletions and category removals of this batch be undone, until further discussion. Further discussion should involve (at least):
  • Proper listing & notifications w.r.t. all categories that would be affected according to the CfD proposal (as already mentioned above);
  • Notification of the CfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, and likely also best at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, in order to attract sufficient input.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: if any WikiProject is interested in any categories, they should apply their project banner to the cats' talk pages. Then they will be notified by Article alerts. It is not he responsibility of nominators to identify WikiProjects which may be interested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone makes mistakes and no one here is perfect .... however I'm not at all happy with their responses here, The same issue happened in 2018 and even then their responses weren't great..... Given their unsatisfactory responses here I genuinely question whether they should be an admin at all at this point. As I said everyone makes mistakes but I can't help but think this "mistake" will repeat itself again. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I was just about to post something similar. @Hyacinth seems to have learnt nothing from 2018, and seems to be completely unconcerned by the unanimous opposition here to their actions.

Indeed, everyone makes mistakes ... but Hyacinth shows no sign of any interest in learning from their errors. I think that some sanction is in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl it wasn't even that long ago that they made another massive policy blunder in relation to deletion. This was only in July of this year. It does not appear to me that Hyacinth has an adequate understanding of deletion related policies, in either direction. And their response last time was unsatisfactory and swept under the rug. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae this looks like an ongoing competence issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl I agree and also strongly believe that a case should be made to arbcom for desysopping. Praxidicae (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

On the evidence presented here, I would support such a request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed surprising and alarming, and seems to be a repeat issue. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Interested observer" comment: I was surprised to see the category "Pupil of Maria Curcio" deleted from Anthony Goldstone, because this is obviously a fact about the subject (AG) which is appropriate for "databasing", which is how I see the categories acting. Apart from anything else, there is a long tradition of tracing pupil-teacher "genealogies", which the categories would facilitate. I spent some time trying to get a grip on what is meant here by "defining". It is certainly not the same as the mathematical meaning, and the rather woolly stuff about what reliable sources do does not help much. But clearly a category should be something reliably testable, and reasonably clearcut. But then I read the CFD "discussion" and am gobsmacked. The nominator's rationale simply says "Not defining for pupils.", without any sort of explanation of what this is supposed to mean. There is no explanation or discussion of why Messiaen's pupils might be particularly vaguely defined; there are some hints that deleters think that being a pupil of X is "defining" if X is the only significant teacher, and several suggestions that "having a list is OK". But if the list is clearcut, a category is the obvious way to make it easy to obtain the data of this list programmatically. Anyway, I suggest that there should be an immediate repeat discussion about the Messiaen category spefically, with care taken that all interested parties (e.g. from the music project) get to participate, and I would rather guess there would be a snow-close in the opposite direction. I.e. the category is obviously well-defined (is that what you are trying to say?) and useful. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a perennial talking point and one of the tensions that exist in CFD between those whose specialty is categorization and those whose specialty is the topic that the category pertains to. Those who participate often in CFD stand by the guiding statement in WP:CAT that categories are meant "to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories" determined by essential (or "defining") characteristics of a trait. In other words, databasing isn't the main function of categories, navigation is. The hope is that when you look at the bottom of the article, it's not a swarming beehive of every single association that the article could possibly have, but features more careful curation to help others see what is most essential to that article, and thereby help navigate them to other articles that share that essential feature. In this sense, categories are meant to serve articles, and not the other way around.

Now perhaps "defining" is a poor choice of words (I'm not really sure how that term was decided), but it is often misinterpreted as saying that a certain topic or association is of no importance, or that it is vaguely defined, and of course that ruffles a lot of feathers. Rather, WP:NONDEF explains that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." A pretty common rule of thumb to assessing this that you may see CFD contributors use to ascertain whether a characteristic is defining is to see whether the characteristic is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph of the categorized article. Hope this explanation makes a bit more sense to you, Imaginatorium. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Are you seriously suggesting that teacher-pupil relationships between classical musicians aren't commonly and consistently laid out in RS? I've yet to read a biography that doesn't describe them in detail. They are fundamental to understanding where they stand in the tradition. I've even heard a pianist proudly describe himself as a great-grandpupil of Franz Liszt. WP is poor on Indian classical music, but teacher-pupil relationships in it are at least as important and relevant there as they are in Western music.

Is the school or university a person attended usually, or even at all often, mentioned in the lede? That rule-of-thumb is very bad. Narky Blert (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I make no arguments or suggestions either way; I have no stance on this particular set of cats. But I do wonder in the case that you describe whether being a great-grandpupil of Liszt would make them notable in the Wikipedia sense. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. It was merely an interesting snippet about a notable pianist. Narky Blert (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User: Esbbusinessschool

This user is a role account. First recieving warnings for paid editing, he then said that they are the school(making it a role account}, and that he was correcting the article and wouldn't work on anything else. There are 2 problems with this.

1. Shared accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, and
2. This is a clear violation of WP: COI. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hardblocked for username vioation and promo edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis

I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.

My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:

It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already. (02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff

It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.

When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:

Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest. (17:42, 22 September 2020) diff

I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff, revert being referred to

Really? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff

Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.

From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. Yes, I'm fucking human, and yes, when I get the sense that I'm talking to a brick fucking wall, I might let my fucking frustration show and drop a fucking F-bomb. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I would never say anyone's feelings are wrong, and I've had the same reaction when dealing with certain people in text exchanges like this. Usually, for the sake of maintaining a productive conversation, when drafting my reply I ignore those feelings or wait until they pass. If it gets quite bad or I feel it would be helpful to express those feelings, I try to do so using civil language, like "I found your response frustrating because..." Getting loud and swearing a lot and calling people names might be a natural response and acceptable for a venue like a protest or a bar, but not for a civil discussion forum like a library or NPR or Wikipedia talk pages. That said, we should be able to work through disagreements without getting frustrated at each other, and I'd like to work to resolve the source of that frustration. I don't think it was fair when you said I hadn't read a word you said, as I found many of your responses quite helpful in terms of information content, and greatly improved my proposal. When you say it feels like you were talking to a brick wall, was that because I failed to drop this matter as you requested? -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I find your description of the issue difficult to follow. In the places above which you claim to be quotes, could you give diffs please? And could you also please mark them as quotes, by either using quotation marks (as you did for the first one) or better yet templates like "tq2" or "tq"? Paul August ☎ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough of the swearing comments guys. I would say Beland it seems that you are over reacting a lot. I agree that DV's revert of you with that comment is very unhelpful and unproductive, don't understand what he thinks was going to happen, since nearly everyone would just revert him until he gives a proper reason. From what you have said and provided so far it seems an like overreaction. But I stand to be corrected if you give us more examples of actual incivility. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Personal attacks before continuing with this one. Games of the world (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary mine's bigger so it counts more here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, your incivility is plain to see:

• Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI - NPA, ABF (1).
• DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late - PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)
• Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled. - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3)

• What I am struggling to find in the many links is the efforts to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.

[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.

[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)

[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.

[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:

<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>

[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:

<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>

"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.

LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies Beland you did indeed start an RFC. I'm still not seeing anything worth sanctioning over, Alls I'm seeing is mild frustration from DV but again nothing really sanctionable, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer a frank conversation and rehabilitation to sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. @Deacon Vorbis:, you've survived four years of editing. You should know this already. I know you can do better than the behavior you're currently displaying in this discussion. Happy editing & cheers to everyone. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at Deacon Vorbis' long contribution history, it appears there are many positive contributions, and dealing with other editors acting inappropriately. But there are also other instances of antagonistic behavior, typically aggressive removal or dismissal of messages from other users, inappropriate language, and edit warring. I would hope these behavioral problems could be resolved simply by having a constructive conversation about the harm they doing to the project and how to avoid that while still contributing constructively. And I think being less offensive and aggressive and more conversational would reduce the number of negative reactions from other editors, and increase the number of cooperative edits made after a smooth dispute resolution. Examples:
  • The block log shows they were blocked in January 2020 for a 3RR violation, and in July 2018 for a vulgar personal attack they refused to apologize for (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988), saying the victim deserved it.
  • Example of removal of a talk page message: this case where I think it's worth considering whether the answer to the user's question would be a good addition to the article, and the question highlights a problem with the article lacking references to sources where their question could be answered. (The user wrote as much in response to the deletion but was ignored.) At the very least they could be referred to the reference desk rather than being completely censored, and that could turn up some citations for the article.
  • Here is an example of an unnecessary personal insult. The content that Inedible Hulk posted was indeed weird, though I probably would have replied to it or ignored it rather than deleting it claiming it was "disruptive". I don't find the deletion unacceptable, but I do find the caustic language used on the talk page to be.
  • More gratuitous and uncivil language in edit summaries - "agreed my ass" "agreed, my bloated buttocks
  • Another incident where agressive removal led to an edit war and ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#Deacon_Vorbis_reported_by_User:Count_Iblis
  • Edit warring over a speedy deletion and archival cleanup: [251] and complaint
  • Another incident of removing another user's talk post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Deacon_Vorbis_censoring_the_math_ref_desk
  • An incident that combined overly aggressively removing another user's post and then using uncivil language in edit summaries during the fallout: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Possible_compromised_administrator_account

-- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [252], [253],[254]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, he just changed my AfD talk page comment again by moving it to another part of discussion [255], even after all my explanations on their talk page [256]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Deacon Vorbis: you are certainly on notice that Beland does not enjoy vulgarities, so I would urge you in direct communications with them to eschew the saltier language. Beland, I mean this with all due respect, but less-than-solicitous language is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I would urge you to let a bit more roll off your back. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I rarely encounter such language on Wikipedia and it certainly shouldn't be standard or accepted, as it creates problems with editor retention and may even be contributing to the gender imbalance in the editor population. If I were a sensitive person, I wouldn't be here complaining, I'd just stop editing Wikipedia and go do something where no one is swearing at me for trying to help. Excessive conflict, edit warring, and bullying are problematic for editors of any gender, but have been specifically identified as reasons why some women don't edit Wikipdia. Check out points 4 and 5 at Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Is the process we are currently engaging in top-down or bottom-up? I think of it as a peer-to-peer nudge to be better. The idea that women getting involved with Wikipedia will "snowball" seems like wishful thinking without any evidence. Why wouldn't it have happened already? It's not like there are large numbers of women who don't know what Wikipedia is. Why would it happen for women but not men, especially given the culture of Wikipedia seems to be disproportionately distasteful for women? I do agree that cooperative adversarial processes can improve articles, but the adversarial common law tradition in America has a stricter standard for civility that what you're advocating for Wikipedia, and that's part of what makes it work to the degree that it does. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Beland, by "top-down" I mean asking for an authority to do something about it. Nudging is per se fine by me, and I think I may even have engaged in it to a small degree. As for the "sbnowball" effect, it certainly is wishful thinking to some degree, but I am allowed that after all! I am not sure the answer to women on Wikipedia is any sort of precipitous action, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. And while you're correct that there's a stricter lexicon of civility in the American tradition, I am not sure that actually translates to a stricter standard. Most of that is more in the realm of norms and traditions, which are as often overlooked as honored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• • +1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right, it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Modifying a comment after it's been responded to, changing the context and meaning of that reply is far far worse. From WP:REDACT, "But 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." WP:THREAD also has further guidance on good practice, which I tried to point out, and no acknowledgement was made, despite asking for one. I'm not okay with comments I respond to getting major changes after the fact. My moving the comment was the least invasive way of keeping the chronology of the comments intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right, you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like Please see an additional comment that elaborates on this below the subsequent replies" tacked onto the end of the current comment, as long as the new comment stays after. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, but I have no way of knowing of MVBW would accept it...doing this on my own would have been a more invasive modification to the original, which I was again trying to minimize. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    Honestly, this should be an easy one. Don't edit, move, adjust, or tweak others' comments. Full stop. Just don't do it. If you think they've done something in error, by all means, point it out. This behavior, is, to me, FAR more offensive than all the F-bombs in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

     

    If you want to know what would be an acceptable compromise to the other party, the thing to do is ask. There are plenty of other possible compromises the two of you could come up with if you had stopped to think about it and weren't angrily undoing each other's changes. That's why I would have started the conversation after I was reverted once, whereas you reverted MVBW three more times after it was clear there was a dispute. Though they weren't following the convention strictly, it was pretty clear to me what was responding to what when, especially given that all the messages have timestamps, so I don't see a strong argument for objecting to what MVBW was doing. That sort of pushiness is equivalent to the in-person action of grabbing someone by the elbow while they're on a soapbox and moving them to somewhere they don't want to be. Even if they're not in the conventional location, it's perceived as strongly anti-social behavior. And it's really not worth the fistfight that ensues when everyone should be paying attention to the words that are said and not picky details about how the speech is being delivered. If you actually think it is important enough to argue about, wait until a third editor has weighed in to the conversation to validate one side or another. Either there will be much less resistance to the change you are proposing when it becomes clear it's not just you who holds that opinion, or the third editor will disagree with you and you can politely concede and avoid being accused of unreasonableness or vindictiveness or whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    "If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before." That's not exactly true. People do it all the time when they want to make an important comment to a post that has already been responded to. In this case, the editor was making a de facto "Edited to add" point, which is perfectly valid, as it had a new signature and timestamp and was indented enough to indicate newness in relation to the replies underneath. The point is, You are not the arbiter of posts in AfDs, and need to stop moving, deleting, reverting, replacing, complaining about, mocking, or edit-warring over them. Full stop. If the behavior continues, you are likely to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    that was my comment on AFD. Note that per Editing_own_comments - I did NOT change or modified my original comment, to which other contributors have already responded. I just added a note to my own comment with a reference to the relevant WP guideline (that unfortunately was missing in my original comment). And what Deacon Vorbis does? Moves my note repeatedly to a place where I did not mean it to be, over my objections on his talk page. This is an example of highly confrontational behavior, and without any actual reason, except me making a comment about civility in general in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A while ago Deacon Vorbis was removing my comments on the Math Ref Desk, edit warring to keep my posting there removed, despite the fact that the Ref Desk has the status of a talk page and removal of edits there is only done in case of vandalism. This happened several time, the last such incident led to us both being blocked, even though I did not make any mistakes restoring my comments. The problem with his behavior is not the incivility per se, but his attitude when he sees something he disagree with. The incivility is merely a symptom of that, which may irritate other editors, but I have a thick skin ,so I'm not going to be bothered by that.

His aggressive attitude when his edits are opposed, causes him to not listen to the arguments of his opponents. When I told him that Ref Desk comments cannot be removed, at most they can be hatted, he did not listen. He could have looked up what the policy is if he didn't trust me. It took a few more similar disputes with him removing my comments before he finally understood that Ref Desk comments are not to be removed (unless it is outright vandalism, of course).

If you are angry, then you don't tend to listen. It's not that the person opposing him are right on the judgement about the edits, but if he doesn't listen to what the argument against his edit is, then he obviously won't be able to engage with the issue in a constructive way. Deacon Vorbis should understand that his attitude when he encounters a problem with editing is not going to help make his point in the best way. He should learn to engage with other editors in a more constructive way, and that will also be a benefit for him outside of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Mr rnddude's proposal of a site-wide prohibition against in any way altering other people's posts, on penalty of escalating blocks. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly be a start. A personal 1RR might help mitigate the frustration caused by pushing the 3RR to its limit every time any other editor is willing to do so in return. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Given no positive response from Deacon Vorbis here, he will continue doing the same. Hence this is probably a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that Count Iblis, above, has a track record regarding the posting to the ref desk Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal_to_Topic-Ban_User:Count_Iblis_from_Reference_Desk --Calton | Talk 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN

Per the above discussion, I propose that Deacon Vorbis be formally TBANed from modifying, moving, or removing other editors' comments. In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.

• Support as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 1RR restriction, and also suggest the proposer of this sanction is a much bigger source of incivility problems in their interactions than DV is. --JBL (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Assumed/real bad action by Lightburst is irrelevant here. LMSchmitt 06:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, you should probably leave it to someone else to make these proposals. That you're just sliding a 1RR in there is telling that this isn't actually addressing the above discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was the last thing Beland proposed above. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Also support 1RR since the editor seems to maintain their aggressiveness and shows no sign of having learned or accepted anything problematical about their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all DV in the last few days has disengaged himself from that behaviour of editing other people's comments on talk pages excluding his own. I only see him removing clear vandalism from talk pages. Note there is one issue that he is having, but that is an IP editing DV's comments, but DV has not resorted to the type of language noted above. 1RR is a non starter for me as if he stops editing other people's comments then 1RR is not needed unless someone can find evidence of a current problem of edit warring in articles. In addition restrictions are meant to prevent a current problem and not be punitive; from what I can see the problem has been resolved and as per Mr rnddude's proposal a warning outlining the community's dissatisfaction of editing people's comments to DV would be a much more objective solution for the time being. Games of the world (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossing 3rr repeatedly is as disruptive as editing and removing other editor comments. The above discussion has outlined a continuing pattern of this type of disruptive behavior and uncivil comments. The editor is unapologetic. I agree with one of the other editors above who said a new editor would be indeffed for this pattern of behavior. But we tolerate this behavior from an editor who knows better as long as they occasionally stop the behavior or self revert after multiple disruptive 4rr. We certainly do not apply the rules equally here and I have gotten used to that. Lightburst (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Purely punitive. Whatever the alleged problem is it's cleared up on its own, and the 1RR thing seems irrelevant. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't believe it's necessary here, but I would respectfully suggest to Deacon Vorbis that he just refrain entirely from altering others' comments, and modulate his approach a bit for various editors. While I don't find his approach offensive or problematic, if some other editor does, it can't hurt to try a different tack. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. While the proposal is not unreasonable, this is not a topic ban. This is a behavior requirement, and it is very much obvious. Everyone should follow it simply by default, and almost everyone actually does. If someone needs to be reminded about it on the ANI, it means the user has a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal TBAN. Refactoring or otherwise editing other editor comments, with only a few exceptions, is already expressed prohibited. A final warning that future instances, with the usual exceptions of BLPVIO's, removing obvious personal attacks, etc, will not be tolerated and will be met with escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN (and 1RR). DV now knows where he stands. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment please see the continued edit warring. Edit warring on an article DV nominated for AfD. 1 2 3 4 attempt at discussion deleted by DV. here. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  7&6=thirteen made a bold edit, it was reverted, and then 7&6 reinstated the bold edit with the edit summary Take it to the article talk page. Is that how WP:ONUS and WP:BRD work? No, it's the exact opposite. Then 7&6 posted an edit warring warning on DV's user page instead of user talk page. We all love it when one party to an edit war warns the other party about edit warring. This exchange is an example of problematic behavior, just not by DV. Lev!vich 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the disruption to the encyclopedia ...as always. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored that I had in fact simultaneously posted at the article talk page with an edit warning, and that it was immediately removed here. I just wanted him to stop. I did not go to the edit warring notice board to complain about the 4 reverts and the blatant disregard of WP:3RR. But User:Levivich will not pass up an opportunity and I was summoned here. I was going to ignore this, but I will not have someone malign me and then have someone say I adopted it because I acquiesced and didn't object. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the point of T-banning somebody from something that's not allowed on Wikipedia anyway (i.e. editing other people's comments), and as for a 1RR restriction, it seems less than relevant. Also, in these bleak times, I recommend we all try to have a little more patience with one another, as long as the other is acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, which I'm convinced Deacon Vorbis always does. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC).
• Support 1RR restriction because this user continue edit war [257], [258],[259] right during an active ANI discussion about him. What he is going to do when this discussion will be closed? My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• So you're demanding that DV be ban from editing talk page comments -- because of his edits to ARTICLE space? Well, that's different. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, of course not. No ban. 1RR restriction would not prevent him from editing anything at all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So an even shakier rationale for a proposal that's not even on the table? MUCH better. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You probably did not read the proposal on the top of this thread. It tells "In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.". This is part I would support, and for an obvious reason: see the diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• support Since the problem is still on-going even during this ANI thread, with continued edit warring and personal attacks, I think that passing a formal proposal would be a good idea. Patiodweller (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment- it seems that if someone accidentally edits the wrong page, it reflects badly on Deacon Vorbis. Earlier in this discussion we found out that if someone posts to his user page rather than his talk page, and he reverts it, that is bad and wrong. Of course, we now learn that if DV accidentally edits the wrong page, then reverts himself and says "whoops, wrong page" that's also highly felonious. But we weren't supposed to notice the self-revert and apology, were we? I suggest we close this proposal on the grounds that the primary complainants are being very economical with the truth. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. A solution in search of a problem, now. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - clearly punitive. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - The behaviour above isn't acceptable and you generally shouldn't edit or modify anyone else's comment anyway. As for the "punitive" arguments, I have seen it successfully argued (and enforced) that "preventative, not punitive" only applies to blocking and that no such restriction exists when it comes to other sanctions.

Granted I don't agree with this myself (it's basically a form of WP:LAWYER) and the thread where this was decided was heavily gamed by a serial troll, but there is nonetheless a precedent for that. Still, I don't see this as punitive. Darkknight2149 04:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support any reasonable sanctions. Deacon Vorbis is a interfering busybody who despite his own blatant lack of civility, can't resist gaslighting and throwing his weight around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "... interfering busybody who despite his own blatant lack of civility, can't resist ..." 🤦🏼‍♂️ Lev!vich 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Bishonen said it best. ~ HAL333([260]) 00:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen (and Kudpung, congratulations on that spectacularly ill-judged Support). Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen. This really is a solution looking for a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rock King (Rapper)

Rock King (Rapper) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Their only contribs have been to create a promotional autobiography on 3 separate pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Definitely here exclusively for self-promotion, deleting the pages now. ~ mazca ^talk 13:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mazca, for dealing with this.

I find about five to ten such users each week. When I was an admin, I used to just block them myself, but not having the mop any more I usually just blank the userpage and move on. This one got up my nose by reverting my disabling of the categories in their sandbox, so I came here in the hope of ending the timewasting.

Is this the right place and means to report them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: No problem, anytime. Here's fine, yeah, though if they're quite as blatant as that guy AIV will probably work too. I'm also happy to have a look anytime if you want to just ask that way. ~ mazca ^talk 16:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I may take you up on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The best thing for the encyclopedia, in my opinion, would be if BrownHairedGirl were again an admin. BD2412 T 18:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412.

I had lot of thinking to do after the amazing flood of support when Ii announced my departure earlier in the year, and I eventually decided not to quit.

So I'd be open to an RFA nomination, so long as it was made by 3 prominent Wikipedians. (Does RFA allow more than one seconder? If not, then two people) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to co-nominate you. BD2412 T 18:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, BD2412. If you can assemble the trio, we're on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any specific co-nominators in mind. Anybody else who wants to step up, I'll be glad to hear from you. BD2412 T 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hmains and human rights categories

Hmains (talk · contribs) has made hundreds of changes to human rights categories these last days. I noticed a move on the Capital punishment in Israel article from Category:Human rights in Israel to Category:Human rights abuses in Israel? As I understand it, a lawful punishment is not an abuse. When I asked him on his talkpage his reply was "Just because something in 'lawful' does not make it less a human rights abuse. Many human rights abuses are carried out by state actors, many under the color of law. Also see Capital punishment#Human rights. But do as you like.". I am not reporting the editor, but have great doubts as to whether his hundreds of category changes are correct. I'd appreciate your input. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the first time I've ever heard it suggested that killing someone is not an abuse of their rights. Either way, if you're not reporting the editor, the content matter is not an issue for this noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy, unless you lead a very sheltered life then I don't believe that it's the first time you have heard that, although otherwise I agree with you. And, of course, the use of the death penalty in other countries that use it much more often is also an abuse of human rights. And (sorry for too many "ands" at the beginning of sentences) it seems rather strange that the OP should pick on Israel as the country to complain about when this editor has changed categories for many other countries as disparate as Japan and Iraq. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) While I personally believe that capital punishment is wrong, Wikipedia needs to take a WP:NPOV view which is that there is no consensus, globally speaking, whether it is always a human rights violation. (It is banned by European Convention on Human Rights but allowed in US). So capital punishment is recognized as a human rights issue (it often leads to wrongful execution, as stated above) but to classify it as "human rights abuse" is POV at least for now. That's why you should discuss mass changes before doing them (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Responding to a notification[261] by @EEng.). Debresser's view that "a lawful punishment is not an abuse" is manifestly nonsense. To take an extreme example, a nation might enact enact a law requiring that anyone who makes eye contact with a postal worker may be convicted solely on the testimony of one person, and subject to a mandatory punishment of having a limb ground off very slowly in a public place by a mechanical device which starts at the tip and continues to the torso at a speed not exceeding 1mm per minute. If not constitutionally banned, that could be entirely lawful ... but it would undoubtedly be a severe human rights abuse.
  It's also fairly clear that internationally, support for the death penalty is close to a WP:FRINGE view: see Capital punishment#International_views.
  And as a long-term critic of Hmains's editing, I am pleasantly surprised to see that the diff [262] includes a clear edit summary. It's auto-generated by Cat-a-lot, but very clear. And it's part of a long series of similar edits by Hmains, which also seem broadly correct.
  I am also troubled by Debresser's comment I am not reporting the editor, which seems at best disingenuous, and would more plausibly be described in much harsher terms. Opening a thread at ANI with someone's name in the headline is very clearly a case of reporting the editor .... and it is most unhelpful that Debresser chose to selectively quote from the discussion on Hmains's talk, rather than linking to the discussion: User_talk:Hmains#Human_rights_abuses (permalink). If Debresser was unsatisfied with the civil and reasonable responses on Hmains's talk, then the next steps should have been something like WP:3O → topical noticeboard → RFC. This here ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", but I don't see any prima facie case that either applies here.
  This doesn't rise to the level of a WP:BOOMERANG, but I think that Debresser has earned a few applications of the WP:TROUT for trying to make a drama out of a disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not a European encyclopedia, we need to take the global view on capital punishment. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero: The European view is supported 2:1 by UN member states: https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1849885920071218. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was out-of-date. That should be "more than 3:1". See https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/a-record-120-nations-adopt-un-death-penalty-moratorium-resolution --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl The reason I came here and didn't go to 3O, for example, is because of the large amount of related edits that Hmains is making, which might justify swifter action that WP:3O can provide.

And what is it you don't understand about "I am not reporting the editor"?

Trout? Drama?? Boomerang??? I asked for an opinion. As you can see, there are editors who agree with my point of view as well. You have the right to disagree, but please, it is you who is introducing drama here... Debresser (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser, it is you you brought the issue to this drama board. Please accept responsibility for that decision rather than trying to blame me for your action.

I also note the contradiction between your opening statement I am not reporting the editor and your statement now that because of the large amount of related edits that Hmains is making, which might justify swifter action. In other words you came here because you wanted to raise the possibility of admin intervention against Hmains ... but you also wanted to somehow pretend that is not what you were doing. Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not consider this a "drama board". Sorry, but it is rally you introducing the whole drama thing.

What I meant is that I have nothing against the editor, whom I respect for over a decade, and my only issue is with his edits. I felt it important to state that clearly, and apologize if somehow I wasn't clear about that, perhaps because English isn't my native language. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction between reporting an editor's edits and reporting the editor, because edits are the only thing we know about an editor (unless they have declared their public identity). So it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Vertical Venom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Vertical Venom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This editor has been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information, and after the final warning has done so again in these edits. They are also frequently reverting minor edits (such as image selection/placement) without discussion or proper edit summaries, as seen here. I began a talk page discussion at Talk:Mr. Freeze (roller coaster)#Infobox image, but that seems to be getting ignored so far. I propose short-term page protection at the very least (due to the number of IPs that all seem to edit around the same time and may be the same editor), but Vertical Venom may need one last warning in addition to what's been given.

Thanks for looking into this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this post, there have been additional edits with unsourced or improperly sourced information:

• Flight of Fear diff1 – Source added does not support the "Fort Mason security van" or "new photo booth".
• Flight of Fear diff2 – No mention at source about the "on-board video cameras".

Also so far, no response at the talk page of Mr. Freeze despite the user's additional activity there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Another unsourced claim added recently at The Incredible Hulk Coaster article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

why does it seem that the contributors who think that they are god's gift to wikipedia, cause more mahem (by p*ssing everyone else off) than their own contributions can possibly be worth. so, i wonder what happens when the vandals (which y'all created by p*ssing them off, with your "good intentions") finally out-number all of you? (anyway have fun indefinitely defending all of your hard efforts against the vandalism problem which you yourselves create, because, sooner or later, you won't be able to keep up with it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:7D23:8AE1:46A7:126D (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.155.101 (talk)

User also created multiple unsourced changes to Volcano: The Blast Coaster. Although the changes appear to be sourced, investigation reveals that most of it is speculation or fiction. Edits appear similar to other users who have been banned or blocked. Possible sockpuppet of User:Bradley026258.—JlACEer (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: This thread still needs attention. The user is still adding unsourced content to articles, and even at times tries to disguise it with edits like this one. At first glance, it looks like a proper source was supplied, but a closer look reveals that the source says nothing about the claim that "Park officials were not concerned". It also implies they looked at what was happening at the Mr. Freeze roller coaster at another park as a confidence-builder, but again, the source fails to confirm that. This misleading behavior needs to stop, and it doesn't appear that any warning on the user's talk page is going to make any difference. I previously removed this claim yesterday, and today, Vertical Venom has restored it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Some additional weird behavior. Seems to be a completely pointless edit. I don't think it's vandalism as the references were just swapped. Could be wrong, Transcendental36 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's actually legit, as the Kings Island source was swapped into the first position, since it's the first park mentioned in the sentence. And that's the thing about this editor...occasionally makes helpful edits. I'm not sure if they're attempts to stay under the radar, but it's worth taking under consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

And now this. It's likely the user logged out to restore challenged content in order to avoid 3RR. Pretty sure they're well aware of this discussion and ignoring it like the talk pages they've been summoned to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Still needs attention – Dropping a later timestamp here to prevent archiving. This still needs to be reviewed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from User:PhilCoulson20

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:PhilCoulson20 as been making a number of disruptive edits as of late, and after multiple attempts from myself and others, I feel I must make this report because their editing habits do not seem to be changing. First off, this is a new user, having first edited on October 1, 2020, so with this, and my past interactions with them, I am trying not to WP:BITE.

One of their first disruptions was creating the article Helstrom (season 1). Not only was this an unnecessary split of content from Helstrom (TV series), general splitting consensus for the TV project (which these articles fall under), is to only consider potential season articles, after a series has been renewed for a second season. Long story short for this series, it will very likely be one-and-done, so no reason to split off the content from the main page. In addition, as can be seen in the diff above, this user put many empty sections with "To be added" in them (I will get back to this in a moment).

After this, they created the navbox {{Helstrom}}, again something that is way too soon to exist, given the only article for the series is its main one, and any related articles are linked in the existing navboxes on Helstrom (TV series) currently. After I saw these edits, I wrote on Talk:Helstrom (TV series) about these edits, pinging the user, suggesting they slow down a bit in their editing and familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to no response. Next, the user suggested on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 7) that the article be nominated for GA; no harm there. Yet shortly there after, proceeded to make the nomination, having not been a significant editor in addition to being a brand new editor. I responded letting the user again know their editing was appearing to be disruptive, and BlueMoonset made a similar comment about the advisement PhilCoulson20 was getting to familiarize themself more with policies. Continuing editing elsewhere, the user put many non-existent CSD templates on redirect articles for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes (here is one example), which were reverted by Liz. These edits also caught the attention of Gonnym who commented about the disruptive behavior here. Additionally, the user incorrectly added {{Disputed title}} to Absolution (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) (here) and Ascension (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) (here) when per their talk page discussion, just wanted to considered merging the articles to a new title; the current titles are not disputed so an incorrect use of tagging the pages with that template.

Through all of these interactions, I've learned this editor is a contributor at Fandom/Miraheze (you can see that statement in this response) which, knowing that, explains a lot to me. Looking back at Helstrom (season 1) creation, plus just earlier today attempting to create The Patriot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) (here), the multiple empty sections with "To be added", and including as references internal Wikipedia pages to cite material, makes it seem as though this user is trying to create MCU wikia entries here as they would on Fandom. And to my knowledge, Wikipedia has much stricter guidelines for sourcing, and what should and should not become articles, than Fandom wikias do.

I just had a lengthy conversation on the user's talk page yesterday (see it here) about how they could benefit from working in the user sandbox space or draft space to build content able to pass WP:GNG, and they should slow down a bit, make some small edits here and there so the community can observe their actions. And I can't help but feel these went on some deaf ears when they went on to try and get their version of The Patriot moved into the mainspace from a user page when it was in a similar manner to Helstrom (season 1) and fails GNG. 2pou noted this and tried to explain to them further. I am also concerned by PhilCoulson20's response to this statement by Kj cheetham, in which they say ...you're saying it should just be created. Ok. Kj cheetham was not saying that by suggesting the creation go through the AfC process.

The editor's desire to create content is admirable, I don't want to diminish that. But it seems the user's ambition is getting the better of them, as their edits are consistently being viewed more as disruptive than helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I have many of the Agents of SHIELD pages and redirects on my watch page I noticed the many reverts Liz had to do which brought this user to my attention. Favre1fan93 was very patient with them, trying to help them out, but it seems from the latest page creation, not one day later, that they aren't even trying to take it in. I'll also note that the user for some bizarre reason is trying to assume other people's accomplishments and has placed a {{GT user topicon}} on his user page for helping bring Marvel Cinematic Universe films to GA status 5 years ago. They registered 6 days ago. --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding about the top icons. As their user page looks with this response, as Gonnym noted, they still have the GT one for the MCU films of which they were not a part of building, and a GA one that links to a section on their user page for GAs (of which they have none). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this user "reviewed" Avengers: Endgame for GA-status in a review with no content that has since been deleted (see the page log here) on the same day they became a registered user, without the necessary qualifications obviously. They showed good intentions though, as can be seen in my talk page exchange with them. El Millo (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning about the Endgame GA review. Since their failed nom page was taken care of, I wasn't sure how to link to show that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• CIR block We often get new editors flush with enthusiasm but I expect better editing to result from many talk page messages pointing out the problems to avoid. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm here. I would like to say that I registered on August 28, 2020, but I never edited until 6 days ago. I created the page The Patriot as a stub, so people would know why it's blank. That's why we have the {{Stub}} template, right? I'm brand new to Wikipedia, at least, but I have no clue what to do as all my edits keep being reverted and when I try to create a page, it's reverted back to a redirect. How is a redirect more helpful than an article, no matter how much is there? One article is better than none. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Stub episode articles are not generally info that is a) incorrectly cited as you did and b) simply a copy/paste of existing info that was split off unnecessarily. As a general consensus for the TV project, episodes with their own articles should be more than what already exists at a series' season page. You did not do that, instead approaching the creation of the article backwards in a sense, after being told a beneficial approach with sandboxes and the draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I won't take action because I could be considered marginally involved, but I needed to revert about a dozen valid Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode redirects that the editor had tagged for deletion. I guess I'll just add what no one has said directly, which is, given his usage of CSD tags and what else is being said here, he knows more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than is typical for a new editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I know about the inner workings because I've been on Fandom/Miraheze AND I have read Wikipedia for years. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor's knowledge of inner workings of Wikipedia also raised some flags for me, but I did not want to draw any conclusions myself as to what that could mean. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a feeling that either this editor is WP:NOTHERE or might very likely be a troll (it's the internet, so forgive me if I'm wrong). While this discussion is going on they nominated Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 6) for a GA, then today nominated Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 5) for one as well. In both cases, zero edits to the article. They keep saying they want to "contribute", but all they've managed to do so far is make work for us all. --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor can also add editing other user's comments to the list, as they altered the text in my comment/notice on their talk page about this discussion (WP:TPO), which frankly greatly changed what it was meant for, instead changing it to direct anyone passing to the regular admin noticeboard and removing the direct link I added to aid in finding the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I've read this for years. I'm here to contribute. Also, @Gonnym:, I'm not a troll. Where did you even.....? If you want me to go, tell me, and I'll delete my account and leave Wikipedia forever. I know Gonnym probably wants that, and I wouldn't be surpised if Favre1fan93 and Liz did as well. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The user has now added the {{Blocked}} template to his talk page himself (here), then replaced it for {{Banned}} (here), then removed it (here). C'mon, it seems like you're trying to be blocked. I'd advise you to just stop editing anywhere but here until after this discussion has concluded, it seems like you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every edit you make. El Millo (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I was just experimenting with the templates. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually just gonna retire. You guys have fun, but I'm gone. Bye, @Favre1fan93:, @BlueMoonset:, @Gonnym:, @2pou:, @Liz:, and @Facu-el Millo:. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IPs that may be the same person

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Two super disruptive IPs... 74.98.249.253 has a long history of being disruptive in the past, as seen on their talk page. This IP has also resumed editing today following a 3-month block from July 8, 2020. IP is being super disruptive across a range of articles, removing content/references with 0 explanation (such as on Ghost Whisperer and List of Modern Family episode) and doing the same + disruptiveness such as on 2009 in American television (and is continuing their disruptiveness as of the creation of this discussion).

The 50.248.83.57 seemingly may be connected, as the two IPs have edited on the same articles within hours of each other on both 2009 in American television and Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? (American game show)- even the exact same unsourced/unexplained edit on Smarter.

Please look into these, especially the 74.98 IP, as it is being massively disruptive at the moment. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, both IPs are currently reported at WP:AIV, but I thought this matter should be brought here. The 74.98 IP is still persisting with their pure disruptiveness and removal of content, as seen here. Magitroopa (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresponsive editor

If these don't work, check their blood sugar and call an ambulance. DFO

• Kostas181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is a fairly new editor with some 170+ edits during 3+ months. I came across them about a month ago, noticing that they marked all their edits as minor. That is not unusual among newbies, and I made a short note in their user-TP, pointing them to the relevant WP:MINOR. Their immediate response was to make three more edits, all marked as minor, after which I made a more detailed comment. Since then, they have not been very active, but about a week ago I saw – and commented on – two more minor-marked edits. Then I also noticed – and commented on – their complete absence of edit summaries. Today they have made two more edits, marked as minor and without edit summaries.

I know these may be small matters, but it is getting kind of irritating. I have looked closer at the bulk of their edits, and it turns out that most of them are relatively small additions, always unsourced, often incorrect. Many of them are reverted immediately, some remains for a while. In addition to never using edit summaries, they have never posted to any TP or user-TP. They are completely unresponsive, which is a bit annoying. Can anyone get through to them? --T*U (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if they might have "mark all edits as minor" checked and do not realize it. In any event, they need to communicate with us. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't they get rid of the "mark all edits as minor" preference? What possible use case is there for it? EEng 01:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I hardly think they could "not realize it" after my repeated and detailed comments in their talk page.--T*U (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

TU-nor Many new users don't realize that they have a user talk page to receive messages on. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there are other possibilities. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I partially blocked them from article space in order to stimulate conversation. ANy admin can undo. I left a note requesting communication. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there an unsettling undertone to their edits? A common theme? SOmething in the overall subtext? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no immediately apparent pattern. Lately, they have often added different (unsourced) "-isms" to political party infoboxes. In general, they often edit infoboxes. I have seen them adding Greece as arms supplier in the Nagorno-Karabakh War article and adding Greece and Cyprus as supporters of Russia in the Russia–Turkey proxy conflict article, so there may be something there, but not anything I can see clearly. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

One to watch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SMARTGUY42069 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lots of single-digit edits with no sources, this could be farming for autoconfirmed. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

HAH! That's exactly what I was thinking, and I thought to myself, "gonna watch this and see what happens."--Jorm (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing good can come from an editor with "42069" in their name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That took me a minute. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with editors from Melber, Kentucky... Argento Surfer (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, ok, had not seen that. WP:NOTHERE? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, looks like it to me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree and indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:SPA editor with every one of their 39 edits over 4 years trying to whitewash segregation issues in the US

Over the past 4 years, I have interacted with Wrventura (talk · contribs) a couple of times on Juan Crow and its talk page, an article frequently edited by this editor. Their latest attempts [263] [264] to whitewash Juan Crow, caused me to look at their history. Every one of the 39 edits over 4 years is an attempt to whitewash anti-latino sentiment/segregation with logic like this: [265] that has no fact-backed sourcing but smacks of WP:ADVOCACY to promote their opinion. It's clear to me that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to constructively contribute, rather just whitewash material related to latinos' experience in the US. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the article in question (Juan Crow), The very first source... is not RS - it is an immigration advocacy site... and there is a dead link to USA Today, and another dead link frankly it is a "neologism" - it is a relatively recent term. I think you have a content dispute. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also...do you think you have templated their talk page enough? User talk:Wrventura Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no. which is why I brought it here. I'm not sure what your point is. Could that article be improved? Sure.

Is the WP:SPA editor here to change history in their narrow area of interest without any reliable sources like they did here:

1. Definitions of whiteness in the United States [266]
2. Jim Crow laws [267] (just look at the title of the source that supports this statement)
3. School segregation in the United States [268]

It would seem so.

Has the editor ever used WP:RS to back up this obvious bias? No. Take a look.

Does it appear that this editor is here to contribute constructively? Their edits say no - just to push their POV. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Robertleyva2002

Despite multiple warnings and a block, Robertleyva2002 (talk · contribs) is continuing to make unsourced, biased edits about films and TV shows (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

2409:4072

Requesting range block as the IP keeps vandalizing Kedar Jadhav. Also, page protection as there are other IPs vandalizing the page. Thanks. Jerm (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Joannegoh

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

COIs galore, in particular Joanne Goh and Jazzy Group (the latter of which they have recreated maybe 6 times in the past few months, and has been G11ed as many times). In need of a block, I'd say. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion, edit warring at White House COVID-19 outbreak by User:Onetwothreeip

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A single user is repeatedly disrupting the article:

• Deletes entire section
• Removes "amid secrecy" section heading despite talk page consensus for it.]
• Again removes "amid secrecy" section heading
• Yet again removes "amid secrecy" section heading

Assistance greatly appreciated. Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I assumed these were minor fixes and wasn't aware this was something contested. You could have just asked me to self-revert, as I did for you. I don't see where you have brought this to my attention until now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Are there any further edits that I should be aware of? I don't believe I received a notification that my edits were undone either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Since this appears to be the closest you have of notifying me about the edits of mine which you object to, is it just that I have reverted the addition of a particular subsection and removed "amid secrecy" from headings? I'm entitled to do that per WP:BRD, unless you have any proof of consensus, which I would be very interested to view and likely contribute to those discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If I was curt, forgive me. The article was subject to extensive review, being and was approved for inclusion on our front page today. WP:BRD does not mean "I can show up to an established article and repeatedly delete anything I don't like". If the behavior stops, we can leave it there. Feoffer (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is never acceptable, but passing the light-weight WP:DYK review process should not be taken as a strong endorsement/"extensive review" of the current content of an article, particularly on a fast-changing topic such as this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

True! To clarify -- the extensive review was 2000+ edits, not DYK approval, lol!~ Feoffer (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That in no way constitutes "extensive review". Even if it did, plainly my edits constitute a review that opposes the proposed content. "Established article" is an absolutely ridiculous claim, and "curt" is a complete understatement. If the content you've added has no consensus and is removed, then it goes to the talk page for discussion, especially on modern American politics articles. I'm not aware of any exceptions to this that would apply. You're heavily risking a WP:BOOMERANG with this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• This article's a great example of why Wikipedia shouldn't try to cover current events. EEng 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rritoch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Does anything about this editor's history look normal to you?

I think it's a sleeper sock or farmed account. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for legal threats based on edits that have been revdeleted. But based on observing the most recent few years of news coming out of the United States, and the state of the country's leadership and media currently, no, it doesn't surprise me even one tiny little bit that there really are thousands of completely unrelated individuals making Wikipedia accounts just to complain that their favourite fake news website is really a reliable source of information. This doesn't even come close to qualifying for checkuser, IMO. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, oh I agree - WP:DUCK/WP:NOTHERE are sufficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think it doesn't even really get into WP:NOTHERE, many of them (if they don't immediately flame out like our "whistleblower" friend here) go on to contribute constructively in other topic areas. I propose that anyone that makes an edit anywhere on Wikipedia of the form "Infowars[/favourite fake news website] isn't fake news!" should be immediately topic-banned per WP:ARBAP2, and then left to their own devices. In fact maybe I should propose that all of ARBAP2 should be under an extendedconfirmed restriction until at least February 2021. Both would improve the editing experience and the quality of information presented in the topic area immensely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return of Starkiller88 / B D See / etc

Evening all. Following up on the expiration of the block applied here, the user formerly known as Starkiller88 has returned. His edit summary has once again started straight away with linking to other users of wikipedia as part of his chronic conspiracy theory. He began his harassment this time over at simple wiki but was pretty quickly blocked. You can see this over here for the usual pattern of editing Mortal Engines articles, and related, to insert POV on top of the usual harassment. Koncorde (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Same user, I guess. Blocked the /48 again. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil behavior by user TowlieRocks/193.56.252.196/193.56.252.188

Please see previous incident in archive 1048. The user's disruptive behavior continues, despite having been warned. As previously stated, said behavior is highly inappropriate and violates Wikipedia's high standard of behavior for those engaged in the editing process, and ignorance of said standard can no longer be considered an excuse.

Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Those IPs aren't mine. I'm sure an admin can verify. Please don't revert changes that I made to my own talk page, its very rude.Towlierocks (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits is continuing to revert my changes on my own Talk Page. This is bordering on abusive, I ignored the first time he reported me because I didn't want to give him the satisfaction of getting the attention he wants while pointing the finger at me. Could an admin please have a talk with this user about his behavior. Towlierocks (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justdoinsomeedtits: What is your basis for asserting a connection between these accounts? You need to provide the diffs here. There are none in the previous discussion referenced, either. BD2412 T 21:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TheReportOfTheWeek&action=history

The two IPs are obviously the same account based on what was edited and the language used in the edit reason. The two edits are the same made by TowlieRocks while signed in, and the first was made within the same short span of time as his edit under his name. The user appears to have formed a strange one-sided grudge, checking my contributions page after disagreeing with a previous edit I made and subsequently following me around the website reverting edits I've made on other pages for no reason. (Personal attack removed). Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"(Personal attack removed)" is this level of personal attack really tolerated on Wikipedia? Again, an admin should be able to confirm the IP addresses aren't mine. It's obviously far more likely that justdoinsomeedtits attracted the attention that he did at that page because of the language he was using in his revisions, TheReportOfTheWeek is a meme youtube channel so it is going to attract trolls, especially the kind that bully based on how someone speaks. I can't see justdoinsomeedtits abuse of this report feature ending any time soon. All I ask is that the admins deal with how he's been treating me appropriately. Towlierocks (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits is now going through my contributions and reverting them, as seen here. Please, can an admin ban this abusive user, especially after the horrible mental health comment. Towlierocks (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Justdoinsomeedtits, a repeat of your insults will result in an immediate block. Make an argument, don't attack editors.

This looks like a content issue over a snippet of content. And, honestly, I think TheReportOfTheWeek should be nominated for an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate how you dealt with the hurtful comment, Liz. While I agree that it is over a negligible snippet of content, I don't want the underlining issue to go unnoticed. The fact he would make these accusations, elevate it to such a degree repeatedly, and then do exactly what he was accusing me of doing after making this report (!) shows that he is not only boisterously mocking Wikipedia standards, but that he is likely to jump ship to another account/IP and continue once this is fully dealt with, and harass further. Towlierocks (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Towlierocks, you should also refrain from insulting Justdoinsomeedtits. You are both edit-warring over this dismal article and one more revert from either of you after my warning will result in a block. What you desperately need is to move over to the article talk page and discuss this edit with other editors. This is not a situation where one of you wins and one of you loses in a war of attrition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Liz that TheReportOfTheWeek is a dismal article and I would go further to call it horrible. These two editors have been edit warring about completely subjective unreferenced baloney, specifically whether this YouTuber has a large vocabulary or not. Ridiculous and unacceptable. I cut away a lot of unreferenced garbage and encourage other uninvolved editors to continue the pruning. It is striking that no human being has commented at Talk:TheReportOfTheWeek in 2-1/2 years, although a bot popped in with a comment in July, 2018. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, it included a reference to a blacklisted Russian disinformation site. Which is always a good sign... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:PixtonRran

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

This user is repeatedly recreating articles that were sent to draftspace. I warned them about it with respect to Draft:Sal and Gabi Break the Universe and Sal and Gabi Break the Universe, and then they did it again with Aru Shah and the End of Time (see Draft:Aru Shah and the End of Time). I suspect they may have a COI with Rick Riordan Presents (another article they created today). I warned them about that too, with no response. I don't really know how to get this editor's attention, but they're being quite disruptive and seem to be pushing an agenda. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:The1Beginning persistently edit warring, ignoring edit notes, and refusing to engage in Talk

• The1Beginning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:The1Beginning has repeatedly, over several days, reinstated their addition to the Haplogroup CT page, ignoring edit notes explaining why the material was removed (originally by another editor, User:Megalophias and then by me, upholding the previous editor's change). I have explained the reason for not including it repeatedly in edit notes and asked User:The1Beginning to discuss in Talk instead of edit warring, but they have several times ignored all of my explanations; they simply reinstate their edit with no explanation each time and refused to engage in Talk or at all. (When they finally commented in an edit note it was to refer to me, and other editors who disagree with them, as "trolls" and to declare that they would "not stop" - but neither engaged with the notes or in the Talk page). Recently, when I attempted to engage them on their user talk page, their response, here User_talk:The1Beginning#Your_addition_to_Haplogroup_CT, both seemed to be somewhat uncivil and accusatory, and to little engage with my point.

The edit of User:Megalophias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/954080138

And here is the article's edit history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_CT Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please block the user Syllagyook. He is trying to suppress information about Natufian DNA and Haplogroup CT even after I posted sources. He wants to engage in a debate with me about DNA. I have advised the user that if he is upset with the information I provided then contact the source. If the source is not reliable then you must have another Scholastic source to debunk the information. He is unable to do so and has resorted to harassment and a campaign to suppress educational information from readers of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not be uncivil. I am not trying to supress anything, and accusations are not appropriate nor are those accurate. I am not harrassing you. I tried to explain and get you to engage in Talk many times and you refused again and again, ignoring my edit notes and simply reinstating your edit over and over again with no explanations. I have repeatedly explained my reasons. It is not that the source is not a reliable one, but rather that it does not seem to be appropriate where you are citing it. The study does not mention paragroup (i.e. basal/undifferentiated) CT*, and thus your addition is misleading l. User:Megalophias explained some of this as well and for ither reasons (and the issue of its inclusion was also discussed previously on the article's Talk page, as Megalophia mentioned in their edit note). But you have persistently refused to engage for days despite my trying to explain this to you in multiple edit notes, and still seem unwilling to engage with this point. I have also expkained that your edit is agaibst consensus, and you refused to explain or discuss it at all. I ask again, please discuss and do not make accusations and assumptions of bad faith.Skllagyook (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them from the article for a week, hopefully this forces them to the talk page. If they keep throwing insults around, let me know and I'll reblock indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, and a mainspace block may be required, in fact - these haplogroup articles are prone to all kinds of edits with really dodgy sourcing. I am not saying that The1Beginning is refspamming, but with that few edits I think they could do with spending more time on Talk before adding content to difficult articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Happy to defer to you on that; no objection from me if you want to do that. You probably have more experience than I dealing with haplogroup articles. For myself, I'll probably wait to see what happens with Haplogroup CT before extending it to mainspace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: and @JzG and Guy: Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to Syllagyook to actually read the information. I am engaging in talk and providing sources with exact quotes. I'm not throwing insults at anyone just simply asking the user to read things before deleting. Natufian I1685; and I1690 belonged to haplogroup CT, supported by mutations M5593, PF228, M5624, PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358Y1462, M5723, L977. Instead of Syllagyook deleted factual content and simply saying its not "clear". Simply share the scientific data that actually supports their opinion with sources. Additionally this Wikipedia article is pertaining to all lineages within CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@The1Beginning: I have explained this more than once. Please read my responses: They carried haplogroups within the CT "family"/lineage, but there is no indication that their "CT" belonged to ancestral/basal/undifferentiated CT (the main topic of the article). User:Megalophias explained this in the Talk page (which I directed you to), please see here [[269]]. I have also just attempted to explain again on your user page. Please see my (more detailed) explanation here [[270]].Skllagyook (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: and @JzG and Guy: I am/have been trying to discuss the issue with The1Beginning (on their Talk page here [[271]], and there seems to be little progress; they seem not to be understanding or engaging with the point I have repeatedly tried to explain (as well as seemingly continuing to display a certain hostility and incivility). I am unsure what to do. I have been repeating myself and clarifying to them without progress; little seems to be understood by them and I now fear that discussion with them may not help the situation. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The1Beginning has now been site-blocked for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Request for deleting revisions with racial slurs

• Targeted article: Dark skin
• Offensive and inappropriate edits:[272][273][274]

Thanks! --Wario-Man (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:BIanca617

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I just got a message from this use in effect fishing (phishing) for help on what looks very much so like an OWN issue - and I'm not the only one as @Toasted Meter, Goszei, Sorabino, HeartGlow30797, Dl2000, and Sandbh: (etc) will attest.. A look a the talk page suggests that they have Sock issues, too. I'm all for helping but this seems way too much. Anyone else think admin action be needed here? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Anything to add? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81, I certainly do not appreciate the tactic used by BIanca617 to bring attention to their problem. A sockpuppetry investigation has been opened following the conversation at their talk page. The original issue was about an article and brought up by the user at their talk page. Thanks and have a great day! Heart ^(talk) 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to add, except to leave this to WP:SPI. Dl2000 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reigate School problems

Hi Steven (Editor) and I seem to have a problem on the Reigate School article. The immediate problem is that yesterday he pretty much blanked the article with these 2 edits after it was assessed as Class C by another editor. And yes, like many millions of articles on WP, it wasn't in great condition, but by restoring it and working through each part in 30+ edits I managed to fix deadlinks, add references, clean up the prose and generally tidy it up. But first thing this morning he has reverted all the fixes I have made in this edit, which is simply vandalism, and disruptive editing.

The background to this is an earlier dispute where he replaced 2 age parameters in the {{Infobox school}} with a single range parameter. No big deal? Yes, except that the edit summary used was "Replaced redundant secondary years taught, we don't use this for England schools, instead we use age range". It was this edit summary that caught my eye as I hadnt heard of this change in policy, so I challenged him about it leading to this unsatisfactory exchange. There has been no policy change agreed. This is Steven's fantasy. He was on a spree that day and made a bunch of similar edits leaving similar summaries none of which were true. He just prefers it like that and so did a bold edit with a misleading and bullying summary on each one.

I am currently only concerned with his vindictive vandalism on Reigate School, cos he didn't get his way. Will someone please have a word with him? Thks Fob.schools (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified Fob.schools (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Steven (Editor) has removed the notification now. Fob.schools (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that you have to decided to bring this here, shame. I'll reply to this soon, my reasons for removing the content on this article is on the article talk page in the assessment section. It would have helped if you read this and replied to initiate a discussion as you pretty much restored all of the content back. I did say in the edit summary "You will have to take this to talk page before restoring. I have already posted my reasonings for removal there in addition to the edit summary. Thanks". Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I did read that. I replied on the article talk page, as well as here. But you still deleted content with 20 valid references cos you don't like it. Please address the issues raised and stop vandalising perfectly valid articles. Fob.schools (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There were 3 different reasons given by Steven at different times for the Infobox change

• The original reason - "replaced redundant secondary years taught, we don't use this for England schools, instead we use age range" - untrue - the majority of UK schools that have any age parameter use the 2 parameter approach
• That parameter has only been used on around 20 odd articles and will be removed from the template - untrue. It is used on the majority of UK school articles and as far as I can see hase never been proposed for removal
• that the UK DfE use an age range parameter - irrelevant to WP

I wish he'd make his mind up. Fob.schools (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this seems like a content dispute, which is not suited for ANI. The argument as to whether to use "age_range" or "lower_age" and "upper_age" is (hopefully) far too trivial for this board. As far as the stub-ification, I agree with Steven (Editor) that his removals of unsourced content improve the article. Content such as "Reigate School's central location in the centre of Reigate and Redhill, Surrey, makes it ideal for many students" and links to the school lunch menu is bad enough that a stub article is a clear improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a lot of work improving it and am not finished yet. All I need is time.Fob.schools (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding power~enwiki, I wanted to add some content to this article but had trouble finding news sources for this school, requested help from the previous assessing user and suggested that it may have to be redirected to locality instead, as mentioned on the article talk page. Having restored it back follow fobs edits and indicating to take this to talk before restoring, my edit was reverted, I then reverted it with edit summary "You have taken this to ANI, so I'm not sure why you have restored the content." and mentioned what the previous edit summary said. Fob then reverted my edit with edit summary "rvv - I have replied on ANI and on talk - this is a Class C school article being actively worked on with plenty of valid refs. Leave it alone." I also want to note the poorly referenced and unreferenced sections which are written in the language of a prospectus and of not encyclopedic tone has been like that since 2016. Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

And now WP:3RR by Steven

1. [275]
2. [276]
3. [277]
4. [278]

First one is on the 7th, that's not part of this. You have gone and made 6 more edits while the content is dispute and ANI in progress. I have requested protection for the article. Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is totally part of this. BTW see WP:INDENT Fob.schools (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to indent. Right, I'll clarify the three reasons above:

1. This is about secondary years taught, a parameter that was not in the UK infobox. Yes we do use age range, as I've already said to you in the two initial edits before you reverted them "Previous edit is false edit summary - changing lower age/upper age parameters to age range is not "disruptive" -mean the same! Kept to alleviate your issue!" and "In addition to the previous edit regarding the false edit summary, the infobox documentation permits using either lower age and upper age or age range". As you can see, this is down to editor preference. I also mentioned the same thing in the edit summary of my talk page and the article talk page. Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

2. This is referring to secondary years taught, not lower_age and upper_age. Also see 1.

3. See 1.

Hope this helps, Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure you do know how to indent. Just add one : to the previous contribution. But if you want to add a 'years taught' parameter, why delete the age parameters? Years taught needs explaining to unfamiliar readers who ownt understand what Year7 means. Ages are universal. If you want to add years taught then do so. No need to delete ages. Fob.schools (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointless indent advice. Focusing back on the issue, you will have to see my edit again and look very closely at exactly what it is that I did — It’s not adding years and it’s not removing ages to put it bluntly. And “for the record” following a previous encounter with you in 2018, you don’t like being pinged in discussions. The amount of times you have pinged me in different places now, have you seen me complain? Maybe you can learn something from this? :D Steven (Editor) (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

In fairness Steven (Editor) did remove a whole mass of unencyclopaedic drivel. If I'd come across that article, I'd have deleted most of it as well. "The school canteen serves many different meals (Menu's can be found here)" with an inline external link. "The LRC offers printing facilities for students to print their work, and offers a great all-round experience." "The building is two floors high, and offers all the support students deserve when in their math class." "Whilst Exiting the main School Building through either the Gymnasiums or the Exit opposite Room 6 or 7, the English Department is immediately Accessible." 90% of that article needed to be purged. And that's before we can touch upon the copyright violations, such as those lifted from here (just the first one I looked for.) Plus the directory information in it. However yes this is a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Canterbury Tail, Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For a truly stellar achievement in the fantastically-overdetailed-school-article department, try [279].

Note that today, unaware of the existence of this thread, I fully protected the article for a week for edit-warring on a random version.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Arun verma khator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arun verma khator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be WP:NOTHERE.

The page Arun Verma is an article about an Indian politician ... but it has three times been hijacked by the businessman User:Arun verma khator as a venue for their autobiography: [280][281], [282].

I have reverted twice, but my reverts have been undone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DoctorHver and edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I have notice that DoctorHver, a long-time editor (since 2008) has rarely properly used the edit summary feature (see contributions). This issue has been raised on his user talk page twice ([283] and [284]). As an "acknowledgment" of the most recent inquiry, he summarily deleted my question. While this may not be an earth-shattering bit of vandalism, it does represent a certain attitude that ignores Wikipedia norms. (I should also note the other discussion I have started with this user regarding the wholesale refactoring of various list pages without discussion among the community.)

I deleted your question about edit summary, because you forgot your signature with that question, so I thought at first that was some IP edit, and I think you are free to remove IP edits from your talk page if they don't sound legit. I was about to restore it and I put your signature on it if thats ok, when you made this complant with the noticeboard. But if you feel better I have restored your question and put your signature on it if you are fine with that. But some time ago, I was altering my settings on my profile and for some reason when I was done, I couldn't publish any edits unless I give edit summary. I wasn't to sure what to do in the settings to fix the problem, So because of that i became used to making this annoying 1 letter summaries. Personally I find this annoying that I cannot do edits without having to do edit summaries, but most epdits I try to do should be self explainatory. If they need explaination I do an proper edit summary on them. So if any admin or mod could know what I should be looking at in mysettings to fix this problem it would be great. DoctorHver (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@DoctorHver: I apologize for neglecting to sign. I do slip up that way sometimes. However, that does not excuse the practice of not using proper edit summaries. I'm not sure what happened to your settings that forced you to use edit summaries, but you should have used the opportunity to create meaningful edit summaries, even when just reorganizing stuff. A reason why you are reorganizing would be useful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@DoctorHver: I believe you may want to uncheck the box labeled Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) in the Editing subsection of your preferences, here. :) Leijurv (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this solves the issue. :) and thanks@Leijurv:. it was getting rather tiresome giving all these meangless edit summares. So no wonder someone like @WikiDan61: thought I was abusing the system and if thats indeed the case then I applogy for that. DoctorHver (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that the issue as described need any administrator action. If the edits are good (which I haven't checked) then it's better that they should have been made, even without an edit summary, than not made. Of course it's even better if an edit summary is provided, but let's not make the best be the enemy of the good. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I whole heartly agree edit summaries are better than no edit summaries but in some cases some edits are just continuation of one another such as if you are reorganizing page. or creating/converting text based list to a table based list. Tebles are very useful and more readable when it comes topic such as films, TV shows, Video games etc. With that said it might be understandable that wikipedia might offer such feature where you can interlock your account in such a manner that you will have to provide and edit summary each time you edit something. Maybe there are some article were this feature might actually be very usefull but they seems to be out of my general scope of editing. So iF Wikipedia wants too make edit summaries mandantory with each edit then I would would be fine with that, as I think would actually help most with the issue of vandalinm as if folks have to explain what they are doing each time they make an edit. Of courese some individuals will probably still attempt to vandalize articles and replace their factual content wwith a gibbrish but I think mandantory edit summary would help along way with preventing incidents were edits get reverted because one editor couldn't understand what another editor was trying to do. DoctorHver (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@DoctorHver: There is no need to make dozens of edits to restructure tables or reorganize pages; this is what the edit preview feature is for. One edit summary can suffice for a large number of changes in a page. And no, edit summaries are not mandatory; but the pattern of single character edit summaries was disturbing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LordLiberty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

Personal attack/harassment threat removed per WP:CIVILITY. Historical record at [285]. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Now blocked indef with talk page access removed following abuse in unblock request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit of concern

I just noticed this edit from an IP made several months ago. The edit was made after a couple other personal attacks, made by others. I have deleted all of the attack material, but due to the disturbing, threatening nature of the diff above, I submit it here for admin consideration. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The second IP is the same person as the first (well, they're on the same ISP and in the same area). No edits since, and both are dynamic IPs on quite wide ranges, so I've just rev-deleted the edits. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged! Jusdafax (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportsfanrob and his disruptive editing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Definitely a case of WP:CIR here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have been very close to slapping a block on this user for a while, for various issues, but always deemed them to be not quite big enough to warrant a block. Looking back through the history, the user shows a ridiculous amount of flouncing and should be CIR blocked for not changing behaviour when told it is wrong. I don't think the few small good edits outweigh the large amount of poor edits and lack of ability to work as a part of the community. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• A block is definitely in order. Shall I do it? Deb (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Wikipedia shouldn't be his playground. WP:CIR. JMHamo (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Telsho & LTA socking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

• Singapore (no diffs for this one, since the vast majority of Telsho's edits involve Singapore)
• Culture of Singapore (while sometimes removing mention of other countries): [286][287][288][289][290], multiple edits to bubble tea, the creation of List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries, edits to Michael P. Fay
• Economy of Singapore (a sampling of numerous examples, including some shoehorning in of mentions of Singapore): [291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301], Hillion Mall
• Jewel Changi Airport [302] and Singapore Changi Airport [303][304][305], Singapore airlines [306][307]
• Lee Hsien Loong (no diffs needed here, since Telsho is all over the recent history, but diffs of pushing mentions of Lee in other articles can easily be provided)
• articles about Singapore transit: [308][309][310]

Quacking

• Telsho makes his one and only edit to George Floyd protests, which just happens to be a specific point a heavily involved sock was interested in[311]
• The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
  • Japanese Self-Defense Forces[312][313][314][315]
  • Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [316][317][318]
  • Lee Hsien Loong [319][320]
  • removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [321][322]
  • Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [323][324][325]
• A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [326][327][328][329][330][331][332](note that warring over redirects, especially with User:Horse Eye Jack/User:Horse Eye's Back, continues with Telsho and resulted in his current block)
• Tag bombing and edit warring over them, just like Telsho [333][334][335][336][337]
• Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [338]
• Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [339][340]
• This one I put in the SPI and consider a smoking gun, but bears repeating as a one-time visit to an obscure page just to reinstate a sock edit under the guise of reverting vandalism
• There is another connection between Telsho and an earlier sock, but per WP:BEANS I'd prefer to share it with admins privately, upon request

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

• (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [341][342][343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([351][352][353][354][355]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.

  That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [356][357][358][359], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [360]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.

An oldy but goody

Casting of ass

persians
-EEng

• Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.

To summarize my thoughts:

• At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
• At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
• It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just so that everyone is aware Telsho resumed edit warring at Singapore–United States relations immediately after their block expired and is back at the edit warring noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The result was a warning issued by EdJohnston, hopefully they heed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This user is now reverting his article of the day to the slanted "consensus" version which was, in fact, created by him without consensus and which he edit warred to preserve. I don't know how this user can make it any more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE, regardless of the sock accusation. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm not ignoring this, but considering your reaction to my defense on the SPI back then and the subsequent reverts, it's clear that you (and that other user you're canvassing with) are not really interested in what I have to say but to just have me blocked at all costs. You're so convinced that I'm a sock that you constantly follow around my edits. I don't see why I should write long paragraphs all over again, what else is there anymore? The fact that you even have to bring this archived discussion back after barely 15 minutes and tag even more uninvolved admins just says it all really. I also find it weird that although you first approached El C, you decided not to tag them this time. And for the last time, I'm not a sock, and I edit on a wide range of topics. Wikipedia is a big place. Yes, I've had edit wars with other users before especially when I had first started, but ever since then I've tried my best to engage more often on talk pages and try to avoid that anymore which is in everyone's best interest. I've never vandalized Wikipedia or any of that sort, and all of my contributions have always been constructive and practical whenever possible. That's all I have to say. Telsho (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

and that other user you're canvassing with Read WP:CANVASS, because you keep using that term incorrectly. The admins I pinged are, exactly as I described, ones who have been involved with the LTA at SPI.

you constantly follow around my edits Diffs? We have interacted on a total of three article pages, and on all three of those pages, my objections to your edits were supported by other editors.

I don't see why I should write long paragraphs all over again, what else is there anymore? How about an explanation for your comprehensive editing overlap with a blocked user?

I've had edit wars with other users before especially when I had first started An admin recommended you be blocked for a second time just four days ago at WP:EWN.

all of my contributions have always been constructive and practical whenever possible The history of your talkpage says otherwise.

It's discourteous for you to mention El_C (whom I did not "approach" specifically because I'm not canvassing) and not ping him--that's the second time I've seen you invoke his name without cluing him in that you'd done so. Grandpallama (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the continued silence has sufficiently demonstrated that fuck all is going to be done about this guy. If, after a month, we can't get any admin input after a partially conclusive SPI, multiple ANI threads, and direct appeals to admins familiar with this LTA, then I think the intended message to us is that we need to just accept that a WP:DUCK paid sockfarmer is allowed to hang around and declare victory by using his newfound immunity to abuse article space with bad-faith trolling ([361] [362] [363]). If that's the new rule, no biggie, although I would have preferred if someone just came out and said it before we wasted our time trying to uphold the old rules. Welcome back, "Telsho." Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. —{Canucklehead} 01:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged about this by another CU. I don’t disagree with possible, but it’s very important to note that the templates are rough instruments that don’t precisely convey what we see. In this case, the user in question has a static IP and the other accounts are on a dynamic range. There’s one common device, but let’s be clear what this means: two accounts from the same region are using a device from a popular manufacturer. It is certainly possible, but I would put it on the lower side of that template personally. It’s also technically possible that I’m the same person as some other CUs, WMF staff, and other admins, but there are technical details in my data that might distinguish me. I think it’s similar here.
  Finally, if the account is being disruptive just block it. Don’t wait on CUs or socking. The standard to block is of the account is causing disruption. The exact nature of that disruption doesn’t matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  To follow-up on this (I am the aforementioned CU), Tony has described what I think is the main source of hesitation from a CU perspective. If this is a sock, then it would have to be the result of a carefully calculated attempt to evade CU detection, which I am not sure this particular sockmaster is capable of or interested in (the wide majority of socks in the SPI archive have very distinctive data and are usually blocked as "confirmed"). I think the possibility should be considered that this is a different user who happens to be disruptive in the same topic area. (To other CUs: I have dumped all of the notes I have on this sockmaster on CU wiki, see [364].) Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Mz7 and TonyBallioni, thanks for weighing in, and I understand the CU conclusion. Even if Telsho isn't the same user as the sockmaster, the fact that they are reinstating the exact same edits as the sockmaster (sometimes ones from months prior) suggests that some sort of off-wiki coordination is occurring. The evidence I provided in the 'Quacking' section is only a slice of the intersections, and it includes pages that Telsho and the sockmaster edited that are outside the Singapore interest area (e.g., George Floyd protests), which weakens the possibility it's just a giant coincidence. And while Telsho has been disruptive on his own, a significant part of his disruption is specifically in restoring edits made by the sockfarm. Grandpallama (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well since Grandpallama wouldn't stop making even more aspersions, I will make another response. You've got to be kidding me. "off-wiki coordination"? This is the angle you're going for now? At the peak of the George Floyd protests, the article had page views ranging up to 200,000 daily. Obviously, this event which happened earlier this year was extremely well known worldwide, so do you honestly think that if that user's sock made edits on that article months before I did, it also implies I'm a sock as well? Where is the correlation in that, exactly? Furthermore, my only edit on there which was made a month ago was merely changing the death count to "at least 25", as knowing the true death count wasn't established due to the chaotic nature at the time. No subsequent edits or reverts were made by me thereafter. How far of a reach are you willing to go? Perhaps tag even more uninvolved admins until you get what you want? Telsho (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  I provided a diff that explained exactly why that single edit to that page was suspicious, particularly in combination with the rest of your editing patterns; in fact, I've provided a flood of diffs, while you've yet to provide any explanation for your significant editing overlap with this LTA. And none of the admins I pinged are uninvolved, as I already explained. Grandpallama (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not about to waste any more of my time on this trying to defend myself yet again, because frankly this entire thing is ridiculous and absurd to me. I'm not obligated to give you any "explanations" and I'm not about to let you cross-examine me for every contribution I make on Wikipedia. This has gone for far too long and you're the one that's continuously dragging this. Telsho (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  You've never defended yourself in the first place, which is kind of the problem; innocent editors incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry are generally eager to disprove the allegation and are able to provide plausible explanations for their editing behavior. Instead, while this discussion has been going on, you've been busy continuing disruption with some sketchy edits, edit warring at multiple pages, and again being caught violating WP:CWW, which is a policy you've been made aware of multiple times. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  You are more than welcome to hurl even more accusations dude, I honestly can't care less. I do use the talk page pretty often to settle disputes. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve here at this point. Telsho (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  User:Grandpallama, it would be better to forget possible sockpuppetry and concentrate on whether this editor is being disruptive, whether a sockpuppet or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, you are probably right. Per the accusations I "hurled", I'd encourage people to take a look at just the past 48 hours of Telsho's editing: maplewashing, where Telsho has edit warred to keep in his problematic inclusions and been caught on the talkpage violating WP:CWW again (something which he has received detailed and explicit warnings about in the past) as well as skirting the boundaries of WP:OR; edit warring at Economy of East Asia without opening a talkpage discussion upon reversion (but dropping an inappropriate and disruptive warning template on an IP's page, which spurred an ugly--and stupid--argument); and the latest attempt to remove articles they don't like by removing/altering text and tag-bombing the article [365][366] (a tactic I pointed out earlier in my diffs), and subsequently edit warring to keep the article in the state they prefer. Grandpallama (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• And now this editor has been edit-warring at Economy of East Asia to say that Singapore is in East Asia, despite reliable sources, talk page discussion, common sense and a glance at a map saying that it is not. Can't someone just block for disruption, rather than drag this discussion out for any more weeks? It doesn't matter whether the editor is a sockpuppet or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier discussion: Archive1048#Incivil_behaviour_by_User:DePiep

Previous discussion

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

Here's what happened in the last few days.

Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

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

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

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

Uncivil behavior on this page

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

Previous uncivil behavior

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

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

Final remarks

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

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

To be fair it was not just about difs. There was nothing there to admonish anyone when referring to two BRD edits. Games of the world (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, yes, that may be the case. I was not watching that particular discussion very closely in its entirety; I was rather surprised to get involved in the first place, and my main discussion with DePiep was occurring on a different page. I only started to learn more about it as I was starting this section and while I was re-reading the post, I forgot to pay attention to the first paragraph, or else I would've altered it. My own message merely touches that discussion.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Before I reply, this procedural question for more serious admins: Salvio giuliano closed the previous, same topic discussion earlier today [367]: No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. So I ask advice: is this a correct reopening, and am I supposed/advised even to respond as if this is the first complaint? If not, may I expect a quick, zero-effect closure? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball. No materially new info or points have been put forward since the previous closure, and even the accusation (title) is identical. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what DePiep said in the last two statements is partly misleading and partly incorrect. Contrary to what DePiep said, new information has been presented: first, it is one specific colorful edit from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020 (the last sentence in the fourth paragraph), and even more importantly, it was the claim (middle to end of the fifth paragraph) to which I referred to as "outstanding" in which a very serious accusation was made against myself but no evidence to support it was presented. That last claim occurred on this very page, during the last discussion, and it was not pointed out the last time, but it would not be appropriate to let such an accusation slip.

As for the misleading part, those claims I did bring up the last time were not considered during the last discussion at all (again, I understand how this could have happened since I was not the nominator and the nomination was not complete), barring one specific claim that I did not repeat in this section; if one does not read carefully enough, they may think that the claims were opposed, which they were not. I have referred to this in the opening paragraph of this section. If they had been discussed and found insufficient for any charge, DePiep's plea not to reopen the closed discussion would be understandable. However, they had not, and it is only appropriate that the behavior DePiep displayed is held up to scrutiny.--R8R (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• R8R, this 1400-word wall of text is overwhelming. Assuming it demonstrates a pattern of obstructionism and/or incivility by DePiep, what do you propose as the solution? By the way, Euryalus placed DePiep under several editing restrictions four months ago in May 2018 [368]; namely [369]:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

--Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC); revised 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Softlavender: Assuming it demonstrates ... -- are you serious? Please tell me, SL, which accusations you did not find am I supposed to clean up here? Is that all you can find, plus the feeding but not finding a Boomerang? R8R reopens a closed thread, under the same accusation, cannot demostrate points of trouble (that were refuted before), and we are supposed to start talking about the sanctions? -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, you are not helping yourself here. R8R has opened a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions, of apparently problematic behavior from and interactions with you. If your only response is to attack me and the OP, this will doubtless not turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responding, and first of all I did question openly the newness of this thread. Only now you have established that, thank you. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, as noted in the links, DePiep's sanctions were placed by the Wikipedia Community after that ANI discussion not by any admin. Euryalus was simply the admin who closed that discussion, assessing the community consensus and logging it etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I may be wordy at times, unfortunately that much is true. I have divided the text into parts by subheaders; I hope that makes reading easier.

The solution I've had in mind is a ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. Unfortunately, I don't know what duration of such a ban would be sufficient; there was a serious accident a year and a half ago (that I have brought up above), and in the last ten days or so, there were three accidents. I am somewhat hesitant to ask for an indefinite ban myself though I think that is a valid solution.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support by Sandbh for T-ban

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

@R8R: I think you mean incident not accident. Anyway it's probably not worth going into details about the older stuff. The editing sanctions, even if it postdated them, and the long blocks are enough to established there's a historic problem with the editor's editing. Concentrate instead on demonstrating the most recent edits are enough or a problem to justify some sanction. Since the thread has several responses, I'm not sure if you should delete parts of your original comment but you could use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse the part about historic stuff. Edit: I see that the previous incidents includes both stuff from 2019 and April 2020. April 2020 was after any block so I guess some may consider it relevant. However while I have not looked carefully at your diffs, your description of them doesn't make me think there's anything there that will raise the communities concern. An editor expressing an opinion an article is crap is for better or worse, acceptable behaviour provided there isn't some other underlying problem. (E.g. an editor pursing another to always say their work is crap.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since you say that the block record is enough to make my point, I'll let go of the past events. In any event, I believe that what happened in the last ten days stands out on its own account: I was, entirely out of blue, told to "grow up and behave"; a section at a TFA talk page was added with the sole purpose to disparage me; I was publicly accused of turning legitimate edits made in good faith into personal attacks, and not a single piece of evidence was presented to substantiate such a claim.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: when you open a thread, you should always expect your related behaviour to come under discussion in that thread. It's not the norm to discuss it in a separate thread since it's more confusing when were are discussing related things in different threads. As was noted before, a WP:Boomerang i.e. where the only action is against the thread starter is a perfectly common outcome of noticeboards complaints. If you don't welcome this, your only real solution is not to complain about other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yes, I see what you mean. When I wrote what I did, I had in mind the unvoiced accusation; I believed that had such an accusation existed and been related to this discussion, it would've been presented, but it was not, and thus whatever there was, if anything, was not related to the present case. Of course I agree that what behavior I displayed in those cases I mentioned should be used to hold me responsible if other editors believe that it warrants such responsibility. I have amended my original post. I believe that now, it reflects well what you have said; if not, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, haven't read this thread in detail but got the ping re sanctions I placed:- noting as a mild addition that these seem to date to 2018 rather than earlier this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus, I have corrected that now. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(considering a reply) -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What was the purpose of this edit. Not very civil Sandbh and is on a par with what you are repeatedly accusing DePiep of - making demands that you see as unreasonable and not necessarily put in a friendly way. If you want him sanctioned (which I'm struggling at times to see anything sanctionable), don't be surprised if you get sanctioned as well for the same type of behaviour (that's the point of boomerang). The point is Sandbh, you would have a stronger case if you don't do the same behaviour that you are accusing him of. In that light, I ask you, what makes you think that your edit that I've linked above is more acceptable than some of the other stuff that has been linked to showing "inappropriate" behaviour? You don't need to answer per se, just to reflect on it. Games of the world (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Boomerang may be an essay, but it still documents how things often work at the noticeboards. Someone posts about some allegedly bad editor. When people investigate, they find the reporter is actually the primary problem. The reportee is left be, the reporter ends up with some sanction, probably blocked. Editors don't need to be perfect to make a report, but their behaviour should not be worse than the editor they are reporting. I'm not saying this is the case here, but all editors should always remember just because another editor's behaviour is problematic doesn't mean it's okay for them to respond in kind or be even worse. (This applies both ways.) Putting that aside, especially with long reports it's imperative that you ensure you focus on examples that are a clear problem. As I mentioned above, I don't think there's any question DePiep's editing has historically had major problems. But when people have looked at any of the complaints in either of these threads about recent behaviour, they haven't seen anything that warranted sanction. The more people see this, the less likely they are to investigate further since it doesn't seem worth it. The editor complaining views on what sort of behaviour warrants sanction seems to be far from the communities. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: for the better or worse, it seems the rules on this are not set in stone, and I therefore could not check if the rules state that or not. It appears this is left to judgment of those editors who take part (please correct me if I missed something), so I'd like to ask you a question to make sure I understand the thinking here.

If I, entirely hypothetically, started a section titled "User:Nil Einne" (or any other user of your preference) on this very page and wrote that what you're saying here matches the standard you've set previously, namely, that you simply deny what arguments you are presented and you never aim to collaborate, would that kind of behavior not warrant sanction against me? To me, it appears that this sort of behavior should be punished. And let's say you responded in a civil manner, reminding me that I could apologize, and I wrote for everyone to see that you were just attacking me personally without bothering to back up my words? Would that not be it, would I not deserve a ban after that? And let's say I also had a record of having been blocked before, so it is unlikely just words will make me stop doing this for a substantial period of time. Would all of that not be reason enough to impose a block on me? Should I as an editor who has just done that be allowed to walk away freely? As you can see, what I'm suggesting in this entirely hypothetical situation precisely matches what DePiep has done lately, or if not, I genuinely don't see the difference.

Please don't take what I wrote personally, but I genuinely don't understand why you're saying such behavior does not warrant sanction, and I hope you could either rethink that or explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

While it may be only an essay, it does reflect norms here, i.e. that the behaviour of everybody, including the reporter is up for scrutiny when someone raises an issue here, and that poor behaviour by the reporter may rebound on them.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Brief note: the essay was tagged as humorous in the most recent edit to the page. I don't know why, as Soumya is not an author or contributor to the essay, their only edit to the page is adding the tag, and there's no note on talk explaining the tagging. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply by DePiep to OP

Just a caption, does not list all of User:DePiep replies

• Sigh. While preparing my reply, handling frustration and angryness too, I met this edit: a personal attack saying I am lying. Please allow me more reply-time. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is a very serious charge. I replied to it conclusively at the page where it was first made.--R8R (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Reply to OP

First the details

See also the first, similar complaint (archived).

1. re #Previous discussion. So R8R re-starts an ANI complaint 9 hrs after the first ANI thread was closed. For doing so, R8R admits "the issue ... has been raised and discussed". They also claim it ended with "not ... a verdict per se" — while the closing note says: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented." (closer Salvio giuliano, [370]).

Here [371] Softlavender says they have read threads at WT:ELEM (found by their own research as diffs were missing). Softlavender did not find evidence and even made multiple counterclaims (=diffs, behaviour issues by Sandbh). This is to show that the complaint raised was scrutinised.

Here [372] GirthSummit notes re the OP (complaint): "I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us".

Apart from the OP complaint by Sandbh, R8R added a similar complaint: [373]. It containts seventeen diffs. I enganged in this subthread. Also, [374] GirthSummit addresses your post ("R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation 'WTF'"). They also asked "are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?").

IOW, you presented your complaint(s), you added diffs, it was discussed, and at least one admin has judged your post. This too supports the closing conclusion: "No evidence ... has been presented". Your statement re your own post being "not properly considered" is not in place [375]. On top of this, given the quoted request to point out more clear-cut PA issues in diffs, this new complaint does not highlight problematic diffs.

I disagree with the statement that the original complaint handling was not complete and not decisive. There is no reason to reopen the case.

2. re #Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements: repetition from first complaint. Already addressed by me back then [376], second-last paragraph.

For example, my "grow up and behave" post was already clarified as being ... a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits [377]. Still the same diff is repeated in this "new" complaint as if nothing happened.

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

R8R: "then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design" false. The image I used expressly uses the standard formatting we use throughout the topic of WP:ELEMENTS. An illustration that R8R not hear this all along? See es, es. File history shows some stubbornness image hist, before finally solving it as was proposed (create new file).

All in all, I did not find any offensive edit in the talkpage. Even worse: here is R8R turning a content-talk into personal animosity:

[378] R8R: "Who do you think wrote the lead section as it currently stands? (It was me.)";

[379] R8R: "Could it be because we are supposed to discuss your picture";

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

However, here [380] R8R writes "I kindly ask you not bring up the argument that you know to be incorrect", accusing me of willfully lying which is a personal attack; and in their reply they did not withdraw but instead introduced ANI-quotes for explaining (i.e., doubling down on the personal approach) [381].

5. re #Previous uncivil behaviour:

5a: Once again R8R here turns a content address [382] into a personal thing [383]. While, my reply back then [384] went back to content discussion, obviously not recognised by R8R.

5b: re Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal: here, R8R turning a MOS discussion into a personal issue. Note that the thread had concluded and closed; I don't see how this is an admissable argument here.

6. re #Final remarks: "they don't listen to other's arguments": I read this: ... even when I throw in ownership and authority [385], notgettingit [386]; and generally turn every counteridea into a personal issue [387]. None of the accusations fits the "uncivil" claim. None have been judged as such.

Concluding (TL_DR, patterns)

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

B. No smoking diff. This OP cointains 30 diffs. I, and other editors here, have not seen any sanctionable diff (see Nil Einne [388]). Sure if we missed something, other editors are invited to point these out even this late.

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

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

D. Overall. These two ANI complaints by Sandbh and R8R are pointing to a chilling atmosphere in the once great and productive WP:ELEMENTS project with loyal and cooperative editors (my opponents included). Already many discussions have been abandoned, and stuck in the sandy road, because of these hopeless recent changes in talk-habits (since beginning of 2020?) [389] [390]. Whether I am part of the cause or not: this can not be cured through ANI.

-DePiep (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh

I suggest some of these comments show DePiep uses his own standards to judge his own actions and those of others, rather than the ordinary conventions of WP:CIVIL. For example, his incivil admonishment to R8R to "grow up and behave" is judged by DePiep, via quoting himself, [391] as "a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits". Just what are these good talkpage habits?

To further justify his actions, DePiep refers to a standard format we use throughout WP:ELEM as way of criticising R8R's actions. We use a standard format for convenience not as a straitjacket. Changing the standard is notoriously difficult since DePiep considers he WP:OWN's it. For example, nobody within the project likes the red shade we use to colour the alkali metals. R8R changes it [392] for that reason. Another editor adds a like. [393] What happens next? DePiep reverts it along with the comment: "Please, grow up and behave".[394] WP:OWN once again.

As for WP:ELEM becoming chilling, with initiatives abandoned and stuck, no such thing has happened. WP:ELEM is notorious for its lengthy discussions of the topic du jour. After a long, animated and heated discussion on the composition of group 3, the editors involved (me included) reached an accommodation. One of these editors decided to leave the project temporarily pending a decision by IUPAC. I have since been fruitfully discussing a range of WP:ELEM matters with that editor (who continues to contribute to our project). I recently updated the periodic table graphic in the lede of our periodic table article [after twice being reverted by DePeip [395][396]] based on suggestions by that editor. I made further contributions to the periodic table article, [397] with several supporting citations, as a result of discussion within WP:ELEM.

In this context, for another example of DiPiep's disruptive behaviour on one WP:ELEM's projects, there is this R8R quote:

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

For a good example of a stuck, abandoned issue, in March 2016 DePeip posts a review of the colours we use on our periodic table.[398] R8R comes with a colour scheme [399] attracting positive feedback [400][401][402], DePiep excluded. Four-and-a-half years later, nothing has happened due to DePiep's intransigence and, I allege, WP:OWN issues.

For an example of petty behaviour today by DePeip, I added a section break at the start of this section so that I would be easier for me to ass this comment, and easier for others to follow the flow of the thread. DePeip reverts me [403] never mind I changed none of the content of his reply.

Here is a recent WP:OWN claim by DePiep. [404]

With thirteen+ blocks since 2009 [405] it is evident that DePiep does not, or chooses not to, learn anything and shows an ongoing, repeated pattern of incivil behaviour. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, I cannot give a complete response at the time. I don't think that such a response is needed from me, either (for instance, I have explained my position on the first part of my post, and DePiep has explained theirs, and there's that. Similarly, a response on the fifth part is not needed because I previously agreed to drop that line of reasoning), although there are many references to my edits. I am merely asking other editors to examine the presented diffs closely.

Lied? DePiep, you said twice on this page that I personally attacked you by claiming you had lied. This is not correct. What I did say is that you brought up the argument that you knew to be incorrect. You did not say anything that was factually incorrect with the intent to deceive other editors, and I did not use the word "lie" to describe your words. I suppose that you could have made that mistake entirely honestly the first time, but I explained my words since then to make sure you understood me correctly, and then you still used the notion that I personally attacked you by accusing you of lying. Moreover, you saw that post of mine before you wrote the second charge: you quoted that post twice in your message. However, you did not even acknowledge the central point that I was making. If you disagreed with it, that would be one thing, but not acknowledging is completely different from that.

What a personal attack is When the idea that I personally attacked DePiep was brought up, I checked the definition of a personal attack. There is a list of things that are considered a personal attack; the one item on that list closest to edits that are being discussed is this: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." It was my honest understanding that providing those diffs on that page would give the impression I was purposely making DePiep look bad in front of other WP:ELEM editors. When I was told with such an accusation might be put against me, I learned the definition, and I wanted to stay clear of such a charge against myself. For that reason, I provided all diffs necessary to establish my case on the very next day, so that what I said no longer lacked evidence. (For what it's worth, I think that what I said does not constitute an accusation, and I specifically tried to word that phrase in the least accusatory manner I could think of, but I acknowledge the possibility that other editors may disagree with me.) However, all of those links did nothing to prevent a second charge of personal attack via accusation of lying, when it was no longer valid however you look at it.

Why press the second charge? I was going to write, "DePiep, please tell me in your own words why you pressed that second charge when you had read my reply, which I know since you were referring to it?" However, one can learn from this question (which I found when I was in the middle of writing this message) that DePiep did not process my message addressed to themselves but nonetheless acted upon it. I don't see how communication is possible in circumstances when a message is written to a user and they use it as evidence against the original writer without even processing the defense in it.

Personal attacks by DePiep I'd like to remind everyone of one definition: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I will bring up one quote from the starting message: I was told I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." That's a serious accusation, and it lacks evidence. Moreover, this unbased attack was made when DePiep knew I would not respond: I wrote previously that I wouldn't (see edit summary). It's a personal attack, and DePiep had a week to expand upon his words and provide some backing for their words. They chose to dismiss the part regarding this accusation as irrelevant. Here is another quote from WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). I presented in the starting message an edit, in which DePiep created a section in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020; the section was titled "R8R" and its contents were, "Per R8R's habit: always revert, simply deny arguments, never discuss, never aim to improve." This is exactly disparaging, and it is therefore a personal attack.

Final remarks I wrote this message late in the evening yesterday, and I only sent it after I re-read it the this morning. I did my best to not write more than it was necessary but I apologize to other editors if that's still too much.--R8R (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The saga continues

I do not understand the basis or need for the "hostile" tone of this edit [1] by User:DePiep. DePeip says, "Sandbh does not OWN the PT." Quite so. I have never claimed such ownership. Nobody owns it.

DePiep adds:

"You [Sandbh] keep changing FA Periodic table and its supporting features without crisp support. That is not acceptible. If you keep editing and behaving this way, I will have you blocked."

The context for this post by DePeip was a contribution/edit I made to the PT article [A]. Four editors subsequently fix some typos: [B], [C], [D], [E].

DePiep sees what I have done and posts the "hostile" edit I referred to above.

In response:

1. I do not "keep changing" the PT article. I recently WP:BOLD attempted to change the PT graphic [2], in the context of much background discussion at WP:ELEM. I explained the basis for my edit [3] and pinged WP:ELEM members [4]. Three WP:ELEM editors posted some minor comments and suggestions in response [5] [6] [7]. NB: There are only four to five active members of WP:ELEM: User:R8R, User:YBG, myself, and User:Double sharp.

Nobody disagreed with the change. DePiep reverts me [8].

DePiep then asks me to, "Please list where you prove consensus for each of the detailed changes." [9]. Note the expectation for me to "prove" consensus (when none was required in the first place) and I that I do so "in detail". I WP:BOLD post an updated version of the graphic, in light of comments and suggestions, and ask DePiep to D rather than R, if he has o/s concerns [10]. DePiep, continuing to act like a jerk, reverts me again [11]

2. Since nobody owns the PT article there is no requirement for DePiep's notion of "crisp support" before editing.

3. DePiep threatens to have me blocked. DePiep cannot do so. He can of course (after discussion) report my behaviour here, should he choose to do so.

4. Following my revert, I am happy to D with him in the context of WP:BRD, to see if we could agree a reasonable way ahead. If necessary this could include seeking consensus within WP:ELEM. What happened instead was the edit that it is the subject of this post. Without further discussion, DePiep further edits the PT article [12], [13], [14], effectively undoing my work, in the absence of the "crisp consensus" he accused me of not obtaining. (Of course, DePiep is entitled to anyone's work in a civil, cooperative manner, with due discussion, where required, including consensus seeking).

In summary, the preceding is a further example of DePiep's behaviour of concern. This behaviour falls significantly short of WP:CIVIL:

"Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

In this light, I repeat my support for R8R's request for:

"A ban [for DePeip] from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time." Sandbh (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

---

@DePiep: I think it has been established that you undo other editors freely if you think that their actions lack consensus, regardless of whether the changes made in an edit have been actually disputed. Sandbh provides here one example of that. I provided more in the starting message of this section ("Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours.", you need to read the edit rationales of the edits listed in this quote; "At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words"). Here is also an example from a year ago, one that I have not brought up so far. I hope that is enough to demonstrate a pattern here.

The idea of Wikipedia is that it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That quote comes from the Main Page. That notion is expanded upon in Wikipedia:Be bold, which is an official guideline of English Wikipedia. WP:BOLD essentially says that you think your edit is good, you should feel free to give it a try. If you know your action will be undone because you have not obtained explicit consensus yet, you may end up not doing what bold edit you could have made; for that reason, actions that make editors obtain consensus of a community before making an edit contravene the spirit of that guideline. Here's a quote from WP:BRD, which is a supplement to WP:BOLD: "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit." However, in those edits I have mentioned in the previous paragraph, you did precisely that: you undid edits without presenting any substantial objections; merely a lack of an explicit consensus. Those multiple actions violated the spirit of WP:BOLD and the letter of WP:BRD; the most recent such violation occurred less than twenty-four hours ago, so these violations continue.

You are a long-standing member of the Wikipedia community, so you know about those rules. They have been brought up recently, too: WP:BOLD was mentioned a few times over the span of the last couple of weeks, both at WT:ELEM and in this very section. I quoted you referring to WP:BRD in the starting message of this section. So you do know the rules, and you continue to break them. I would not have even contemplated coming here in the first place if I believed there was another way to stop this. There was one time when I thought that things could get better: you recognized you were wrong and thanked everyone for bringing yourself to your senses (Sandbh said you were "very welcome"). Unfortunately, that feeling didn't last.

I understand well what the problem is, and the problem is such edits. I came here to support a block as a solution because I don't believe there is another way to stop this improper behavior. Your actions during both ANIs only reinforce that belief in me.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Simple: edit warring can lead to a block. Given the recent exchanges wrt non-consensus major edits, it is convenient to write that straight, as the addressee is obviously aware of the problem. Also, notions of "OWN" etc. are talkpage-level statements, to be handled locally. Yes such a talk may not develop greatly or easy, but problematic content talks including tough procedural notes are not solved by ANI. So I still do not see a case in here. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't understand the particular relevance of the first two sentences (are you saying somebody is edit warring? if so, who and what is the evidence?). OWN may be a local matter if it's a one-time issue, but if there's a pattern, then the pattern must be stopped because it disrupts normal editing for other users. Nobody owns anything here---that's an official policy of English Wikipedia, and its repeated violations should be reported. In any case, why did you choose to tell me about that? I haven't claimed once that you were owning anything, neither here nor in the previous discussion, though I find it curious you'd want to downplay the severity of such an action. In a vast majority of cases, content talks are fine as long as they are not a prerequisite for edits. I don't doubt your sincerity when you say don't see a case here despite all the rule violations pointed out by other editors and myself. That is precisely the problem; discussion would be more helpful otherwise.--R8R (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The reason that this overall thread is not gaining traction or participants is that once again, it did not follow (and continues not to follow) ANI Advice, which link I posted three times in regards to the previous thread on this same subject. That said, I Support an indefinite TBAN on DePiep from chemistry-related topics, broadly construed.

  It's very clear that DePiep behaves in a unilateral, bullying, non-collaborative way on these articles and talkpages, and that what is more, he hasn't taken the hint from these recent ANI filings to desist from such behavior. On the contrary, he has simply ramped up his behavior, with edits like this [406], just yesterday. Seeing as DePiep has already demonstrated serious behavioral problems elsewhere, as evidenced, for example, here [407] and here [408] as well as by his block log [409], I submit that unless he demonstrates his ability to edit collegially and civilly on other topics, he is possibly heading for a site ban as his next sanction, for lacking the competence to work in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender:: First of all, as I replied earlier extensively in my #Reply to OP, the original complaint here is a reopening of an earlier complaint. Your earlier note here that it was "a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions" [410] (first of all let me note that I did not introduce a GF doubt at all). The opening paragraph by R8R has serious misrepresentations, and the first complaint was closed with a judgement on both R8R's diffs provided(!) and on the threads that were linked by complainant (so reading the threads instead of diffs). Therefor, the closing was final. Furthermore, here you introduce diffs to old, closed and concluded threads. Since they are closed it means that they are not new, and not an argument. Accepting those as an argument reads "I want you be blocked because you were blocked", which is no righteous verdict. Finally, I ask you to consider that actually there is no case for ANI, as multiple editors have noted, since the cases brought up are considered talkpage-issues, not ANI. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This very much seems to be six of one, half a dozen of the other. I see uncivil comments from both sides and it would be unfair to single DePiep out solely for this as he is I feel not the only problem here and I would like to point out Softlavender that the comments like the one you have linked have continued from both sides. Sandbh's behaviour has been very poor as well, particularly on this board and for continuing uncivil comments. The continuation of this issue by R8R and Sandbh is poor as well. It was dealt with once and all we see is the same issues being regurgitated as the previous thread and now resulting to desperate measures to try and get their own way going back two plus years now. Sandbh and R8R should not be trying to ignore the rules of Wikipedia or claim that they have consensus for a different set of rules or expected behaviour within Elements which seems to be more stringent than Wikipedia itself. R8R should take what people say with a pinch of salt and not choose to be offended, yes you are a non native speaker, but take some time to learn how people use phrases before choosing to take offense for example your complaint about WTF. Said a lot normally in confusion and is not normally aimed to be personal. R8R you can complain all you like about DePeip's conduct on the feature 9 October page, but from a glance I see several rather unhelpful comments which seem to suggest that you did not really listen to him or Dank over two threads (they were trying to help you uphold wikipedia rules) and some of the comments from you are just as uncivil. Again Sandbh going into a thread 8 days after and undoing DePeip's edit is rather deliberate and provoking, yet you want the same treatment of silence is consensus. You can't have it both ways. Sandbh should note that just because no one else reverts you does not mean that your edit was OK as noted in the first thread where other people then said you had to do x, y and z to fix it. It seems to be that Sandbh has a bad attitude to DePiep and R8R jumped on the chance to try and shove him out. Where it got nowhere R8R started a new thread claiming his portion hadn't been dealt with when Girth had answered and summed up his problem. No one else from elements has commented on this and from looking DePiep has been correct in most of his reverts and they have been in good faith. I Oppose a T-ban for DePiep. If this continues to be an issue then sanctions against Sandbh and DePiep would be the way to go as they seem to be the only ones with an issue with each other. Sandbh seems to have a lot of issues with other users considering the content of this one, yes I know it was struck but still says something and the ANI thread titled Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh and this thread. These links proves once and for all that banning DePiep will not solve the issues at Elements. Finally if you STOP trying to POV the topic area it would help. I know you are getting published articles of your work, but that does not mean that you get to put it in Wikipedia before it is published or other sources before they are published. PREPRINT's from what I understand are also a no, no. Which I see is a frequent issue from this case which I think is one of the root causes. In addition DO NOT put your own ideas/or ideas of others in which are not even published. There's a comment from Sandbh telling DePiep that he should consider an idea that is not published! Basically this is a long winded way of saying draw a line under all the behaviour just noted in my comment and move on. Games of the world (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was dealt with once". No, it wasn't dealt with at all, which was why this thread was opened, especially since DePiep is doubling down on his bullying and threats. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: A few hours after you posted this, I put up my #Reply to OP. It also deals with this "was dealt with". The very first diff I gave is [411]. The author says that "I do see that you [Sandbh, complainer] have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: ... [+ 6 diffs]". This shows that the original complaint by Sandbh was judged, and its threads (not diffs) were read for judgement. So the first complaint was judged and concluded, even while complainer did not add diffs. The author of that diff: Softlavender. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I tend to agree with Softlavender's comment above. I didn't know any of the contributors involved in this dispute, but telling someone you will "have them blocked" is a kind of bullying and I see it more than once in DePiep's history. Deb (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have replied to the OP extensively above (#Reply to OP), obviously after these subsection comments were made. I think my reply serves these here too. -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Polite comments re Games of the world allegations

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

1. My behaviour on this board the first time I posted a grievance was uncivil. As well as learning a lot about how not to do a grievance I posted an apology to the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.[412]

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

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

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

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

6. The x, y, z things other people said I “had to do” to “fix it" were instead comments and suggestions [413] [414] [415].

7. That other WP:ELEM members have not posted to this thread may be because they haven’t been notified of it. The first time I did so I was accused by Games of the world of apparent canvassing [416] As Black Kite noted, "It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)".

8. The struck out comments re my alleged behaviour [417] were part of a WP:ANI grievance withdrawn by the same editor. That editor posted an apology to my talk page. [418]

9. I don’t cite unpublished work.

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

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

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

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

Thank you Alexandermcnabb. As I see it, it is a case of short term pain in the hope of long term gain. I support a T-ban. R8R supports a T-ban. Softlavender supports a T-ban. Deb has expressed an inclination to agree to such a ban. DePiep himself, has incurred 13+ blocks since 2009, and was under (still is AFAIK) threat of an indefinite ban from WP in the event of another breach. Even Games of the world, who opposes the ban has had two blocks of their own and recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.” [i.e. other than WP:ANI][419] I hope that provides sufficient context. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop with the hysteria and bullying? What you are doing here seems like it is carrying on and on and on until someone agrees with you and you get your own way. The fact that I have been blocked is irrelevant along with what someone wrote on my talk page, I still have a reasonable and objective view. The fact is you are fast testing people's good will and time here. In fact I would go as far as stating that you've missed the point of Alex's post entirely. Games of the world (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Games of the world: I note your continuing interest in this grievance. I intend to not respond to any more of your posts here. Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Outside perspective

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

1. DePiep there is nothing improper with the new discussion. The previous one was closed because diffs were not provided in a timely manner by the original complaintant to verify their concerns. There are no statute of limitations or double jeopardy that mean someone can't later come back with something verifiable to start the conversation again.
2. R8R your walls of text make issues harder to address. A simple list of problematic difs and a paragraph or two would have been far more effective in making your case than the long slogs we had to read. Your lack of conversational fluency causes you to take offense at innocuous uses of things like "WTF", and this causes avoidable friction in your interaction with other users.
3. Sandbh Wikipedia's prohibition of WP:OR includes things that haven't been published yet. Since all material MUST be verifiable, the conclusions from any papers that are unpublished are catgorically inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
4. "No consensus" is a reason to revert an edit ONLY if the edit actually defies a consensus established by discussion. Additions do NOT need to be pre-approved. This edit by DePiep is unacceptable. If Sandbh believes that they are implementing a consensus from a recent discussion, the proper way to register an objection is to document the implementation at that discussion so that others can either agree or disagree with it, and then revert if others believe it was premature.
5. DePiep, edits like this are absolutely unacceptable. In fact, you should have been immediately blocked as per your indefinite editing restriction as of 2018-05-29. The tenor of your interactions with other editors need to change immediately.

• Suggestions:

• DePiep has several problematic behaviors that need to stop immediately.

• Their pattern of reverting instead of constructively discussing is disruptive and problematic, and they should observe WP:0RR in articles under WP:ELEM with unambiguous vandalism being the only exception. If they have a concern about an edit that another editor has added in good faith, the appropriate venue is the talk page, where you most importantly need to offer constructive alternatives instead of just objecting to what others have done.
• Any edits like the "Please, grow up and behave" linked above should be immediately reported by any user, with reference to DePiep's indefinite editing restrictions (use WP:EDRC shortcut). Admins should immediately blank such edits and place a block on DePiep as is appropriate to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia community. DePiep needs to take a good deal of time right now to go through their editing history to strike out all such comments and apologize for them.

• R8R you need to understand that you may not have the full cultural context with certain uses of language, and that WP:AGF applies to language use by other contributors. You could use more of your energies and native fluency to help improve Russian Wikipedia, which you have edited less than 4% as much as en wiki. Lastly, WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian would get a HUGE boon from a participant with your formidable language skills. Any or all of those courses of action could drastically improve your editing experience and make you an incredible asset to this project.

• Sandbh please fully vest yourself into understanding WP:V and WP:OR. Your reactions to being challenged leave something to be desired, and you would be well served by taking your time when it comes to reading consensus in a discussion. More than a few of these situations would not have occurred if you weren't in a hurry to read a consensus before the conversation had run its course. A good rule of thumb would be to put in a formal conclusion, and give time for anyone else to object. There is no timeline on Wikipedia, and at its heart, consensus means that EVERYONE is okay with a course of action. A single editor with a substantive concern is worth hearing out no matter how long it takes. Learn to ask how you can meet their concerns instead of forcing them to deal with changes you've already made. Sandboxes and userspace drafts are an excellent place to work if you are trying to really get full input from others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I add further section breaks?

@R8R, Games of the world, DePiep, Softlavender, Nil Einne, Euryalus, Nigel Ish, Mr rnddude, Salvio giuliano, Deb, Alexandermcnabb, and Vanisaac: I propose to add further section breaks to this thread to make it easier to follow. My first two attempts to add a section break were reverted by DePiep on the grounds that I had attempted to change his post [420][ [[421]. I have now added a section break [422] (provided DePiep does not revert me for a 3rd time). Does anybody have any objections to my proposal to add further section breaks so as to make the thread easier to follow? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer that you do not 'organise' the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. It may be in good faith but I would still say that it is borderline refactoring others comments which is not acceptable and will cause an issue. Games of the world (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If there's one further section break - CLOSED - then I, for one, would be glad... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disregard of another editor's position

I am sorry I have to start yet another subsection.

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

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

Whatever. Once again, User:R8R has turned a regular talkpage content discussion into a personal attack. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying that I personally attacked you is a serious accusation. Care to elaborate? WP:PA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I (and, presumably, other editors) would like to see where I attacked you, and what is the quote from WP:PA which indicates that my behavior indeed qualifies as a personal attack.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after I quoted WP:PA to DePiep, clearly hinting that such an accusation without evidence is a personal attack (against myself), DePiep refused to provide evidence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for BOOMERANG check on User:R8R

Enough of this. Just today, in a content discussion, R8R managed to turn the discussion, as before, into a personal issue [423] (800+ words).

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

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

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

DePiep, frankly, this modesty is not really suitable here. If you think you've got something on me, please do show how exactly so. You're clearly saying I did something bad but you're not giving any proof, and I (and, perhaps, other editors) might be tempted to think there is nothing "present and hidden in the long long post" you can actually show. You're making a claim, after all. Make it sound.--R8R (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

From you 800+ word talkpage post (not necessarily complete):

• "you manage to oversee"
• "I have already answered this question and I'd like you to acknowledge this fact by not asking it again as if I haven't"
• "Please read my words more carefully"
• "you have missed something in my position or misrepresented it three times in your post"
• "and while one honest mistake is understandable, three make discussion much more difficult."

These are what I wrote. Telling you could ot discover them yourself. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will merely note that the first phrase was incomplete and I sent it by mistake. (I nonetheless did, and I'm not seeking to ditch what responsibility this might mean.) I quickly corrected it, and the complete sentence looks like this.

As I said in the beginning of this section, I stand ready to be held responsible for what behavior of mine is related to the present case, and this certainly is related.--R8R (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Here [424], in your OP compaint, you smear that

• "then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design"

while I actually used the enwiki standard design, as I wrote everywhere. Still waiting for your excuse. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an excuse, but I have an answer. You created that file, in the way you wanted to create it (by the way, that cell looks somewhat different on my computer, presumably to the difference in screen resolution), and then you uploaded it. That was what I was referring to, and that's all there is to it.--R8R (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, this content post [425] was replied with [426]

"Jawohl, Herr Oberst! Zu Befehl! "

-DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not related to the present case, since I have agreed to drop the matter of that interaction. If you believe that is still something to hold me accountable for, you're welcome to start another section on this page. In any case, for the convenience of the reader, I will provide an approximate translation from German: "Yes, sir colonel! At your command!" This was said after DePiep claimed there was no improvement after months of work by another editor (other than myself) and set out what was to be done then even though nobody had asked them to and DePiep had not done any kind of work he was commenting on myself. This may not have been the best thing I have ever said, I agree on that much, and I would not say it again.--R8R (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

1. R8R and DePiep, this thread does not create a good impression of either of you.
2. R8R, posting walls of text is not helping you or the case that you are trying to make.
3. DePiep, editors other than R8R have raised OWN behaviours. Your recent TFA change provides another example. R8R's style is not grounds for you to disregard input from others. Even if nothing results from this thread, please don't take that as vindication as I believe you should reflect on your approach.
4. R8R, the diff from April that DePiep quotes above is offensive and could have justified some sanction at the time.
5. DePiep, another's violation of NPA is not a justification for responding in kind, either at the time or many months later. Neither is R8R's style a justification for refusing to provide diffs to support a claim of an NPA violation.
6. Oppose BOOMERANG as unjustified at present.
7. Would an uninvolved admin please try and provide a reasonable close here? Letting the thread just die means the issues obscured by the noise in this thread will go unrecognised and unaddressed, which is not in the interests of editors or readers.

Thank you. EdChem (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks well-considered, EdChem. Missing is a tought on the point that this thread is a reopening of an already closed thread; the reopening often being 'justified' on incorrect perceptions (see my #Reply to OP). -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: I do not ask this check to 'hide' behind other editors behaviour (as being the sole problem), as EdChem seems to read it. I am asking for scrutiny, which could clarify the cause of editor's grievance as being multi-sided. That's all. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It has not been closed, DePiep, suggesting that your concerns about reopening are not shared by admins who have looked at it - and there are comments that reopening providing diffs that were not provided prior to the earlier closing is legitimate. More importantly, whether there are defects in procedure here, there is also clearly a problem. A procedural no-action closure despite the behavioural issues would leave them unaddressed. That may be to your benefit (and to the benefit of others being scrutinised), but it is not the the benefit of the community or the encyclopaedia. The issues that are raised here are a fire worth addressing, even if they are obscured by a lot of smoke and a forest of words. My advice to you, for whatever it is worth, is to focus on your actions, the problems in the area, and how to improve the present situation – and only on those areas... and I offer the same advice to everyone else involved in the issues. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Double sharp

Oh dear.

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

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

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

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

P.S. YBG, since you have been involved in the discussion that led to this: I would welcome your view of the happenings as well, if you are agreeable and available to provide it. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Once we have heard from WP:ELEM members Double sharp and YBG I feel it would be appropriate to seek a closure of this grievance by an uninvolved admin, per EdChem. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I may need another day, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(Regarding why I would want to delay another day; the current state of the discussion we have reached on WT:ELEM touches on some things that have previously been raised regarding User:Sandbh. However, given his time zone, he is probably asleep at the moment, so I would prefer to wait till tomorrow to allow him to respond there. I stand by what I said above that going to ANI here is an admission of defeat of sorts, so I prefer to see first if it's really necessary – I hope it won't be.) Double sharp (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Because I have real-life commitments, and because it is increasingly clear that the issues between myself and Sandbh are impossible to resolve: I withdraw the request for dispute resolution and the proposition for a new RFC. Although I still believe that the change I propose would be a good one, and I still absolutely disagree with Sandbh's views and interpretations, I think it is not worth arguing when it just makes me unhappy and will take time away from things I would much rather be doing.

So, I apologised to Sandbh on his talk page for going overboard again, and I leave the project instead. This should be resolved unless others want to follow up.

”

My talk page apology to Sandbh is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Thank you for your post, Double sharp. As I've mentioned before on these types of issues, whenever discussion has stalled with various parties offering various arguments and issues are merely getting mired down rather than resolved, the best course of action is to file an official WP:RFC. The catch is, it needs to be very simple and very clear and very brief, such as, for example, "Should the image of the table look like version A, B, or C?" (and then supply or link to each image). If it's not a simple brief neutral question, it's not an RfC, it's just another train wreck waiting to happen. Someone needs to be clear-headed enough to propose a simple, brief, one-sentence question -- that is either binary or has minimal (less than six) options. File it as an official RFC, ping every single active person on ELEM, and then let people !vote. Separate it into "Survey" and "Discussion", and insist that everything beyond a simple !vote be placed in the "Discussion" sub-thread. Let it run 30 days, and then have an administrator close the RfC. The result may not please everyone, or even match current anecdotal opinion in the outside world, but it will have WP:CONSENSUS, which is the best we can do on Wikipedia when editors and/or sources disagree. (Note: More complex issues need to be broken down into smaller simpler parts, and RfCs filed for each part of the whole that is still in intractable dispute. The key to an RfC is simple, neutral, brief.) Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Likewise, thank you for your comment. However, I do feel that I'd prefer a little bit of outside help in these processes. For one thing: what has been said before here has merit, that norms on WT:ELEM may have gone outside what the norms on most of WP are, and I would like first to be clear about what the latter are. Since my general disagreement with User:Sandbh at this point is at the level of interpretation of what WP policy does or does not allow, I would very much appreciate it if you or someone else interested could comment at, say, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Regarding the latest additions to Periodic table to see if my expressed concerns about his additions are based on correct interpretations on policy. (Don't worry, it's still a short thread; just my response and his reply). If they are, then I can think about starting an WP:RFC with some help, and perhaps some of the issues that have been raised about his edits may get more attention; if they are not, then that's also good to know, and there should be no need for further action. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

PS: In terms of the content portion of your concerns/question (such as, 'Am I right, or do I have a valid point, about SYNTH, OR, V, UNDUE, POV, FA, etc. in this discussion'), ANI doesn't handle content issues. There are often noticeboards for specific content concerns, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, WP:DRN, and WP:3O. There are also venues such as WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:HELPDESK to ask such questions or to obtain clarification. Concerning FAs, you could possibly inquire at WT:FA. --Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: OK, I see. Thank you for your help and suggestions; I think they may well do a lot of good for us. Just as a final question: which of the noticeboards you mentioned do you think is the best venue for my query at the end? I haven't been around these parts of WP very often. Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you will have to determine that for yourself. That discussion is ongoing (the last comment was less than 30 minutes ago), and it should not have been directed at/to a specific editor. What should be discussed is content, not editors. If you disagree with the content and/or the sources, then provide specific sources of your own, with author and title, and either link or verbatim-quote the substantiating information which supports your point of view. You have to make your case with clear and credible and viewable/readable/quoted citations; no one is going to do your work for you. And if you go forward continuing to mention specific editors, you're less likely to succeed (which is why your statement at DRN was collapsed by Robert McClennon). If you feel strongly about a specific item, then create a thread devoted solely to that specific item, and see what the general consensus is. Do not mention editors, only content plus specific sources. Do that with each item that concerns you. If things still go around in circles, then start an RfC, or have someone neutral start the RfC. Last note: If there is currently disagreement between reputable chemists regarding any part(s) of the PT, then that disagreement should be noted and cited in the wiki article, either directly or in a footnote. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Right, thank you so much for all your advice. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I got involved in the TFA blurb after seeing this thread when it was much younger. I think my contribution there helped to get a consensus for that blurb, though I stayed away from the image issue. As a chemist and Wikipedian who is not an WP:ELEM member, I am willing to try to provide some perspective along the lines that Double sharp has requested, if other ELEM members are interested. As a chemist, I have some knowledge of the debates that exist outside WP on PT topics and impressions / opinions on some of them, though I am far from an expert in those areas. As a Wikipedian, I agree with most of Softlavender's advice even though my approach might not be the same. For example, my impression is that the La / Lu debate is viewed as largely resolved by many chemists (and is of little interest to many others)... but WP can only state a definitive view in WP voice if that truly reflects the RS after DUE is applied, and otherwise the disagreement needs to be covered. A week ago, I would have anticipated that that view is non-controversial amongst ELEM members as you are all experienced Wikipedians – but maybe I am wrong. In any case, this thread needs resolution and ANI is not the place to discuss content, so I simply ask: Would my trying to help be welcomed? I am specifically asking / pinging Double sharp, R8R, DePiep, Sandbh, YBG... is there anyone else I should invite to comment? EdChem (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @EdChem: Thank you for your offer. I cannot speak for the others, but I feel your help would be very welcome indeed. I feel that your expertise as a chemist would make your help extremely valuable as you would be able to give a clear and definitive answer what the literature is saying and exactly how much weight should be accorded to the sources being discussed. Moreover, I think you could help provide a clear voice on exactly what constitute the WP policy norms outside our little project and keep us on track if needed.
  • It seems to me that there's two issues that are causing the disagreement, viz.:
    1. Exactly how should the La vs Lu thing be reflected?
    2. Is it warranted by the literature to carry on with the current colour-code categorisation in things like {{Periodic table}} along a metal-nonmetal continuum, or instead change to colouring just by blocks? And if the former is warranted, exactly what should our categorisation be?
  • These naturally both affect the article periodic table itself as well as the templates and images showing periodic tables that are naturally ubiquitous on chemistry-related articles. I present them here not to discuss content, but so that you can see them and know what this is going to be all about should you decide to participate.
  • As for other commenters: I would say that Droog Andrey should absolutely be contacted, as he participated quite vigorously in the ELEM discussion on the first issue even if not the second. He is also a chemist, but since he published an article supporting the Lu option in the debate in 1999, perhaps it's better to have another chemist opine like you as well; Sandbh has just published an article supporting the La option, FWIW.
  • If you're agreeable, then I think it would be best if the six of us main ELEM participants in this (me, Sandbh, R8R, YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey) took a step back from engaging each other (we've done way too much of it and it doesn't seem to have been notably helpful so far) and instead present our cases separately on each issue wherever we differ without comments on each others', of course clearly referring to our sources when doing so. That would end up being at most twelve statements, one by each of us on each of the two issues (it's possible that there will be less than twelve if some of us happen to agree with each other, or decide to abstain from providing an opinion on either one or both of the disputes). I will defer to your knowledge of WP norms regarding whether or not it is acceptable to comment on others' sources to give our own interpretations of what they mean for WP, that may differ from theirs. That way everyone's view is clear, we don't engage each other directly, and we keep things about the content rather than the contributors as Softlavender remarked above. When we're all done, you as an impartial observer can review the situation and make a decision as a sort of closer to determine consensus (since we don't seem to be in agreement over what consensus means between ourselves), that I would definitely respect and accept. I would be glad to do it for the options I support in both parts of the dispute, and hopefully the others would be too. It goes without saying that I don't know if the others are amenable to such a system, and it's dependent on whether or not you think it is a good idea, but I think it may have potential and that is why I throw it out here. Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Double sharp – I'll take that as you are willing.  :) Let's leave the content issues for the moment. Thanks also for pinging Droog Andrey.
    • I do want to respond to one comment, though... you said that I can "give a clear and definitive answer what the literature is saying and exactly how much weight should be accorded to the sources being discussed" and that I can "help provide a clear voice on exactly what constitute the WP policy norms outside our little project and keep us on track if needed." I can certainly express views on applications of policy, etc, but when there are disagreements, I think it is rarely justified for a single editor to make what amounts to a content ruling. Perhaps in a case where the scientific consensus is unambiguous, but then there is likely to be little debate. I am offering to add some perspective and make suggestions in the hope of finding a consensus, but not to act as an arbiter / judge ruling what will be. I hope that aligns with your expectations, and that it clarifies for others that I am anticipating discussion. An outline of individual positions and sources could be useful to clarify issues and focus on content rather than on other editors – I don't know – but WP does not have empower individual editors to issue binding content rulings and no one should attempt, and I would not attempt, to dictate outcomes on encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @EdChem: Ah yes, certainly. Well, you can see that I'm not quite up to speed on exactly how WP works outside our little project. I'm definitely keen to learn and align my understanding of it with the wider community as I said. ^_^ I just had in mind that you could help to determine what the consensus between us actually is and provide some sort of resolution similarly to how closures seem to work in my limited understanding, and that it might be clearer if we didn't start discussing with each other over again but simply discussed how we saw the situation as our understandings of what WP policy are seem to differ (and I am certainly not confident that mine is necessarily correct!). I'll definitely defer to whatever you think is a better way to resolve this. Double sharp (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Thanks, Double sharp, for this wonderful story, this description of what played. I also note that here, you more than once took blame without accusing other editors (worth noting).

It helps me a lot to understand the background (what happened until those bad August days). And of course it helps us to make our mutual WP-interests better. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you. I took the blame because I thought I deserved it. I feel I'm not correctly placed to accuse others without a clear understanding of what the WP norms are regarding the policies we've referred to. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Sandbh re EdChem
EdChem:

• Any editor is welcome to join our discussions at WP:ELEM so, yes, feel free to drop on by!
• Double sharp's contributions to WP:ELEM have been *outstanding* and I have largely enjoyed our many, many discussions, including recent ones where we were able to reach agreement on another matter.
• I concur with your impression that the group 3 debate is viewed as largely resolved by many chemists (and is of little interest to many others). Pending the report of the IUPAC project looking at the issue, I suggest no further action is required, here at WP.
• To clarify, "I" did not publish an article supporting La. Rather, an external author suggested to me that I may like to write and submit an article addressing the question, to a peer-review academic journal. I did so and the article was accepted for publication, after being peer-reviewed three times.
• The colour categorisation approach to the WP periodic table is something we have been discussing at WP:ELEM for many years, on and off. The latest discussion is no different and does not require special intervention by an editor external to WP:ELEM anymore than this has been the case for previous discussions. That said, any editor is welcome to comment!
• Double sharp made some good suggestions along these lines, which I actioned [427]
• I suggest ComplexRational may like to be involved as they have been participating in some our discussions
• I have no intention to stop engaging with other WP:ELEM members per Double sharp's suggestion.
• The establishment of consensus within the project has always relied on the normal way of seeking to do so including…

1. informally, where there is no or minor disagreement;
2. semi-formally, via a show of hands; or
3. formally via an RFC, posted at the applicable talk page, usually at the periodic table talk page.

…noting in all cases that consensus does not necessarily require unanimity (IIRC this was brought to my attention by Double sharp).

• WP:ELEM is a bit like the four seasons, except one cannot tell which order the seasons occur, or if there will be repeats. We have our winters as well as our springs, summers, and autumns. The winters can sometimes drag on a bit. I choose to go snow skiing during these times rather than staying under my doona.
• I don't support Double sharp's extraordinary proposal for an impartial observer to review the situation and make "a decision" as a sort of closer to determine consensus. As you noted, "WP does not have empower individual editors to issue binding content rulings and no one should attempt, and I would not attempt, to dictate outcomes on encyclopaedic content."
• I regret the need to address content-related issues at WP:ANI. That said, inaccurate statements have been posted in this thread about what I am supposed to have done, did not do, or am doing. I merely seek to correct or clarify the record.

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

• Final comment: Why official RfCs are useful. The reason RfCs are so useful on Wikipedia is that when they are concluded, the consensus is regarded as the official Wikipedia standard, and article content must reflect that. This prevents a lot of back&forth afterwards, because the results of an RfC are set in stone. (They can be overturned by a subsequent RfC, but a new RfC on the same question is not allowed within less than six months.) RfCs also require an editor to clearly and concisely ask a neutrally worded question. This eliminates walls of text containing tangential/unrelated/person-related thoughts. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  official Wikipedia standard ... set in stone ... a new RfC on the same question is not allowed within less than six months – Maybe I've missed something, but where does all that come from? EEng 08:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally accepted practices as far as I've seen. If that's not correct please let me know. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

@Softlavender: Since I admit that I am not yet in the good habit of it, can I ask you if my comment above is succeeding in terms of not commenting on contributors rather than content? I'm unsure about the first sentence mostly. And also my previous comment; my intention was just to give a sense of how the views seem to be and why I think we need outside help at consensus-building, but I worry if this is beyond the line of making it about contributors since I mention them and what each one's view is. If that is so, I apologise and will endeavour to stop (I admit I don't have the best grasp on exactly what the pan-WP norms are). Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify: "Discuss edits not editors" refers to article-talk and project-talk. You are free to discuss editors (and behavior) on usertalk pages and noticeboard pages; in fact, that is what they are for. Keep content discussions on article-talk; keep editor and behavior discussions on usertalk and noticeboards. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you, I believe I understand now. I'm ready to be corrected whenever needed about the general norms in these parts of WP. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I asked a simple question: In any case, this thread needs resolution and ANI is not the place to discuss content, so I simply ask: Would my trying to help be welcomed? I am specifically asking / pinging Double sharp, R8R, DePiep, Sandbh, YBG... is there anyone else I should invite to comment?
• So far, I have had a "yes" from Double sharp and have clarified what I see as an appropriate role as a facilitator and not an arbiter. A ping for Droog Andrey was also suggested.
• I have had a response that can be perhaps paraphrased as "welcome to participate but we don't really have a problem" from Sandbh
• DePiep has not responded on this question but comments elsewhere in this thread leave me with the impression that my participation would be unwelcome.
• Double sharp and Sandbh, you both persist in arguing about content, which is irrelevant here at ANI. This is not helpful. Please stop.
• Double sharp and Sandbh, while ANI is the place to discuss behaviour, the purpose is to provide information for outsiders to help resolve a problem. Arguing with each other (especially if it is repetitive) is likely to annoy ANI readers and create an impression that removing combatants from the area is the way forward. Please reflect before posting more to this massively bloated thread.
• I see no response on my question from other ELEM members, which is concerning me. I am having doubts that what I suggested would have sufficient buy-in to be worthwhile and likely productive. I am interested in hearing about whether my suggestion is welcome / workable / etc... but here is not the place to debate the issues. Please please please can we try to keep focussed? Please? Pretty please? EdChem (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @EdChem: I'm sorry for giving that impression; I have not been trying to give content arguments here, and did not think I was doing so, but I guess that that was a mistaken identification of what a content argument is on my part. In the interest of keeping things focused as you suggest, I have struck my above posts. I do not think I have anything new to say for myself that I haven't already said, so I will take your advice and try not to post further in this thread if in any doubt. Again, thank you for helping us keep on track. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, please ask ComplexRational Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have not provided a response until now because this thread required careful attention to comprehend it. Having comprehended it, I am somewhat afraid to think that it is not directly related to the case at hand, which only adds to the enormous length of this section.

I don't believe there is a group 3 problem that requires immediate attention; it appears to me that nothing should be done about it for the time being but we agreed the issue can be revisited when a decision from IUPAC is made. That could be when we start an RfC, help might be needed then.

I don't think the project is in a state in which it requires help to keep going. The group 3 debate was heated but what tension there once was has vanished since then. I perceive the conflict that eventually led to this ANI thread, in its entirety, as isolated from the rest of the usual proceedings of the project. And that's about it.

It appears to me that broadly speaking, we don't need facilitation for our discussions. Having said that, I will note you are most welcome to join or pinch in from time to time. I will also note that all of this is only my opinion and other different interpretations of past events may have their merit.

If my understanding is correct, none of this is directly related to the case at hand, so let's move this discussion elsewhere and hat what is already written. I presume our case is not closed yet only because it's too long to read through, and we could help facilitate its conclusion by removing the need to read such a big part of it. If my understanding is not correct, I'll be grateful if someone points out how so.--R8R (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by YBG

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

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

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

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

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

Hatting disruption. --Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: no reopening of a closed thread I, DePiep, want to point out clearly that this thread is an incorrect reopening. See primary argumentation w/ links: #Reply to OP (Since Grand Marshall Sandbh seems to controle the flow of this thread [428], I created this placeholder for future completion, to allow me to make this clarification). I note, for any closing or judging admin: This thread is a reopening of an earlier, same ANI thread/accusation/report: IncidentArchive1048.... That thread already has concluded on these accusations: see my #Reply to OP. I have clarified this from the start in my #Reply to OP. Troublesome: many responding editors do not recognise this, and repeat the "no diffs so anew" line. Wrong. Later more (and, of course, earlier more). more [placeholder] -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC) DePiep, you have already said this several times. No one has moved to re-close. If you want to avoid being taken as seeking to avoid scrutiny, I strongly advise you to make no further posts that give that impression. My view is that you are only increasing the chances of being seen as disruptive and being sanctioned for the sake of the community and the encyclopaedia. EdChem (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC) This overall thread opened by R8R is a new thread that has been open 10+ days, never yet closed. I am therefore hatting this disruptive subthread. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to close

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

I would support the closure, as I think we will be able to work this out. Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I object to this judgement and action by Softlavender. Yes I did raise the point more than once: first time to question it neutrally [429], then the statement detailed and supported by diffs with diffs, and again as a reply(1), reply(2) in the ongoing discussion. It is my right to speak up against questionble or wrong statements made here. The fact that none responded (?) is not a reason to judge my post a disruption.

Also this: twice now Softlavender has threatened to hold my postings re this against me. I therefor think that Softlavender is not the independent person to close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So, advocating my case (rationally, in replying, with diffs), returns prejuduce threats: [430], [431]. And [432]. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. I did not even check whether SL is an admin. Distraction.

I state that my claim ("this is a re-opening") deserves open judgement, an cannot be dismissed by prejudive threats "this will doubtless not turn out well for you", "disruptive"

It is not up to you, EdChem, to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed.

And there is this: Softlavender did judge that first complaint [433], and then denied it.

Any closing admin will take a good look. No need to force their judgement. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course I am not going to close the thread; I am a participant in the thread. That's why I made a motion that it be closed. You are the one prejudicing the case against yourself, by not only the posts you have now re-highlighted, but also by the rant you just posted. Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)'

DePiep, I think there are many here at ANI, including me, who would have been astonished if Softlavender had acted to close this thread. She is a highly respected and very experienced Wikipedian (80k+ edits) and ANI participant (5k+ edits), with a clean block log, who has contributed thoughtfully and wisely to this and many other discussions. You may disagree with her, of course, but I urge that you at least consider her words and advice as I believe that she is trying to help you and the other participants in WP:ELEM. EdChem (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, I want to respond to what I see as an inaccurate characterisation of my contributions here. You have written, above, It is not up to you, EdChem, to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed.:

1. You are correct that it is not up to me to decide what is relevant. I do not believe that I have done so, though I have made comments that reflect what I view as relevant and important. Whether my opinion is given weight by you or others is entirely out of my hands, and everyone is free to agree or disagree with any or all of what I have said.
2. I have not tried to silence you or anyone else, nor do I view you or any other editor as an opponent. You have been availing yourself of your right to contribute to this thread and advocate for your position. I have chosen to participate in this thread after first looking to facilitate consensus on the TFA blurb, choices that I made reflecting my view on the primacy of encyclopaedic content. Our equal abilities to contribute to a discussion as we choose is exactly how WP is supposed to operate, so long as we (and everyone else) continue to contribute in a policy-compliant way.
3. I have offered you advice, which was done in good faith and meant to be useful. You have chosen not to follow it, as is your right. I remain of the view that you are not helping your case, but the resolution of the thread remains for an uninvolved administrator. I have no influence on who that might be or on what close might be implemented.
4. It is my opinion that Softlavender has also been seeking to offer you advice. You have taken some comments as threatening and I can see how a comment like "this will doubtless not turn out well for you" can be interpreted in that way. Can you see how it could have been meant as advice, perhaps strongly worded, that your approach could lead to consequences? Can you see how Softlavender might have intended to convey the desirability / importance of choosing another way? Believing that your actions are inviting sanction, Softlavender choosing to hat the sub-thread can be taken as trying to help you avoid further postings that could increase the chance of sanctions, as was the intent of my advice that your actions seem unhelpful to your case. I understand that you might not favour such interpretations, but are they possible... and if so, in light of WP:AGF, perhaps you have over-reacted?
5. I did not hat the sub-thread that has been described as disruptive. You might see that action as having been taken to silence you. Softlavender would likely see it as consistent with contributions being made in a policy-compliant way. How your point about re-opening, the hatting, and the contributions and actions of every participant are available for scrutiny and comment / action by the closing administrator. If I have done something warranting comment or action, I expect that the closing administrator will act appropriately. If no comment or action is taken in relation to me, I will infer that the closing administrator has decided that there is nothing warranting comment or action. I will not see that as an endorsement of my comments or actions, but merely that resolution of the issues for the sake of the encyclopaedia, its readers, and the editing community is not seen as needing a comment or action about me.
6. I am disappointed to learn that you see me as an opponent who seeks to judge you and silence you. Such is not my intent, and for whatever I have done that has made you feel this way, I apologise. I hope that you will be open to my trying to help resolve content issues facing the WP:ELEM team members because I truly believe in the goals of WP and value high quality content and those who have worked to contribute it. ANI is needed to deal with issues but it is far from the best part of the project and I hope that you and everyone else in this thread can get a close that addresses any ANI-type problems and return to the more enjoyable task of building the encyclopaedia.

Thank you. EdChem (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I, too, support a call for closure as there are behavioural issues that would benefit from an uninvolved admin decision (whether that involve formal action, or not, or some input / advice, or whatever). I have just posted an offer to help on the content side and hope for responses from those I have pinged (I guess on my talk page if this thread has closed) but (absent further developments) believe that the ANI-relevant aspects of this thread have been explored more than sufficiently for a conclusion to be reached. EdChem (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

thx, as my 1st reply. Realy nice to read. My 2nd re may need more time ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdChem. You wrote: My view is that you are only increasing the chances of being seen as disruptive and being sanctioned for the sake of the community and the encyclopaedia. I consider that a 'shut up', not an argument. Also, talk for yourself, not for Softlavender. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Strong oppose: ich On the basis of:

1. WP:BOOMERANG, which says: "Responders: Investigate fully";

2. DePiep's latest comment in clear violation of the indefinite editing restriction he is under per WP:EDRC:

"You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."

3. The very bad (I suspect unprecedented) example that would be set by closing it, per the summary of the behaviours concern, here.

4. Support for immediate topic ban, by myself and two other editors, in the context of WP:EDRC.

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Three editors support a T ban, including me.

Other editors commented:

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

One editor opposed a topic ban

The respondent:

• has 13+ prior blocks
• proposed to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball
• called for BOOMERANG check on User:R8R
• accuses another editor here of "feeding" but "not finding a Boomerang"
• was placed by the Wikipedia community, "indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions."
• had one of his contributions to this sub-thread described as "disruptive" and consequently hatted
• without providing any supporting evidence [434], said another editor in this thread had, "turned a regular talkpage content discussion into a personal attack"
• wrote that an editor here has, "threatened" to "hold my postings re this against me"
• responded to another editor, here in this thread, as follows:

• "It is not up to you…to decide what is relevant and who can advocate. You are not to silence an opponent, not even on ANI and not even big-mouthed."
• (following a civil contribution by the subject editor): "I consider that a 'shut up', not an argument. Also, talk for yourself, not for [another editor]."

• Double sharp (below) opposed a T-ban
• DePiep yesterday (10 Oct) posts the following reply [435] to R8R:

"You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R"

• An editor (further to three mentioned at the start of this summary) supports an immediate block of DePiep [436] for violation of WP:EDRC, specifically incivility in the above comment.
• I strongly support an immediate block [437] in light of this latest comment by DePiep, WP:EDRC, and related behaviour documented in this thread.
• A further (uninvolved) editor supports an immediate block. [438]
• A further editor opposes an indefinite block [439]

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

---

(For the record, since I don't think I put it up very visibly; I oppose a T-ban for User:DePiep as my interactions with him make me confident that civilly working together with him is in fact quite possible. Nonetheless, I do think that he should be reminded that some behaviours of his are not seen well by many other editors and that he should consider changing them – and I say this because I really do not want to see him blocked when to my mind he is a net positive.) Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the issue of concern is the broken glass one has to walk over before getting to the net positive. Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, DePiep has been blocked 13 times, not 15. Could you please correct that? Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender Thanks, I changed 15 to 13+. Looking at DePiep's block log [440], It looks like his first block for 24 hours was increased about 7 hours later to 72 hours. Does that count as 1+ blocks? Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would like to point you again to ANI Advice, specifically to the section called Desirable outcomes. Although you can't see it, this thread has tended toward a resolution of the conflicts between a variety of people at ELEM, and, with the participation of EdChem, is likely to be successful. That success, and [your] following my guidelines (in the Double sharp section above) would eliminate the need to topic-ban DePiep from the subject. It would also retain a valuable POV that you may not always agree with but that others may. I personally agree that DePiep has behavioral problems, and that thus far he seems to have been unable to see and/or admit those behavioral problems, much less how destructive they are to Wikipedia. But at this point, even though it would resolve a lot of conflict at ELEM, I do not think the TBAN is the best solution per Desirable outcomes. (I think at this point, DePiep is going to end up at ArbCom and/or or long-term blocked if he continues in the behavior patterns he has demonstrated all over Wikipedia. So I personally recommend [a warning of] blocks of increasing length rather than removing him from ELEM altogether. He can take this overall thread, and the feedback he has gotten, as a word to the wise, or not.) Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking calmly, and as a long-standing WP:ELEM member, I again note that there are not "conflicts between a variety of people at ELEM". R8R and I have raised concerns here, about DePiep's behaviour. Double sharp and I have a difference of opinion but cooperate on other matters. I cooperate with, and support, YBG and ComplexRational on other matters within the remit of WP:ELEM, even though we do not always agree on everything. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp has posted 3,000 words here about his issues/conflicts with you. Your previous recent dispute with him caused him to leave ELEM. YGB stated here that "I found myself surprised by the behavior of ... Sandbh, ... less collaborative than my past experience with him." Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you. Double sharp and I had a difference of opinion. As he said of himself, he is loquacious. He choose to take a wikibreak as, effectively, we agreed to disagree, and he wanted to await the outcome of the IUPAC report on group 3. He and I have since been discussing a range of matters of WP:ELEM interest on talk pages, and at WP:ELEM, and we reached agreement on another issue. YBG and I continued to discuss WP:ELEM matters at WP:ELEM or via PM. I have continued to support one of YBG's proposals, and am currently discussing a variation of it at WP:ELEM. Mountain out of molehill territory, as I see it. Yes, Double sharp came here in a GF but misguided manner, about our technical difference of opinion, and as this was a content matter rather than a behaviour matter, he withdrew the complaint. Sandbh (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your endless self-justifications and historical revisionism are becoming very tiring, and an enormous, enormous time-sink. And YBG wasn't even talking about your interactions with him (YBG). Please don't respond to this. I am very very tired of all of your circular arguing, self-justification, self-righteousness, refusal to listen, refusal to read, and self-absorption, and I can assure you that the rest of ANI visitors are as well. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I reserve the right to respond civilly whenever comments are made about me or imply my involvement, especially here at WP:ANI. If anybody has concerns about my behaviour they are welcome to raise these via any of the accepted WP avenues. When comments about my behaviour are posted here, and I am asked to please not respond, I feel like I am being suffocated, metaphorically. I would prefer to be extended the courtesy mentioned at the start of this post. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this is a pretty poor summary. One where anyone with an opposing view was whitewashed from it. Anyone can see that more than one person objected to the T-Ban if they want to read the whole thing. Don't know what you are trying to achieve Sandbh, but it certainly is not accurate in the summary of this mess. As I pointed out before removing one user is not going to solve anything at ELEM. At this point Sandbh, as I have noted before no one has behaved particularly well in the last few months at ELEM and I would advise you and everyone on the project to focus on your OWN behaviour, instead of continuing to make inaccurate statements or rather tedious links to any rules regarding civil behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Final remarks by R8R

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

Developments since the first ANI started

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

Remorse

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

ELEM editors

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

• Comment: Here's the thing: We've heard from four people at ELEM; two (both of whom disagree with DePiep on issues of content) who have a problem with DePiep, one who doesn't, and one fairly neutral observer who believes DePiep has recently fallen back into old bad habits. It's observable that DePiep has behaved very belligerently and indeed disruptively on this thread; on the other hand, it's somewhat common for people dragged to ANI to be hostile and defensive. It's true that DePiep has a long history of behavioral problems; it's also true that YBG believes DePiep is capable of behaving better and that he has done so in the recent past. It's also true that literally none of the editors in the controversy have ever abided by "discuss edits, not editors" policy when on articletalk and projecttalk. DePiep has received feedback and guidance on this thread (from Vanisaac and others); whether he takes that to heart when he is out of the hot seat remains to be seen. EdChem has volunteered to participate at ELEM. It remains to be seen whether ELEM members can abide by "discuss edits, not editors". Until that has been attempted, assisted by EdChem, and until ELEM determines how to approach consensus and BRD, perhaps turning over a new leaf, laying aside grievances, and starting afresh would solve more problems than sanctions right now. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will add that I at least am ready and willing to do the above. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • At ELEM we very largely discuss content, news, or proposed content, and the occasional edit. Apart from occasional tethchiness we don't discuss editors. As noted, the establishment of consensus within the project has always relied on the normal way of seeking to do so including…

1. informally, where there is no or minor disagreement;
2. semi-formally, via a show of hands; or
3. formally via an RFC, posted at the applicable talk page, usually at the periodic table talk page.

…noting in all cases that consensus does not necessarily require unanimity (IIRC this was brought to my attention by Double sharp). Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Every single time you or anyone mentions an editor or uses the words "you" or "your", you are discussing editor(s). You still not getting that after all of the times in this thread (and in the ANI thread you opened prior to this) I have explained that, says to me that you are not taking in what other people say about this entire situation, and that is a problem. And now your apparent wikilawyering that a couple of people agreeing with you is apparently a project-wide consensus, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is another form of WP:IDHT. If you are not going to pay attention to the solutions put forth to resolve everyone's behavior problems, including your own, then that is a problem that will resurface at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My comment concerned WP:ELEM only. I stand by my comments concerning how things operate within WP:ELEM.

I apologised at WP:AN for my behaviour in the ANI thread I opened prior to this one. I do not know what more is expected of me in that regard.

Now I am accused of wikilawyering. No WP:ELEM member has objected to my explanation of how I understand consensus operates within WP:ELEM. As a WP:ELEM member I presume I may provide such an explanation without attracting an unsubstantiated allegation, in this case from a non-WP:ELEM member. You say, "despite all the evidence to the contrary". If there is such evidence feel free to hold me to account. I float lots of ideas and incorporate quite a few in my edits. If a citation is needed I provide it. Yes, I do raise ideas within WP:ELEM. That is what a project is for. Whether or not the ideas are actioned depends on how they are received and literature support.

Within WP:ANI it seems to me that referring to another editor (such as you have just done, and as I did then) is apparently problematic even though the matters raised here concern the behaviours of other editors.

If other editors make comments about me or provide IGF advice I reserve the right to respond as I choose (nearly always striving to be civil).

Re, "solutions put forth to resolve everyone's [italics added] behavior problems, including your own", I feel that most of us in WP:ELEM do not have behavior "problems". We've achieved a lot. I've been editing for nine years with a clean record. I aim to keep it that way for the next nine years. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote closely. "Discuss edits not editors" applies to article-talk and project-talk, because those spaces are for discussing content. In terms of assessing consensus (and BRD), that is clearly unresolved on ELEM or we wouldn't have had so many issues around it being discussed on this thread by nearly all of the ELEM members who have responded. In terms of behavioral "problems", if you would prefer the word "issues" that is fine, but the fact is that there are behaviors of a number of people which need to be modified in order to reach harmonious solutions at ELEM. Double sharp immediately agreed to the new approach. I'm not sure why you would not agree as well. It's starting to seem to me as if you want to get your way on ANI no matter what. You want to remove from ELEM an editor who disagrees with you. That's not what ANI is for, and that's not how Wikipedia works. At this point your extensive and stubbornly restated rebuttals to nearly every point someone makes are becoming endlessly disruptive, which is exactly what happened in the ANI thread you filed. At some point you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK before there are repercussions to this time-wasting. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The continued growth of this thread with repetitive and irrelevant materials is not encouraging me to be optimistic that a resolution of the underlying issues through collaboration / cooperation and consensus is possible... and I am still unsure whether my offer is actually welcome to the majority or even wise. Our mutual goals should be quality encyclopaedic content developed in a collaborative environment, but there are plenty of posts in this ANI thread that seem more concerned with triumphing over an opponent. Please, will all involved in this disagreement try to avoid focussing on personalities and personalising disputes? Further, please please please avoid adding to this thread with things that have already been said. It will (hopefully) be closed by an uninvolved admin who is well-versed in WP policy and who will evaluate the behavioural issues raised, and there is already far too much heat here – I implore all disputants to avoid adding further heat. EdChem (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• re "Final remarks by R8R":

When I asked myself if I really wanted to participate in Sandbh's first section ... -- You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support immediate block of DePiep for violation of WP:EDRC, specifically incivility in the above comment. VanIsaac_WS^cont 23:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support immediate block in light of this comment and related behaviour documented in this thread. Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support immediate indef block of DePiep, and see if they respond appropriately on their Talk page before setting a length or unblocking. I'm completely uninvolved in this matter, don't know these editors and have never edited in this topic area. Obviously DePiep is a valued content provider, but their substantial block log combined with various needlessly hostile comments here, indicates severe issues working with others. It seems others here are not blameless as well, but blocking a expletive-hurling editor with years of documented issues, who should be on their best behavior when brought to AN/I, seems a good place to start. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Oppose indef block Uninvolved in this dispute and involved in this conversation only to ask for it to close, I have read much of the content of this thread (aghast most of the time) - not all, that would be a mad task - and it would seem to me that goading DePiep into just such an explosion was part of the MO of others here. IMHO (FWIW) block 'em all for a week to let them think things like appropriate, collegiate behaviour over and close this thread. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Adjusted, struck expletions. HTH understanding what is happening. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me add this observation. In this thread, I have been smeared numerous times, and not once was the smering editor reprimanded or put to check. Not even when I pointed out these false and incorrect accusations (with diffs). Not once. Also I pointed out, diffed, contradictions, incorrect reasonings and flat out "shut up or you'll look bad" threats. No correction. kilobytes of posts I am supposed to counter seriously, while noone seems to read & use my response? And first and foremost, I have argued with diffs that this thread is a reopening of an already closed thread (juridically a strange feat), reopening based on incorrect statements in the OP -- noone took action; instead, incorrect statements were repeated. I might as well 'not feeding the trolls' by not responding here at all -- catch22. Quite probably this unevenness is an inherent ANI problem, but anyway here we are. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose any block of DePiep for the swearing struck comment above. DePiep is just frustrated and justifiably so. R8R keeps moving the goal posts on what he wants and what he thinks is incivil. This is not to excuse his behaviour, but I don't see why you would punish DePeip when others have been just as deplorable in their behaviour seems a little off to me. DePiep has struck the comment and that should be the end of the matter. Games of the world (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.