OneClickArchiver archived Obamanator1793 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048 |
→Comment by Double sharp: offer to help |
||
Line 834: | Line 834: | ||
:::::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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 10:47, 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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{ping|Softlavender}} Right, thank you so much for all your advice. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 12:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
::::::{{ping|Softlavender}} Right, thank you so much for all your advice. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk: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 {{u|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 {{u|Double sharp}}, {{u|R8R}}, {{u|DePiep}}, {{u|Sandbh}}, {{u|YBG}}... is there anyone else I should invite to comment? [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Comments by YBG === |
=== Comments by YBG === |
Revision as of 19:06, 9 October 2020
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos
Hi.
May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:
- 1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
- a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
- b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
- c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"
- 2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)
- 3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.
- 4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.
- 5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag
- 6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[1]]
Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.
Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).
- Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1)
"rare books"
is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2)"blogs such as Rappler"
is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subjectattract[s] WP:RGW
does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)- There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN.
"second RSN and third RSN"
as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)- Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [4][5]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
- Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [17] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [18] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [19]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [20], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [21][22][23]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [24] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [25], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:
"blog sources (rappler and the like)"
: yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form."unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part"
: links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning."one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid"
: This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([26]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing."effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS"
: now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned."do not need to add UNDUE content"
: As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.
- —seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [24] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [25], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:
- • From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
- • From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
- • From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
- • From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
- • From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.
- • From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.
- I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:
- And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal (Jtbobwaysf)
Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.
- Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)
Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.
- Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)- Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
This is a request for administrative attention at
- Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede
I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."
- The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008, I'm not attacking you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm just tired of repeatedly telling you for the past few months that your edits and edit-suggestions has been biased and unneutral so far; removing paragraphs for no reason (Diff 1, Diff 2), deliberately changing neutral word to discouraged words on sentences you disagree with even though you were previously told about such guidelines (Diff 1, Diff 2), adding puffery such as "stunning second quarter performance" and "extremely popular" (Diff 1, Diff 2), using "hounded by" and "beset with" to undermine criticism and included your words that were not even stated on the sources (Diff 1, Diff 2). Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs and to promote ideas or beliefs. You should read Wp:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.
- Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.
- Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008, I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, we're going around in circles because you keep repeating your accusations of me being a fan and a litany of my past edits even after I had already answered them. Up to now, nobody still has answered my question of why Wikipedia would choose a flawed version A over version B that has such flaws removed. Can you point out anything in version B that was not well-sourced or based on Wikipedia rules? Please re-read WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008, listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya left no comments. Nangears mentioned lack of balance of version B. From his arguments, there is a misconception that the weight of low domestic ratings is equivalent to the drama's success in Wavve + Netflix South Korea + Netflix international all put together. This is the nonequivalence that version A espouses. Please read my responses to his comments. Revolutionaery suggested another version that has acceptable first and second sentences, but succeeding sentences also suffer from the same nonequivalence, not to mention containing the word "claim" that you have a problem with. In addition, saying the drama "failed to impress audiences" is false considering the drama's success in Netflix and Wavve. Nangears and Revolutionery both gave suggestions on how to improve the paragraph that I partly agree with. However, the main issues that triggered this dispute in the first place - giving more weight to low ratings than warranted and downplaying the international success - are still not resolved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Lizzydarcy2008, again, I think Nangears already talked about this point and explained why the TV rating is given due weight, so I will give a short answer. The problem is not “giving more weight to low ratings than warranted” as TV ratings was the most talked about aspect in reliable news, the problem is that you don’t want to accept that most reliable sources did extensively talk about it and it was given due weight on the page, while “international success” in Netflix (Wavve is Korean and can’t be used outside of Korea, so it is not international platform) news almost all come from unreliable sources and thus given undue weight because it has not reliable source backing it. I asked multiple of times in different noticeboards and was told not to use flixpetrol data or Netflix daily top 10 country charts and to wait for the end-of-year Netflix reports (still a few months and we will include Netflix success if they report it in January). For now, we include what is reliable and wait for more news, instead of adding unreliable claims and be biased in trying to make the series seem like it was the biggest success this year when reliable sources (Korean and western) criticized it and marked it as a TV failure compared to what was expected in term of viewership ratings.
All the people who votes in the RFC were all against your changes, so you should really listen and accept that all of them do not agree with you, instead of repeating the same points again. As Robert McClenon said to you before, “ Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time? Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree.” CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, first, you make a point of introducing me as a biased fan and putting a spin on my past edits, smearing my credibility. Second, editors who tried to remove the negativity of this page have been blocked. I don't mean the sockpuppets but naive editors like me who were unaware of power games played on Wikipedia and were tricked into edit wars and blocked, as you had tried to do with me. This is why I asked before, how sure are we that those who vote on surveys are impartial? Now I know. Getting through prejudices and misconceptions is the hardest thing in the world. Just now, you have blocked out everything I just said about the need of Wikipedia editors to analyze sources and not just parrot everything they see online, especially in this age of fake news and smear campaigns.
- If Wikipedia editors just weigh the significance of items based on how many search results come up, it would be a tool of misinformation and smear campaigns. Even if we discount smear campaigns, logic still gives a reason for the "extensive talk" about the low ratings of this drama. This drama first aired from April 17 to June 12. This period is when the drama became most popular, thus generated most talk. At this point, nobody had an idea of why the show was "failing", so a lot of speculations abounded. Information about the main reason for the low domestic TV ratings, the surge of popularity of Netflix in April, as well as other well-sourced testaments to the international success of this drama became available only after the second quarter of the year, after the drama finale aired, after its popularity subsided. Armed with these new facts, why continue to sow misinformation?
- Knowing what we know now about this drama, this paragraph is clearly negatively unbalanced - its international success is not only the last item in a super-long sentence but is in quotes ("hit Netflix drama") lowering its credibility. In addition, the lower-than-expected domestic ratings in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand" puts it on equal footing with all the successes in the first sentence. As I had said, I don't deny that the domestic TV broadcast rating of this drama got lower after the premiere; I even mention it in version B. What I object to is the undue weight it is being given in version A. No matter how much you try to discredit this fact, it is plain for every unbiased and informed reader to see. Regarding sources, Version B does not reference Flixpatrol. It references reliable sources, notably testaments of the production studio itself about the streaming success of this drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lizzydarcy2008 I did not put a spin to your previous changes, you actually did them and your edit history shows those biased disruptive changes. You were a sleeper account that came back just to blank the controversy section multiple times for no reason, how do you explain that then? You blanked it until you were warned by others about edit warring, you then disregarded the warning after a few weeks and even went on to edit war with me. No one was tricked to edit war, if someone is edit-warring it is their mistake, not other’s scheme. Everyone receives warnings before being banned, whether they ignore the warning or not is their own decision and they should face the consequences. Also, please do not discredit the people who took their time to vote and reply to you on the RFCs, simply, because they did not vote for your version.
- Again, there was never a smear campaign against the series and you have no source backing that up. Saving the series from “fake news/smear campaign/hate” is advocacy and a biased reason you have been repeating for months, using it to make your changes seem neutral, while in reality it is all your false opinion which goes under original research and hold no ground on Wikipedia. As for the second paragraph about the rating and international success, Nangears and I already answered you about that on the RFC, so I will not bother repeating it, go read it there and stop repeating points you have already stated and has been answered multiple times. It is your problem if you want to ignore the answers given to you many times.
- To the admins, “When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause.” This is the case here and currently the discussion reached argumentum ad nauseam. I don’t think I will reply anymore unless an admin pings me here. We really need intervention, if either of us is wrong then tell us and end this 5 month-long dispute, so that we can go back to editing the page instead of this standstill. One of the RFCs already ended with a a unanimous decision and I want to edit the page and include the version with the consensus. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- CherryPie94, please re-read my responses to the meanings you put (your spins) on my past edits. As I had mentioned several times, my main aim is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. I started editing this drama's page upon noticing its negative lean, especially after reading other web sources mention sabotage being staged against it. Please re-read my past comments about this. The controversies were among the tools used by saboteurs. You keep saying that the "smear campaign" is my personal opinion, ignoring my past comments about this. Guess what, smear campaigns don't come labelled as such. Here's a sample; google this drama and "tanked on Netflix". One of the search results is from "reliable" news site scmp.com. Note this is fake news since the series was in fact successful on Netflix. Read the article; it doesn't provide any proof of the allegation. Check out other "well-sourced" articles on this drama's Wikipedia page that did not mention the main reason, the rise of streaming platforms, in their speculations about the reasons for the low ratings. You keep accusing me of "advocacy", your personal opinion. Is it advocacy to make sure Wikipedia is not made a tool of smear campaigns? I am proud to declare myself an advocate of truth and up-to-date information. Regarding edit wars, you seem to have forgotten you started our last edit war by updating the title of a section while this dispute was going on, violating WP:DRN Rule A and WP:DRN Rule B. In fact you made other more massive edits in the middle of this dispute. Why you did not get reprimanded or subjected to other forms of disciplinary action is beyond me.
- But we got sidetracked again with personal attacks, creating more "walls of text". May we focus on the drama please? At this point in time, these are the things we know about it: it was highly anticipated, had high premiere ratings on domestic TV network but competition from Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later episodes. It was a streaming success, both locally and internationally, and was cited as one of the factors for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company.
- Which of the two versions encapsulate this UP-TO-DATE summary? Please see my previous post for details about recent news about this drama. We need to make sure Wikipedia does not sow misinformation by getting bogged down in OUTDATED perceptions. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia only deals with published perceptions. If there is a reliable newspaper or magazine which documents a changing perception (say a critically panned movie later gets a cult fanbase) that can be included only if newspapers or magazines talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- The up-to-date information I mentioned were published by news sources such as Business Korea, Korea Times and Hancinema. Please see the references in the Reception section. Older references feature negative news including speculations on the low domestic TV ratings. More recent references are positive, including findings on the reason for the drama's perceived poor performance on domestic TV network as well as testaments to its streaming success that became available only after the second quarter of 2020. It will be noted that the average domestic TV ratings of this drama are better than those of its contemporaries It's Okay To Not be Okay and BackStreet Rookie, yet these latter dramas do not have their low ratings mentioned, much less blown out of proportion, in their lede sections. Many people had been conditioned to think this drama was a flop they find it hard to accept the fact that not only was it not a flop, it was a global success. Wikipedia should let go of outdated misconceptions and acknowledge up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You should not conflate TV ratings with the production company sales, they are separate facts and are each mentioned on the article. Also, I might have phrased it badly on the talk, but in the article, it is written that the ratings are only “lower than expected”, not “low” TV-wise. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Read the production company reports closely. The sales figures themselves are not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the reports cited the success of The King Eternal Monarch as one of the factors that contributed to the production company's record-breaking earnings. While the drama's global success had been reported before, the main source was Flixpatrol which was considered unreliable and was mentioned in Wikipedia with a dismissive "hit Netflix drama" cliche, including the credibility-questioning quotes. That TKEM was the first kdrama to be in the top 10 charts not only in Asia but in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America could not be reported because the data came from Flixpatrol. But the production company's earnings report is undeniable testament to the extent of the drama's success. And for the nth time, I don't deny the drama had lower ratings than expected. The main bone of contention is that the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to blow the low ratings out of proportion and downplay the drama's success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
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 toReally? 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)
- Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 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 theefforts 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. –Davey2010Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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)
- Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 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)
- 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: [27] 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: [28], [29],[30]. 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 [31], even after all my explanations on their talk page [32]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 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)
- 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: [28], [29],[30]. 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- +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)
- 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
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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,
- +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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 7&6=thirteen made a bold edit, it was reverted, and then 7&6 reinstated the bold edit with the edit summary
- 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)
- Thanks for considering the disruption to the encyclopedia ...as always. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 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 [33], [34],[35] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose Bishonen said it best. ~ HAL333([36]) 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. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
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): [37][38][39][40][41], 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): [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52], Hillion Mall
- Jewel Changi Airport [53] and Singapore Changi Airport [54][55][56], Singapore airlines [57][58]
- 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: [59][60][61]
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[62]
- The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
- Japanese Self-Defense Forces[63][64][65][66]
- Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [67][68][69]
- Lee Hsien Loong [70][71]
- removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [72][73]
- Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [74][75][76]
- A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [77][78][79][80][81][82][83](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 [84][85][86][87][88]
- Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [89]
- Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [90][91]
- 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., [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]) 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 ([102][103][104][105][106]), 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 [107][108][109][110], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [111]], 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.
- 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)
Uncivil behavior 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 [112]:
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)
- 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)
- 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 agoin May 2018 [113]; namely [114]:
- 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.
- 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.
- DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
- 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)
- 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)
- (ec) Softlavender:
- @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: 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- (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
- Sigh. While preparing my reply, handling frustration and angryness too, I met this edit: a personal attack saying I am lying. Please allow me more reply-time. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reply 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, [115]).
- Here [116] 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 [117] 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: [118]. It containts seventeen diffs. I enganged in this subthread. Also, [119] 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 [120]. 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 [121], 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 [122]. 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:
- [123] R8R: "Who do you think wrote the lead section as it currently stands? (It was me.)";
- [124] 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 [125] 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) [126].
5. re #Previous uncivil behaviour:
- 5a: Once again R8R here turns a content address [127] into a personal thing [128]. While, my reply back then [129] 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 [130], notgettingit [131]; and generally turn every counteridea into a personal issue [132]. 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 [133]). 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?) [134] [135]. Whether I am part of the cause or not: this can not be cured through ANI.
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, [136] 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 [137] for that reason. Another editor adds a like. [138] What happens next? DePiep reverts it along with the comment: "Please, grow up and behave".[139] 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 [140][141]] based on suggestions by that editor. I made further contributions to the periodic table article, [142] 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.[143] R8R comes with a colour scheme [144] attracting positive feedback [145][146][147], 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 [148] never mind I changed none of the content of his reply.
- Here is a recent WP:OWN claim by DePiep. [149]
- With fifteen blocks since 2009 [150] 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."
- 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:
- @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)
- @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)
- 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 [151], just yesterday. Seeing as DePiep has already demonstrated serious behavioral problems elsewhere, as evidenced, for example, here [152] and here [153] as well as by his block log [154], 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" [155] (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 [156]. 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)
- "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)
- 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.[157]
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 [158] [159] [160].
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 [161] 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 [162] were part of a WP:ANI grievance withdrawn by the same editor. That editor posted an apology to my talk page. [163]
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 15 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][164] 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- "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.
- DePiep, edits like this are absolutely unacceptable. In fact, you should have been immediately blocked as per your indefinite editing restriction as of 2018-05-29. The tenor of your interactions with other editors need to change immediately.
- Suggestions:
- DePiep has several problematic behaviors that need to stop immediately.
- Their pattern of reverting instead of constructively discussing is disruptive and problematic, and they should observe WP:0RR in articles under WP:ELEM with unambiguous vandalism being the only exception. If they have a concern about an edit that another editor has added in good faith, the appropriate venue is the talk page, where you most importantly need to offer constructive alternatives instead of just objecting to what others have done.
- Any edits like the "Please, grow up and behave" linked above should be immediately reported by any user, with reference to DePiep's indefinite editing restrictions (use WP:EDRC shortcut). Admins should immediately blank such edits and place a block on DePiep as is appropriate to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia community. DePiep needs to take a good deal of time right now to go through their editing history to strike out all such comments and apologize for them.
- R8R you need to understand that you may not have the full cultural context with certain uses of language, and that WP:AGF applies to language use by other contributors. You could use more of your energies and native fluency to help improve Russian Wikipedia, which you have edited less than 4% as much as en wiki. Lastly, WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian would get a HUGE boon from a participant with your formidable language skills. Any or all of those courses of action could drastically improve your editing experience and make you an incredible asset to this project.
- Sandbh please fully vest yourself into understanding WP:V and WP:OR. Your reactions to being challenged leave something to be desired, and you would be well served by taking your time when it comes to reading consensus in a discussion. More than a few of these situations would not have occurred if you weren't in a hurry to read a consensus before the conversation had run its course. A good rule of thumb would be to put in a formal conclusion, and give time for anyone else to object. There is no timeline on Wikipedia, and at its heart, consensus means that EVERYONE is okay with a course of action. A single editor with a substantive concern is worth hearing out no matter how long it takes. Learn to ask how you can meet their concerns instead of forcing them to deal with changes you've already made. Sandboxes and userspace drafts are an excellent place to work if you are trying to really get full input from others.
Okay, that's pretty much everything I've observed. If there are any other outside observers that have anything to add, please do so. VanIsaacWScont 06:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
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 [165][ [[166]. I have now added a section break [167] (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)
- 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)
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)
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 [168] (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 [169], 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)
"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)
- -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- R8R and DePiep, this thread does not create a good impression of either of you.
- R8R, posting walls of text is not helping you or the case that you are trying to make.
- 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.
- R8R, the diff from April that DePiep quotes above is offensive and could have justified some sanction at the time.
- 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.
- Oppose BOOMERANG as unjustified at present.
- 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)
- Thank you. EdChem (talk) 23:20, 6 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)
- I may need another day, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 18:41, 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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 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: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. |
I note, for any closing or judging admin:
|
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 [173], 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: [174], [175]. And [176]. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 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)
Persistent disruption by Vertical Venom
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
- 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)
- Another unsourced claim added recently at The Incredible Hulk Coaster article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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[177] 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 [178] 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 commentI 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)
- @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)
- @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 thatbecause 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)
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:
- restore the deleted pages
- 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)
- I agree that it doesn't set any formal precedent.
- 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)
- 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)
- @JzG: Strangely, we seem to have no article on that very important topic. Narky Blert (talk) 17:57, 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.
- 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. –Davey2010Talk 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)
- On the evidence presented here, I would support such a request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 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)
- @Praxidicae this looks like an ongoing competence issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 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)
- "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)
- 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)
Race and intelligence block and ban issue
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling in April, the range Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked from Race and intelligence, while the editor was also topic banned. The block expired after three months. At Talk:Heritability of IQ#Claims of "scientific consensus" the IP seems to think this also means the ban expired. My understanding is that ban was indefinite, and the IP editor has not appealed this. As far as I know, they haven't addressed it at all. The use of a huge IP range makes this confusing, and the IP knows this and is clearly taking advantage of it.
This editor has resumed the same bad-faith pot-stirring and POV pushing which lead to the ban in the first place:
- This edit to User talk:Stonkaments misrepresents the situation and casts aspersions against User:NightHeron (without even pinging NightHeron). The IP's past conspiracy theory nonsense was specifically the tipping point which led to the ban.
- Today we have this edit to User talk:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West. The IP editor is nudging and hinting that another editor should fill an Arbitration Enforcement report against me. The IP already tried this exact tactic last year. This editor must realize that if they create an account so they can do it themselves, they will be blocked or topic banned, so it sure looks like they are, once again, using their lack of an account as a way to avoid accountability.
As this IP shifts very frequently, there is no simple way to notify this editor of this discussion. Notifying the most recent IP would just be theatrics, but I'm sure they will figure it out from other notifications. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aside from the question of whether my topic ban has expired or not, there is something else that ought to be discussed here. The most important reason I'd like these articles to be in arbitration is that there is a banned Wikipedia user who has been editing them semi-regularly for nearly a year, and I would like to present evidence to ArbCom about this editor's identity. I know this editor's identity because until five months ago, I was a participant in a private Slack server in which this person's actions on Wikipedia were coordinated. However, this evidence involves private information, so I think that it would be inappropriate to present it outside of an arbitration request.
- There are a few other Wikipedia users who also are aware of this banned user's actions (due to also being members of the Slack), but the other users aren't particularly active and are unlikely to raise the issue themselves. Thus, I think that having the opportunity to raise this issue with ArbCom myself is the only way any action is likely to be taken about it. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, to summarize, you are repeatedly violating a topic ban, but what you really want is to violate WP:OUTING? --JBL (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) IP's revelation that RationalWiki is being deliberately undermined by alt-right parody trolls has led me to the realisation that I need to procure a stouter gauge of tinfoil. Narky Blert (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I actually know quite a bit more about the trolling at RationalWiki than I initially let on, because this was coordinated in the same Slack server that I mentioned previously. Most of the RationalWiki trolling happened in 2018, and I didn't leave the server until the end of April this year, so I had full view of what they were doing to RationalWiki while it was happening. So if anyone wants a list of some of the articles that I know were written as parodies, or clues that their authors deliberately left so that astute readers would know they were trolling, I'd be happy to provide that. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- So instead of addressing the topic ban in any way, the IP claims to have participated in a coordinated trolling campaign which targeted both Wikipedia and other projects. Is this supposed to be a bargaining chip? Since the IP was editing this topic while still part of this supposed slack group, this is an admission to having been part of an off-site trolling campaign. This is WP:MEAT and WP:HARASSMENT.
- Doubling-down on this strained conspiracy theory is disruptive. If the IP editor wants to appeal, they should actually appeal. After that, they can follow WP:OUTING if there's anything to this. If that means creating an account, so be it. It's damning that this only comes up now, as change-of-subject after violating a topic ban. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I admit to approving of the parody trolling at RationalWiki, but when they started doing the same thing at Wikipedia I never supported it. Isn't that obvious? If I'd supported it, I would have voted "yes" to the proposal in the RFC. I previously avoided discussing the Slack server in public because I wanted to avoid betraying the contents of private correspondence, but keeping something private isn't the same as supporting the trolling or participating in it. And now that I've been removed from the Slack, I also don't feel the need to keep it private anymore.
- I actually know quite a bit more about the trolling at RationalWiki than I initially let on, because this was coordinated in the same Slack server that I mentioned previously. Most of the RationalWiki trolling happened in 2018, and I didn't leave the server until the end of April this year, so I had full view of what they were doing to RationalWiki while it was happening. So if anyone wants a list of some of the articles that I know were written as parodies, or clues that their authors deliberately left so that astute readers would know they were trolling, I'd be happy to provide that. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) IP's revelation that RationalWiki is being deliberately undermined by alt-right parody trolls has led me to the realisation that I need to procure a stouter gauge of tinfoil. Narky Blert (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, to summarize, you are repeatedly violating a topic ban, but what you really want is to violate WP:OUTING? --JBL (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- And we can stop calling it the "supposed Slack group". The Slack server in question was titled "Quantitative HBD Workspace" and it was located here: http://kirkegaardjp.slack.com/ This server had a channel named "Wikipedia" where the parody trolling at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia was discussed. The server apparently has been deleted now, but that didn't happen until after I was removed, so I don't know whether the deletion was related to what I posted about this in April. 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you're avoiding the issue of being topic-banned, and no, it's not "obvious". You actively edited a topic while participating in a private off-site trolling campaign. You will have to create an account and email ArbCom if you want to pursue this.
- So now you know what you have to do. You must abide by WP:BANEX. Changing the subject again isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- And we can stop calling it the "supposed Slack group". The Slack server in question was titled "Quantitative HBD Workspace" and it was located here: http://kirkegaardjp.slack.com/ This server had a channel named "Wikipedia" where the parody trolling at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia was discussed. The server apparently has been deleted now, but that didn't happen until after I was removed, so I don't know whether the deletion was related to what I posted about this in April. 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @IP: Visit User:Arbitration Committee to see how to confidentially report problems such as an active banned user. That page gives an email address you can use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but my existing experience with ArbCom suggests they're very unlikely to do anything unless someone requests a case (and maybe not even then). 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I don't want to get involved in your dispute, nor do I want to file any report against any editor. Thank you. Iroh (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please note that this IP-editor has repeatedly violated WP:CANVASSING. Near the end of the RfC on race and intelligence [179], the IP-editor went in succession to two admins' user-pages to solicit them to close the RfC, apparently believing that they'd be favorable to the IP's view of it. This is discussed in the section of the archived RfC titled "Discussion of appropriateness of proposed/solicited closing of this RfC". Later, when the IP proclaimed that they were no longer topic-banned and opened a new discussion on the Heritability of IQ talk page [180], the IP canvassed two likeminded editors to join the discussion. I responded that this canvassing was improper, see [181].
When the IP contacted the two admins about closing the RfC on race and intelligence, in both cases the IP also complained about me to the admins and made accusations behind my back (that is, without pinging me). The accusations were false, and nothing came of them. The weird conspiracy theory that the IP concocted about me at ArbCom has already been mentioned, as has the IP's recent aspersions against me at someone's user-page. The IP's hostility toward me is apparently due to my role in initiating and arguing for the RfC proposal, which was that the belief that certain races are genetically superior to others in intelligence be categorized as fringe. NightHeron (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ban IP editor and reinstate IP block. WP:NOTHERE user is clearly using IP addresses to evade their topic ban and abuse our processes. We would not put up with this nonsense from a registered user. If they have information they would like to share with ARBCOM, they're aware of that process and should use it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ban and reblock - I remember this IP and how disruptive they were (detailed by others above); it seems they've resumed those disruptive activities since the block expired, so it should be reinstated, for a longer period of time if not indefinite. Lev!vich 18:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ban and reblock - because obviously, but also because of how utterly tedious the trolling is. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment the topic ban was not time limited, and although it doesn't look like it was logged it sounds like the IP was aware of it. The block was time limited as IP blocks often are due to concerns over collateral. Since it was only (eventually) a partial block on 2 pages, collateral was limited, still I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's concerns. As always, if the block needs to be extended it should be, I don't think we have to discuss this further. While I'm not opposed to a community site ban, it seems unnecessary to me given the IP doesn't seem interested in anything else. Note that "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" is an exception to a topic ban, but this is generally taken to only apply to dispute resolution surrounding the ban itself. It doesn't include participating in arbitration surrounding the topic unrelated to the ban. And AFAIK while arbcom can still theoretically overturn community bans, their current policy is that they won't. That said, if the IP's only actions had been to open a case, and participate in it and they had accepted the outcome, I personally would have opposed any reimposition of the partial block because their arbitration request was technically a violation. But this isn't what the IP did, so it's their own tough luck. They are still able to email arbcom which sounds like it will be necessary even if they didn't have a topic ban given that it involves private information. Also, I wouldn't actually mind if arbcom decided to allow their participation despite the topic ban and overturned any partial block. However this can only come from them actually talking to arbcom about it, and convincing them and it will need to be restricted to them participating in any case. (Last time they tried, it didn't seem to go well probably in part because they gave no reason why their participation was needed Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 15#Blocked from participating in a request where I'm a party.) Whatever the correctness of the IP's views of arbcom, one thing I'm sure of is nothing is going to happen as long as no one actually does something about this. And since the IP is the only one who seems to think there is an issue, it's going to have to be on them. Arbcom can't do anything about something they know nothing about because the IP has spent all their time arguing over other stuff elsewhere in violation of their topic ban rather than informing arbcom of the alleged problem somewhere they will consider it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Could you please clarify what you're suggesting I should do here? You seem to be suggesting that I raise the issue with ArbCom, but you also are saying that for me to do so would be a topic ban violation. I'm also not clear on how you suggest that I raise the issue with them, because arbitration requests can only be made by registered users. For the reasons I've explained, it would be a waste of time for me to try emailing them about this issue out of the blue, although I could present evidence to them in an email if there was an arbitration case already underway. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- What I'm saying it was a topic ban violation, but I wouldn't have cared if that was all you did. However since you spent your time doing other stupid stuff, you now bringing up arbitration as if we're only trying to stop you seeking arbitration is silly. You're in trouble mostly because of the other stuff you did not because if your desire to open an arbitration case. Even if you felt you needed someone else to open the case, this doesn't explain why you were trolling on the talk page about RFCs etc on things unrelated to any arbitration. Also I'm not aware that there is any requirement for an account to open a case. I had a quick look at the guides etc and can't see that it's a requirement although I can't be bothered looking carefully. It's true that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is semi protected, still if I'm right then I assume all you have to do is convince someone that you actually have a reasonable case. This would likely be someone in arbcom or a clerk, not other random people. It's probably difficult since last time that was tried it doesn't look like it went well [182] [183] however that's really none of my concern and it doesn't explain why you did the other crap which just made things worse. If I'm wrong, then you will either need to register an account or instead use email to bring a case. You will still be violating your topic ban after you register an account if you do it on Wikipedia, but again, I think people would care a lot less if this is all you were doing. The moment you start to do other crap in violation of your topic ban is when you really get in trouble. I'm not even sure why you want a public case since it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that could be presented publicly. You've offered no coherent explanation as to why you think bringing a case with good evidence via email will fail just because someone hasn't done something on Wikipedia first. Indeed, from my POV, although I've never served on arbcom, if someone wastes time opening a case on Wikipedia when they can't actually present public evidence, I'm more likely to ignore them since they don't seem to know what they're doing and so are likely just wasting my time. As said already, you doing the other stuff in clear violation of your topic ban and then talking some dumb crap about how your topic ban had expired because the partial block had, is also likely to mean you get less attention. In other words, the more time you waste on this stuff rather than actually bring your case somewhere, whether by email or on Wikipedia as conditions allow, the less likely it is to succeed. You're spending all your time talking about how you want to bring a case, without actually doing it, so the logic conclusion is you know your don't have a case and are just wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention that frankly you trying to open a case on Wikipedia when the case page says "Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page" is another sign to me that your case will be ignored if you try that route. Email is your only option under these circumstances. This doesn't mean you need someone else to open a case first. Putting aside no one is going to open a case when you are the only one who has the evidence, and it's private so not something many are going to want to receive nor can it be posted publicly anyway; as I implied before, it's actually harmful to any prospects. We have processes in place to deal with issues such as your, your refusal to follow them and instead trying to do other weird and unwelcome stuff like contacting random people means you are convincing people you should be ignored. Those processes are 'use email and don't discuss it publicly when the evidence can't be'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- There actually is a fair amount of evidence that I would be able to present in public. The banned Wikipedia user who's primarily responsible for the parody trolling was sporadically corresponding with ArbCom via email at the same time, and the timeline of his correspondence with ArbCom closely matches his on-Wiki actions. I know the contents of this correspondence because it was shared on Slack. The person responsible had told the Slack's other members that if ArbCom were willing to unblock him under his main account, he would return to normal editing and not add any more parody material, but ArbCom never unblocked him or (as far as I know) acknowledged his last few messages at all. ArbCom presumably still has this email correspondence in their own records. Thus, I would not necessarily have to send ArbCom any new private material; it might be enough to describe how the private material they already have lines up with the on-Wiki actions of the parody account.
- Forgot to mention that frankly you trying to open a case on Wikipedia when the case page says "Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page" is another sign to me that your case will be ignored if you try that route. Email is your only option under these circumstances. This doesn't mean you need someone else to open a case first. Putting aside no one is going to open a case when you are the only one who has the evidence, and it's private so not something many are going to want to receive nor can it be posted publicly anyway; as I implied before, it's actually harmful to any prospects. We have processes in place to deal with issues such as your, your refusal to follow them and instead trying to do other weird and unwelcome stuff like contacting random people means you are convincing people you should be ignored. Those processes are 'use email and don't discuss it publicly when the evidence can't be'. Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- What I'm saying it was a topic ban violation, but I wouldn't have cared if that was all you did. However since you spent your time doing other stupid stuff, you now bringing up arbitration as if we're only trying to stop you seeking arbitration is silly. You're in trouble mostly because of the other stuff you did not because if your desire to open an arbitration case. Even if you felt you needed someone else to open the case, this doesn't explain why you were trolling on the talk page about RFCs etc on things unrelated to any arbitration. Also I'm not aware that there is any requirement for an account to open a case. I had a quick look at the guides etc and can't see that it's a requirement although I can't be bothered looking carefully. It's true that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is semi protected, still if I'm right then I assume all you have to do is convince someone that you actually have a reasonable case. This would likely be someone in arbcom or a clerk, not other random people. It's probably difficult since last time that was tried it doesn't look like it went well [182] [183] however that's really none of my concern and it doesn't explain why you did the other crap which just made things worse. If I'm wrong, then you will either need to register an account or instead use email to bring a case. You will still be violating your topic ban after you register an account if you do it on Wikipedia, but again, I think people would care a lot less if this is all you were doing. The moment you start to do other crap in violation of your topic ban is when you really get in trouble. I'm not even sure why you want a public case since it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that could be presented publicly. You've offered no coherent explanation as to why you think bringing a case with good evidence via email will fail just because someone hasn't done something on Wikipedia first. Indeed, from my POV, although I've never served on arbcom, if someone wastes time opening a case on Wikipedia when they can't actually present public evidence, I'm more likely to ignore them since they don't seem to know what they're doing and so are likely just wasting my time. As said already, you doing the other stuff in clear violation of your topic ban and then talking some dumb crap about how your topic ban had expired because the partial block had, is also likely to mean you get less attention. In other words, the more time you waste on this stuff rather than actually bring your case somewhere, whether by email or on Wikipedia as conditions allow, the less likely it is to succeed. You're spending all your time talking about how you want to bring a case, without actually doing it, so the logic conclusion is you know your don't have a case and are just wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Could you please clarify what you're suggesting I should do here? You seem to be suggesting that I raise the issue with ArbCom, but you also are saying that for me to do so would be a topic ban violation. I'm also not clear on how you suggest that I raise the issue with them, because arbitration requests can only be made by registered users. For the reasons I've explained, it would be a waste of time for me to try emailing them about this issue out of the blue, although I could present evidence to them in an email if there was an arbitration case already underway. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyway, here is the part that matters: if I want ArbCom to open I case, do I have to email them out of the blue, or should I try to convince an ArbCom member or clerk? You're being unclear about that. I'm willing to try the second thing, but in that case I'd need clearer instructions how to do so. When I previously contacted an individual arbitrator (SilkTork) in his user talk, I was told that doing that is disruptive, so presumably there's some better way to do it. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious your are trying to drag this out as a deflection. You already know that ArbCom will review private evidence since you claim to have been part of a secret club which discussed this. If you have the ability to participate in a Slack server, you have the ability to create an account! Create an account and use that account to email User:Arbitration Committee. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Will you please drop this issue about me editing as an IP? I participated in Slack using the Slack app, which isn't affected by my inability to use cookies in a browser. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your first excuse for not having an account was just that you didn't want to get too involved, then you started changing the subject like you're doing now, then eventually it was the cookie thing. If we accept you were part of an off-site trolling campaign, why would we believe any of this anyway? Nobody is obligated to accept this cookie excuse anymore.
- If this information is private, one way or another, you're going to have to use email. If it's not private, this is just a waste of time. Regardless, this still doesn't explain why you violated your topic ban, cast aspersions and misrepresented other people's edits, spread bizarre conspiracy theories, and even now are canvassing to ostensibly sympathetic editors. You haven't even acknowledged why you got banned in the first place! Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), right? And it's the exact same thing that happened to the user "Concerned" at RationalWiki, when he tried to make a similar case about the parody trolling that was happening there. You certainly seem quite determined to allow Kirkegaard's trolling and ban evasion to continue. If you end up succeeding at that, well, congratulations in advance. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I object strongly to the IP's words
trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack)
, which suggest that the ban for the IP's ludicrous conspiracy theory about me was unjustified, and that there really is some private evidence from Slack that I'm a right-wing troll who's pretending to be liberal or leftist so that I can later expose Wikipedia for something. Any editor can compare the IP's denunciation of me at ArbCom with my editing history, and see that the IP's slur against me is an outlandish personal attack with no evidence. BTW, I have never participated in Slack. The IP is so disruptive that they even use the opportunity of this ANI discussion to make further attacks and innuendos. As I said, the IP's real reason for hostility toward me is my role in the RfC that was closed with a decision that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the racialist POV on genetics and intelligence is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I object strongly to the IP's words
- I was topic banned for trying to make the case that NightHeron was a parody account (while not disclosing any private details from the Slack), right? And it's the exact same thing that happened to the user "Concerned" at RationalWiki, when he tried to make a similar case about the parody trolling that was happening there. You certainly seem quite determined to allow Kirkegaard's trolling and ban evasion to continue. If you end up succeeding at that, well, congratulations in advance. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Will you please drop this issue about me editing as an IP? I participated in Slack using the Slack app, which isn't affected by my inability to use cookies in a browser. 2600:1004:B152:AF41:31A5:8027:3813:F82D (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe we may need a range block for the IP. I have reverted and revdel's an edit that contained an editor's first name here. Any admin can feel free to revert me if this was in error. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, the original account of the editor that I'm referring to has his real name on his user page: [184]. Is it outing to mention someone's real name when they have themselves disclosed it? I'm not clear on the exact rules in this area, but if that's outing, I won't do it again. 2600:1004:B154:E893:C872:359A:2878:1012 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(EC) 2600 I thought my post was already clear enough. If you want to complain about something and the only evidence is private, then email arbcom to open a case in private. There is absolutely zero reason to try and open a public case, it's a silly thing to do.
However if you did want to open a public case, which only makes sense if you have information that can be presented in public, then the way to do that is to either get an account with auto/confirmed status or to contact someone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a case as an IP. It's mostly definitely not posting about other stuff on the Heritability of IQ talk page, not even asking other random editors to do it.
I have no say on what anyone else does & especially not arbcom, but IMO you are unlikely to be able to convince anyone on arbcom or a clerk to let you open a public case if the only evidence you have is private. Especially since you're topic banned from the area and you violated your topic ban to do stuff completely unrelated to opening a case, stuff which strongly suggests you're trolling. You will probably be ignored and told to bugger off, which sounds like it already happened. (This also means any case you open with an account will probably be reverted.)
If you are really not trolling, well sorry but since you spend all your time doing everything other than the logical thing, emailing your private evidence to arbcom to open a case, it's very difficult to believe you & arbcom is likely to feel the same. Still if you actually have evidence, especially evidence which isn't easily faked, like emails send to arbcom by someone else which haven't been made public AFAAK, there is still a chance you may be taken seriously. (Although that supposes you are "someone else".) The chance is much lower given that you didn't just email arbcom in the first place instead spent your time doing stuff unrelated to opening a case, then asking how to open a case when everyone told you to email. The more you post silly comments or questions here, the lower the chance becomes.
Ban is still in place; a reblock is likely to impact others. Yes, ArbCom needs to look into this. Agreed that the proper thing to do about the other user[s]' Slack-organized trolling and PoV-pushing efforts is submitting private evidence to ArbCom. And no, doing so is not outing. Pointing out that Kierkegaard used his real name on WP is not outing. Tying that individual to some off-site user at another forum might well be, so use a private ArbCom communication as advised. I think that this user is entirely correct that another user (who opened an RfC on this topic) is in fact intentionally trolling. I had already said so, based on pretty obvious inconsistencies, such as citing far-right "sources" and advancing arguments that are not actually leftist but right-wing parodies of leftism.
As for the particular user before us right now: I don't see any evidence that the topic-ban has been lifted, though I think benefit of the doubt could possibly be extended to mistaking an end of a block for an end of a ban. I.e., I don't think the anon in question needs additional sanctions placed on them. The t'ban should be enough, and it might actually be appealable at some point, if the user does that properly. I don't support re-instituting a broad IP block unless it proves necessary, since that impacts too many other people. (I find such blocks a regular thorn in my own side; most of my VPN exit points get hit with them, and I sometimes have to bounce around between VPN servers until I find one that will work here, from somewhere like Serbia or Singapore or some other far-flung location nowhere near me, which in turn results in slow loading.)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC); revised: 21:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish:, please look closer if you intend to repeat these accusations. According to the IP, NightHeron is a "parody" because NightHeron cited The New Observer. Heiner Rindermann is
a contributor toquoted in The New Observer, and that's what NightHeron was citing.[185] The specific point was that Rindermann is not reliable. The New Observer is a far-right fake news site which published white supremacist content. That was NightHeron's entire point, so the IP's accusations are nonsensical. Again, NightHeron was citing Rindermann's own words in a fake news site as evidence that Rindermann promotes fringe views. If you accept that New Observer is a bad source, then you agree with NightHeron, not the IP. Nothing about NightHeron's use of this source, on a talk page, in this context, is suspicious. - The IP also calls Leon Kamin a "communist part member" without linking to that person's name for context. In addition to invoking literal McCarthyism, this is simplistic and misleading. At the time the specific source was published, Kamin was chair of Princeton's psychology department, and he went on to be a Guggenheim Fellow. Kamin is not a fringe source merely because he was targeted by McCarthyism.
- The IP block was never broad. It was specific to Talk:Race and intelligence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The only collateral would be if somehow another Verizon user in the same area, who also refuses to create an account, wanted to get involved in this specific topic. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
No, Rindermann is not a "contributor to The New Observer". The New Observer published an article by someone else that was praising Rindermann, and Rindermann may not even be aware that this article exists. Claiming that Rindermann contributed to this site is a BLP violation, so I suggest you redact that part of your comment.
Here is what's suspicious about NightHeron's citing of that article: if you click the link he posted to the article he was quoting, you'll see that the article is not publicly accessible. It either is paywalled, or requires registration to view. Why would a real leftist have registered an account at a far-right fake news site, and/or be paying to read articles there? 2600:1004:B118:7657:E86C:A065:4028:3E46 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)(striking topic ban violation) –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I did not pay or register to get access to the article in New Observer. I just now tried the link I used, and it has become a deadlink. My purpose, as Grayfell says, was to show that the German racist alt-right enthusiastically cites Rindermann's writings. The quote about Rindermann can now be found (no paywall) in another racist alt-right publication, Vdare [186].
- McCandlish has been around long enough to know about the policies WP:CANVASSING and WP:NPA, so I'm surprised that when the IP canvassed him to support the IP's nonsensical complaint against me, McCandlish obliged. As I said when the IP presented his conspiracy theory to ArbCom, I'll gladly answer any specific accusation if other editors want me to. But the IP's attack on me here is really just an attempt to divert attention from the IP's own conduct. NightHeron (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- The specific article the IP is pointing to is this one, which is available on Archive.org without registration. This is still a huge, annoyingly transparent distraction though. If multiple white supremacist outlets are enthusiastically citing Rindermann, this is a red flag that this author might not be reliable. Mentioning that on a talk page is perfectly reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The aspersion being cast by the IP [187] is not directly related to the complaint against them and is a clear violation of their topic ban. This is disruptive and should not be allowed to continue. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
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'd be delighted to co-nominate you. BD2412 T 18:38, 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)
- Thanks. I may take you up on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
- Shared accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, and
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
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 [188] [189] 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: [190] 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:
- Definitions of whiteness in the United States [191]
- Jim Crow laws [192] (just look at the title of the source that supports this statement)
- School segregation in the United States [193]
- 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)
- Also...do you think you have templated their talk page enough? User talk:Wrventura Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Continued addition of irrelevant material by User:122.53.222.246 despite one-week block.
On 29 August 2020, 122.53.222.246 (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week after persistent additions to Timeline of the 21st century against consensus and despite repated warnings. He has now returned and re-added the same material, without discussion. Serendipodous 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Unresponsive editor
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:DoctorHver and edit summaries
- 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 ([194] and [195]). 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!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 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)
- 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:43, 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)
One to watch
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
- Nothing good can come from an editor with "42069" in their name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing from User:PhilCoulson20
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Wholesale deletion, edit warring at White House COVID-19 outbreak by User:Onetwothreeip
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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,
beingand 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)
- True! To clarify -- the extensive review was 2000+ edits, not DYK approval, lol!~ Feoffer (talk) 08:05, 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)
- If I was curt, forgive me. The article was subject to extensive review,
- This article's a great example of why Wikipedia shouldn't try to cover current events. EEng 05:56, 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)
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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Help/mentoring needed for uncommunicative editor
- Cesternino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a contributor who specializes in doing maintenance work of a bot-like or repetitive nature. Specifically, they seem to primarily work in addressing dead links. The user clearly works hard and is trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is an asset to our encyclopedia, but is causing disruption by: (a) being very uncommunicative, (b) failing to use edit summaries or justify edits (this is a particular problem given the mass nature of the edits that the user makes, which create difficulty in reviewing the edits for problems), and (c) not demonstrating a commitment or even effort to prevent errors going forward. Examples of this disruption are all over the user's talk page, where numerous editors (including Magnolia677, Berrely, Ravenswing, Meters, and Pigsonthewing) have tried to communicate over months. Though I haven't had the time to go through the thousands of very minor edits made by the user, some recent representative examples of the kinds of edits that can go unnoticed within these mass changes include Special:Diff/979329087 and Special:Diff/978658384, which broke links in the article.
Of the thousands of edits that this user has made, only 19 are to talk pages; many of those are not true talk page posts, and even when the user is actually responding to a well-thought-out carefully-composed message the user presents a one-line response without punctuation or even capitalization.[200] [201][202] [203] In these edits the user has shown a disregard for other editors' time spent reviewing and correcting the user's problems.
I've tried to raise this with the user, but I have been repeatedly put off by the uncommunicative style of the user and am looking not for sanctions, but perhaps for a better approach to guiding or mentoring this user to maintain the work while reducing the disruption. To Cesternino: I want to emphasize that I am not starting this thread because I don't appreciate your work; rather, I'm trying to find a solution that will minimize the burden and disruption your edits create for other editors, while maintaining a space for you to make the productive contributions that you like. Any suggestions? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think there is a gentle, kindly way to get this guy's attention: his handful of responses over the months have been of the "what do you mean" "i didn't do nuttin" barely literate sullen type. I doubt ANI will get his attention any more than anyone else has. If he's continuing his antics -- the most obnoxious of which is fiddling with margins and links on other editors' user pages -- then the only way left is the cluebat. Slap a block on him, with a "We will remove this when you begin to meaningfully communicate with us" tag. Ravenswing 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Has been editing for nearly 7 months, with not an edit summary in sight, zero communication (or jackass communication). This editor clearly needs an attention-getting block until he (A) starts using edit summaries on all of his edits and (B) communicates collaboratively whenever the situation requires it (which includes when he receives messages on his usertalk page). Until he does both of those things, he lacks the competence to remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It looks like Cesternino is genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia pages, but is acting in a "sloppy" way that others are finding very unhelpful, and they are failing to listen, understand and/or act on the advice given. Just one small example: I note, after repeated requests, that they have still used WP:EDITSUMMARIES in just 12 of their 1,600+ edits (0.7%). Hopefully, they will respond here and agree to improve their editing patterns. But if not, a short block to avoid further disruption might serve as notice that many editors have politely asked for improvements, and that they do need to undertake to address this. If it helps them, I'm sure a few bulleted requirements for improvement could be highlighted on their talk page for them to agree to address if they want to then be unblocked and continue contributing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no view on the issues described above, but my only post on Cesternino's talk page was to leave a copy of {{uw-tilde}}, to which I expected no response. To cite that as an example of disruption by Cesternino is at best misleading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think this is a genuine troll. Editing other people's userpages (24 so far: [204]), and when politely asked to desist says "oops sorry" [205] and "what do you mean" [206]. Makes trollish edits to Wikipedia-space pages (36 so far: [207]), and when politely asked to desist says "Are you joking i am trying to stay out of trouble" [208]. And so on with every trollish edit he is questioned about on his talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm blocking until Cesternino can coherently explain what's wrong with editing in this manner and what he'll do differently if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "but why is my edits Disruptive" (on TP; post-block, unsigned, and [sic]) is not an encouraging sign, in several ways. Narky Blert (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Wielding the Salmoninae?
There is a bad-tempered exchange at talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) following a WP:RSN thread. Emigré55 seems unhappy with the results and The Banner is being goaded. I'm now WP:INVOLVED, so could another admin take a look please and see if Emigré55 needs a warning. Thanks Guy (help! - typo?) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1/ On «following a WP:RSN thread. Emigré55 seems unhappy»:
- Unless I am mistaken or have forgotten, I have not expressed any feeling about it so far, happiness or unhappiness, other than :
- to the closing of the thread WP:RSN:
- "Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982219698&oldid=982205474 - and confirmed it to Guy here:
- "JzG, You are mistaken. I have written here above that I respect your decision ("Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "). And, on the contrary to what you write, The Banner is the one who asked that you reopen the case, here. And you accepted. Why then blame me/others? Why don't you blame him then for not respecting your initial decision? and fueling instead the dispute, as he enjoys to do, as evidenced in other cases?--Emigré55 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982384939&oldid=982383315
- to the freezing itself of the main page, I expressed only:
- to the closing of the thread WP:RSN:
- 2/ On “The Banner is being goaded”:
- My apologies if I wrote something that mislead anyone to think that I have goaded someone, which never was my intention, on the contrary.
- As Guy did not provide any diff, I frankly do not see where and when I have goaded him.
- On the contrary, I have been goaded several time by The Banner:
- for instance calling me “Dude”, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&diff=982015629&oldid=981968490
- or, “you read badly...”, on my personal talk page, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emigré55&diff=978729819&oldid=978728309
- ...I could add other examples if needed.
- The present discussion on this talk page also shows that The Banner has a history for goading other contributors, such as @Eissink:, in my opinion, whom I let express if and how he feels goaded from The Banner.
- I therefore think that, if someone deserves, at least, a warning, it is The Banner.
- As I expressed to The Banner several times, as here: "I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)", I even really feel harassed by him, which I could also further substantiate if needed.
- --Emigré55 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making unconstructive edits for a long time, with their main contributions being adding unneeded linking of common words, all around unconstructive edits where they do a range of things such as adding unencyclopedic language and change quotations so they don't match the source, often breaking sentences, sometimes veering into vandalism. More examples here, here and here. The user has not responded to any attempts to get them to stop these unconstructive edits and continues to do so. Whether lack of WP:COMPETENCE or unwillingness to engage, the result is a lot of disruption. Eik Corell (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
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 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)
- @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.[1] 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 [[209]]. I have also just attempted to explain again on your user page. Please see my (more detailed) explanation here [[210]].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 [[211]], 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)
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)
Disruptive IPs that may be the same person
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
Highly disruptive /28 range?
Is there anything that can be done about blocking a /28 range? Not sure as a lookup of a /28 range on Wikipedia tell that, "The requested IP range is larger than the CIDR limit of /32."
IP range has been super disruptive, persisting at articles such as Ollie's Pack, Lego City Adventures, and Looped (TV series) for months on end- and I'm sure many others- with no end in sight. Just take a look at the full history of Ollie's Pack here and do a search of "2804:d49", has been at that article since May and continues to this day.
Just a few of the IPs include:
- 2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2804:D49:4925:F800:15FC:E1:4E5E:9236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2804:D49:4927:FA00:E4C9:5717:359C:4E40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
...and plenty more than just those three. According to the WHOIS, it seems like the main source would either be 2804:d49::/28 or 2804:d40::/28. I tried using the rangeblock calculator for these three IPs, and it gave me '2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C/42', so maybe that could be the source? Either way, is there anything that can be done about this easily, or would this need to be tackled by blocking quite a few ranges? Would love to put a stop to this, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The /32 v6 block limit is a santity check, because blocks larger than /32 generally have unacceptable levels of collateral damage. Your proposed /28 rangeblock would block access for every customer of the third largest ISP in Brazil. I believe this is could be a sock of Ednei_Campos_De_Jesus_De_Brito, and I think a short block on the /42 (whilst still a bit heavy-handed) would stem the abuse until they get bored. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for deleting revisions with racial slurs
Thanks! --Wario-Man (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating
I first interacted with Graywalls when they AFD'd the Civic Media Center library. I was alerted to the discussion since it was on my watchlist, I frequently edit articles about infoshops, social centres and squatting movements. I noticed Graywalls was exhibiting battleground behaviour, jumping on every response. We then met on Template:Squatting in the United States and ABC No Rio. At the latter Graywalls was deleting a "see also" section which had become sprawling, I offered a compromise and was reverted. We then discussed and I was not impressed with their appeal to an imagined consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proper_use_of_SEE_ALSO. Graywalls used the term BS which I took to mean "bullshit" and I queried why they would use it.
Graywalls then popped up at Squatting, making bold edits such as adding "Original research" and "Unreliable sources" to the top of the article without specifying what needed improving. I reverted and asked for clarification on which of the 130+ sources they were referring to. The talkpage debate became acrimonious since Graywalls would link to a guideline, I would reply with my interpretation, then Graywalls would launch into incomprehensible ranting so the debate would grind to a halt, then the BRD cycle would begin again. They were also throwing around terms such as bullshit, garbage, junk which I do not feel are conducive to a cordial debate.
Overall I found it hard to have a reasonable conversation and started to doubt that Graywalls is here to improve the encylopedia. I certainly lost faith on this edit, where Graywalls reverted me and took out the inbetween edits I had made. I was cross about my edits being carelessly discarded so I said "redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page", Graywalls gave what I thought was a grating apology, then seemed to get angry about my edit summary later. They even came to the brink of 3RR on a talkpage discussion about article rating!? I also started to notice that Graywalls was tracking my edits, for example popping up at Squat Milada.
Which brings us to today. After i have disengaged from Graywalls for five days, I see that Graywalls has now popped up at Squatting in the Netherlands, saying "search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this" - funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list, especially since I have been editing it these last few days as part of a GA nomination. You could say it's a remarkable coincidence.
Graywalls has also reverted my edit on Dutch squatting ban, saying "(removing indymedia per WP:RSP and RS/N Oct. 2020)". This despite the only person to respond to my question about this specific source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indymedia actually saying "However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful". Meanwhile, Graywalls had contributed to the debate there by saying "I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back".
To sum up, I feel that Graywalls is hounding my edits and probably editing not sober, as the replies tend to become incoherent as the day goes on. I am happy to collaborate to improve pages but this now becoming difficult. I have followed the dispute resolution steps and disengaged completely with Graywalls since October 4. Unfortunately their battleground behaviour continues to the point that I feel my edits are being hounded. I am disappointed to have to come here instead of spending my time on content creation. I feel I have already tried to engage with Graywalls and work this through on various talkpages and at RSN, but it hasn't worked. I feel the trend to double down on a position instead of debating is all too common on wikipedia. Normally I can simply ignore and move on, but the acrimony is spread across different pages and shows no sign of abating. Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Graywalls' infoshop AfDs are also worth nothing (see, in particular, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)). Their nom-only AfD stats do not demonstrate a great correspondence with consensus, which suggests to me that Graywalls may be interested in nominating articles, particularly about left-leaning subjects, for non-notability related reasons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga:, I understand BS was impolite and you will see I withdrew it, I was just getting quite frustrated in the back and forth. If I come upon articles and problem sources (such as unreliable sources Independent Media Center, blogspot, and similar), I sometimes search them via insource: search. "funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list". Why yes I actually do, and you can check that yourself. I don't edit, or not edit because of you. I am making them because they contain anecdotes and personal accounts and share same type sources. I clarified that to you in talk comment you left. In Squatting in the Netherlands, I noticed it was being processed in GA review, so I actually took it to talk instead of removing it directly to minimize disruption. BTW, for those not aware; IMC includes domains such as Indymedia.org, Indymedia.nl, Indybay.org, Phillyimc.org. The variants are listed in the "Independent Media Center" in WP:RSP list. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @AleatoryPonderings:, I do nominate things in a cluster of similar things if they share similar issues. That was not a good nomination and I should have dug better for sources. I try to avoid these situations, and I do actually dig around deeper for sources after that happened. My decision to nom things are not based on left leaning or not. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hell_Shaking_Street_Preachers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camilla_Tyldum.
I recently spotted that there was a claim in the Clive Tyldesley article that the subject is referred to by the nickname "The Ghanaian" in reference to a perceived bias in his commentary of the team's games at the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Although a source was cited, it was a very recent source that looked to me like it had taken its info directly from Wikipedia, and as I was unable to back up the claim in any other sources, I removed it from the article. Within hours, it had been restored by User:Endofcity, who ignored my comment on the article talk page (see here) and claimed without justification that the source was reliable and thus the claim was valid. Having done more research, I have discovered that Endofcity originally added the claim in 2016 (see here) using a different source (now a 404, archived here). As you can see, although the source acknowledges Tyldesley's bias towards Ghana, it does not mention him being referred to as "The Ghanaian". Because I apparently have a decent standard of evidence for including information on Wikipedia, Endofcity has now baselessly accused me of being a fan of Tyldesley, or even being Tyldesley himself, and refuses to engage in discussion on the article talk page. There is clearly a slow motion edit war going on here on their part, and I suggest it not be allowed to continue. – PeeJay 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I should add, I've googled the terms tyldesley "ghanaian" and the only matches that come up are mirrors of Wikipedia or sites using the exact same wording as Wikipedia, hence my suspicions that they have cribbed notes from us and simply copied the site verbatim. Hardly reliable sources if they're using Wikipedia as their own source. – PeeJay 13:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
As I have tried to explain to you, the nickname is in widespread us in certain parts of the UK. Whether you have heard of this or not doesn't mean it's not true. Plus, there is a credible citation. Quite why you are getting yourself so worked up about this matter is beyond me and I don't think it fair, nor respectful to swear aggressively at other users. If it's this important to you, delete it and I won't re-instate it. I also don't think this board is the place to attempt to resolve such a ridiculously petty issue.--Endofcity (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- A UKian writes: Which parts of the UK?[which?] Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've claimed the name is in widespread use, but you haven't provided any evidence to back that up, other than your word. The citation is not credible for the reasons I explained above. If you say you won't reinstate the info, that's good enough for me, but the evidence to date has been less than compelling that you will accept anything other than a spurious nickname being included in this article. I totally agree that such petty disputes shouldn't get to this page, but when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and your only edits to that article before today have been to include this nonsense nickname, you rather force my hand. – PeeJay 14:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Every time some stupid controversy like so-and-so's nickname wastes the community's time, it hastens the day that we simply drop all coverage of football personalities (other than Pelé, of course). So keep it up. EEng 14:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I won't comment here on the content issue, but reverting back and forth on this isn't productive. Endofcity, the content has been challenged, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are reliable sources that support this assertion. Please discuss this with other interested parties on the article talk page, and gain consensus before reinstating the content. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Rritoch
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
- Ivanvector, oh I agree - WP:DUCK/WP:NOTHERE are sufficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Abusive IP/account
194.56.199.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has left a charming but illiterate message for me at Commons. FDW777 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on the edit summary of blocking people who were putting truth out there, he didnt like it so decided to block me
and the editing (constant changes of Derry to Londonderry) this IP would appear to be Calebemerson2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked that IP as well. They've been on my list for a bit due to their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 194.56.199.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 2 weeks. I've also lengthened Calebmerson2's block. The changes of Derry to LondonDerry look like they might be automated. For the attack on Commons you'll have to report to admins on Commons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)