David Eppstein (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1,809: | Line 1,809: | ||
* Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
* Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into [[WP:FORUM]]-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his {{tq|he is the very definition of a hack writer}} is a great example of what I'm referring to. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
::I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into [[WP:FORUM]]-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his {{tq|he is the very definition of a hack writer}} is a great example of what I'm referring to. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
* Wikieditor19920 has a bit more than 7,000 edits, and a quarter of them are to three topics: two Muslim women and an Islamophobic activist. His edits abnd comments on {{la|Ilhan Omar}} and talk are often problematic and fail to gain consensus, and his edits and comments on neo-fascist apologist {{la|Andy Ngo}} are always supportive. This is not a good look. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123 == |
== Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123 == |
Revision as of 23:07, 22 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) |
|
Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
- @Mujinga:, as I already retracted about an hour after it was originally said once you made me aware that it was offensive to you. I apologize if "BS" used in the context of my frustration with the argument. It's interesting that you keep insist on inserting sources like Squat.net, Indymedia.org even though you seem to be well aware of proper sourcing as can be seen here. It's rather contradictory that you're here using directed slight against me such as the unwarranted and untrue accusation that I am "not editing sober" when you came here partly to express your concerns about my language. In a different, but similar concerns about introducing contents based on questionable sources, you took to making attack on the other editor like calling their edits "vandalism" in your content dispute just as you labeled my edits "trashed" where it seems to be you were suggesting the onus was on them to prove the sources are not reliable source rather than on you to show sources are RS to be included. While you're not using swear words, you're making here directed attack such as accusing them of driving editors away. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the issued raised by OP, there are WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns about Graywalls's photo uploads. These were uploaded as "own work" and added to articles with the following captions and edit summaries:
-
1. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption
A mountain of syringes at a NSP operation in the St. Johns neighborhood in Portland, Oregon United States where syringes and other paraphernalia are given out without question.
and edit summaryadd proof that some NSPs are failing to require return of dirty syringes.
-
2. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption Addicts huddled around a needle exchange, Outside In IDU Health Services in Portland, Oregon, United States in 20192. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption
Addicts huddled around a needle exchange, Outside In IDU Health Services in Portland, Oregon, United States in 2019
-
3. Added to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with the caption Lids and shrink wrap from bottled water that was purchased with SNAP for the purpose of trafficking benefits into cash through bottle deposit in Oregon3. Added to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with the caption
Lids and shrink wrap from bottled water that was purchased with SNAP for the purpose of trafficking benefits into cash through bottle deposit in Oregon
-
4. Added to Welfare fraud with the caption
"water dumping" fraud in Oregon. Large quantities of bottle caps and shrink wrap discarded by the redemption area of a grocery store after they were purchased with food stamps for the purpose of dumping them out to claim container redemption value.
Also added to Oregon Bottle Bill with captionDiscarded bottle lids and packaging after cases of water purchased on SNAP was dumped to cash out the deposit value at the bottle return area at a Fred Meyer store in Portland, Oregon
-
5. Added to Homelessness in Oregon with the caption
An illegal transient encampment by a substation in Lloyd District neighborhood of Portland in 2020.
-
6. Added to Union Pacific Railroad with the caption
One of the damaged support columns for Going Street overpass in Portland, Oregon damaged by the Union Pacific Railroad Company
and edit summaryadd picture of overpass column that Union Pacific ruined
-
7. Added to Mook (graffiti artist) with the caption
Marcus Edward Gunther's graffiti tag on a building on NW 3rd avenue in the Oldtown-Chinatown neighborhood of Portland
and edit summaryadd a photo of Gunther's vandalism
-
8. Added to Hoffman Construction Company with the caption
A number of workers close together in July 2020 at the Hoffman Construction's Lincoln High School site
Is #8 a social distancing criticism? Additionally, (9) I'm scratching my head about adding a picture of an alarm system to Wapato Corrections Facility and (10) this image might be copyvio. Haven't gone through all the uploads or looked at other edits, but in looking through uploads, these ones jump out. Lev!vich 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich:, I am not seeing how this relates to anything here. The mural picture was taken by myself and it is of relatively low resolution as part of the view of a park. No concerns about copyright have come up and if you believe that's a concern, I am happy to try to resolve it. And I don't know where you're going with the alarm panel. That seems like a content dispute. No issues have been raised before. #8 is visualizes the observations made by one of the newspapers; with my own picture since I happened to have one. "social distance criticism" where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm finding the images especially problematic, and suggest NOTHERE problems. Behavior aside, there are NOT, OR, and POV problems with these images and their use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- The OP is about your editing in articles related to squatting (homelessness). Photos #1-5 are about homelessness, welfare, and drug addiction. #6-8 are other examples of OR/NPOV problems with photos. #8, "a number of workers close together in July 2020" is not really accurate (three might be a number, but "a number of" implies "many") and overly focuses on "close together", implying the company is ignoring social distancing protocols during the pandemic (July 2020). Otherwise, why would you write "close together" instead of just something like "a Hoffman construction site"? #9: why are we including an alarm system photo in an article about a facility? Seems like ... well, not a great idea to publicize that kind of information. #10: Unless you painted the mural, I believe it's copyvio for us to publish a photograph of it without the author's permission. Lev!vich 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. EEng 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Seems to me that they want to work for a tabloid rag or internet shaming site rather than an encyclopaedia. Very poor quality photos of zero encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why would anyone think that these photos and captions are suitable for the encyclopedia? Number 4 just blows the mind, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng:, it was built as a jail and it was never put into use and this is what the building is notable for. I didn't name the article so that isn't my issue. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: - It looked rather interesting and someone who has never seen inside of such a building might find it cool too. Who knows if it's even in use. It's part of the original install back in early 2000s. The pictures weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. If you take contents issues with that page, why haven't you taken it to the article's talk page? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. EEng 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just remove a copy and paste of the Belinda Johnson article into their user talk page, without attribution, which also put mainspace categories into their user talkpage. It should be noted that it was not Graywalls that pasted it into the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Photo update: Looks like all the images and captions above except #7 have been removed from the articles by various editors and they haven't been reinstated except at Union Pacific Railroad but I think it's stable for the moment. #10 was deleted from Commons for copyvio [1]. #3 and #4 are pending deletion at Commons. Lev!vich 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I actually pulled the mural photo from the article once it was made aware to me it might be infringing and I G7'd it over at Commons HERE and it was offline before it was deleted on buidhe's nomination. What are you trying to accomplish? Oh and I'm also noting that in a response to my question at Commons help desk, it was suggested that while it wouldn't be allowed on commons, it might be ok, as a low resolution picture uploaded only on English Wikipedia under fair use. It was a misunderstanding. Please assume good faith, thanks. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
More hounding
OK so from reading the above, it seems other people also have problems with Graywalls. I had hoped that posting here would stop the battleground behaviour and I am staying disengaged, however they have pinged me back here twice intending to carry on an argument and exhibiting the very behaviour I wanted to highlight originally. The second time they linked to my edits from as far back as March 2019, supplying hard evidence that they are stalking my edits (I first interacted with Graywalls last month). Mujinga (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- You started the dispute in this noticeboard to share your concerns about my my word selection "BS" which you felt was unseemly for which I retracted in an hour after posting and apologized, but you made it a personal attack of accusing me of editing "not sober" against no personal attack. It's hardly stalking that I go investigate how you interact with other editors during a content dispute sharing what I found here in light of the very dispute you initiated. Spreading rumors like this in article talk is improper. Article talk pages are not for airing personal allegations. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mujinga, while I understand that this place can be a frustrating experience at times,
...probably editing not sober
is a snide personal attack, intended to weaken Graywall's editorial and personal reputation. Do you routinely include these kinds of inflammatory personal comments when interacting with editors? I agree that the photo captions constitute OR and need to be removed or the content adequately sourced. Other than that I feel that this AN/I is starting to 'pile on', using the opportunity to go shopping for evidence of 'problematic' editing rather than provide straightforward diffs showing obvious violation of policy in line with the original dispute, which was entirely related to behavioral and civility issues. For the evidence of that supplied so far, Graywalls has retracted and apologized. RandomGnome (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)- I am a bit disappointed that I ask for admin assistance here and basically all I get in direct answer is more nonsensical arguments from Graywalls, the very thing I wanted to avoid. RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. I'm happy to draw a line under this matter for now, but if I have to deal with anything like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment - from Graywalls again I'll be back because I don't want to spend my editing time on wikipedia dealing with this time sink. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's your threshold for number of edits required before someone can speak? Should I make 10,000 minor edits to qualify? Quantity over quality? Thankfully Wikipedia doesn't have an edit quota system and I personally believe it's a good thing to have more editors involved in discussion and oversight here. One does tend to see the same very active admins and non-admins here, and I'm sure they would agree that the burden could be better shared. RandomGnome (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @User:RandomGnome, being allowed to speak we all certainly are - and @Mujinga did not say that you aren't - only that he was not interested in your sorts of 'wild questions.' You may be entitled to the right to speak up, but if the content of your comments have little to no merit, you aren't entitled to have them be addressed - no matter how many edits you have - a low edit count is just bolster. As for the 'not sober' comment, I say (to anyone, not specifically Random Gnome): get real. Of course it was not a kind remark, but no reasonable person could claim that was a legitimate libel. That is, no intelligent person could ever possibly draw the conclusion that Graywalls is EWI because they saw Mujinga make that offhand remark. Also, for the record: I am fairly sure that it is NOT @User:Graywalls' place to go digging for dirt on @User:Mujinga that does not concern Graywalls DURING an ANI that Mujinga brought against Graywalls for various behaviour exhibited in interactions between the two of them. (And likewise, it would not be for Mujinga to do the same with Graywalls - which as far as I see he has not, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong). That is for the neutral parties responding to the ANI to do - not the parties involved. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Uh huh, and as you rightly point out, if the content of your comments have little to no merit, you aren't entitled to have them addressed. Dragging this conversation back to the point of the ANI, at this point a less involved editor should close this one out with a note that Graywalls and Mujinga should find a way to collaborate civilly or keep apart to avoid further action that might lead to sanctions. There is nothing actionable at this point. RandomGnome (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @User:RandomGnome, being allowed to speak we all certainly are - and @Mujinga did not say that you aren't - only that he was not interested in your sorts of 'wild questions.' You may be entitled to the right to speak up, but if the content of your comments have little to no merit, you aren't entitled to have them be addressed - no matter how many edits you have - a low edit count is just bolster. As for the 'not sober' comment, I say (to anyone, not specifically Random Gnome): get real. Of course it was not a kind remark, but no reasonable person could claim that was a legitimate libel. That is, no intelligent person could ever possibly draw the conclusion that Graywalls is EWI because they saw Mujinga make that offhand remark. Also, for the record: I am fairly sure that it is NOT @User:Graywalls' place to go digging for dirt on @User:Mujinga that does not concern Graywalls DURING an ANI that Mujinga brought against Graywalls for various behaviour exhibited in interactions between the two of them. (And likewise, it would not be for Mujinga to do the same with Graywalls - which as far as I see he has not, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong). That is for the neutral parties responding to the ANI to do - not the parties involved. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's your threshold for number of edits required before someone can speak? Should I make 10,000 minor edits to qualify? Quantity over quality? Thankfully Wikipedia doesn't have an edit quota system and I personally believe it's a good thing to have more editors involved in discussion and oversight here. One does tend to see the same very active admins and non-admins here, and I'm sure they would agree that the burden could be better shared. RandomGnome (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am a bit disappointed that I ask for admin assistance here and basically all I get in direct answer is more nonsensical arguments from Graywalls, the very thing I wanted to avoid. RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. I'm happy to draw a line under this matter for now, but if I have to deal with anything like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment - from Graywalls again I'll be back because I don't want to spend my editing time on wikipedia dealing with this time sink. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mujinga, while I understand that this place can be a frustrating experience at times,
Propose Boomerang
I believe WP:BOOMERANG for civility and personal attack is in order for Mujinga who came here express concerns about language choice but has used contentious accusation like ...probably editing not sober
and continuing to exhibit uncivil and demeaning attitude right on ANI. Such as that directed at another user RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you.
in the very grievance they've started, in addition to casting aspersion in inappropriate place. It's absurd they're using expression like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment
when they're riled up over the way I said "BS" in the context I did. I have not since used expressions they've specifically found it offensive. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- "not sober" was not cool, but I don't think it's boomerang worthy. Lev!vich 06:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've read many of the interactions linked to above, & while there is much smoke I don't see any fire. Nothing worthy of Admin attention, & I hope it will stay that way. I will offer the advice that the two of you try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do. -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Echoing the above sentiment, can an uninvolved editor please close this one out as there doesn't appear to be anything actionable and no new information is likely to be forthcoming after several days of inaction. Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally the editor bringing the ANI action has stated they're now
happy to draw a line under this matter for now
RandomGnome (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality (French Revolution)
Hello ANI,
On the following page, French Revolution, a user has been altering very sensitive information in the article, removing references, and rewording statements without any synthesis having been achieved on the talk page. The user – Robinvp11 – makes edits of his own accord despite at least three editors in the discussion being out of agreement with him and no consensus having been reached. He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem (or simply does not respond at all) and does not seek input from other involved editors.
The neutrality of the article has now come into question, and a tag displaying such may need to be added. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Please be aware in the future that users in question must be notified on their talk page as per the policies noted at the top of this page. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am more than happy for the ANI to review the entire thread, which began when the individual above (a new editor) unilaterally changed the Lead of a key article to reflect an extremely contentious minority perspective and the page curator asked for support. I believe you'll find exactly the opposite; my apologies in advance and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll also point out that posting in the discussion is normally interpreted as seeking input from others. I also don't see a need for a NPOV tag. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- To correct an above misstatement, the page was not "unilaterally changed", nor did the "page curator" ask for support. The individual who raised the discussion had no connection to the page nor had any knowledge of the topic. User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers, without even providing a response to the user's lengthy post on the Talk page. Further, user Robinvp11 has removed information and primary source material that was not even under discussion; only two specific statements were being contested. The page should be reverted back to last edit by Gwillhickers, which is last point at which consensus was reached.
- Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x:
User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers
. Emphasis in original. Do you have any WP:DIFFs? I can't find Gwillhickers ever editing the article in the past few years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC) - I ran a search through User Contribution Search and Gwillhickers has never edited the article proper (just the talk page on September 11 and 14), so you'll have to clarify what you mean by "consensus lede". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, Tenryuu 🐲, I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. That lede summarization reflected what had been discussed on the page and was a synthesis of the contributions; subsequent edits have been done of the editor's own accord and have entirely changed the meaning of the lede paragraph – along with removing material that was not being contested. 021120x (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x:
- Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is the first time in six years I've been involved in one of these, so I'm not sure how this works. Since an ANI escalation is relatively rare, I'd like to make a couple of points.
- (1) The edit history for 'French Revolution' is clear; it shows (a) Gwillhickers has never been involved in editing the article. (b) the changes were inserted by User 021120x on 28th May, and (c) I am not the first person to object; they were removed on 24 June, a change later reversed by User 021120x on 25th on the grounds of Vandalism.
- (2) On User talk:021120x there is a lengthy explanation by User:Acebulf as to their concerns re the edits made to the Lead, and that "you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact."
- (3) While I'm happy to assume Good Intent, the explanation provided above at 17:07 is not an accurate summary of the discussion on the Talkpage;
- (4) If you look at the article on American exceptionalism, User 021120x has reversed edits because they represent "a critique of the US created and propagated by European scholars". The same person who persistently denies the validity of European views on the US is now attempting to insert a perspective on the French Revolution which is a minority view even among American historians, and accusing me of 'lack of neutrality.' Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input.
I assume you're referring to this diff?He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem [...]
The only places that I could potentially construe as condescension areFor the third time [...]
I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same
, andmaybe read them yourself?
,
- though they seem to be born from frustration of a point that's going nowhere.
- As a casual observer, I don't really see any blatant instances of incivility or personal attacks (ad hominem). Is there heated disagreement? Yes, but in my opinion it hasn't escalated to requiring administrator attention. In fact, this problem seems to be a better fit over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as the majority of the problem appears to be coming from source interpretation and the application of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Robinvp11 and 021120x to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x: That would make it a content dispute, not a behavioural one. Please provide WP:DIFFs of Robinvp11's comments that you find to be uncivil or making personal attacks, as I'm just shooting in the dark and playing the guessing game as to what was considered behaviourally inappropriate.
He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion.
Emphasis in original. Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. I don't see any discretionary sanctions being imposed on editing this area of Wikipedia (and scouring your talk pages doesn't turn anything up), nor are there page notices that appear when opening the editor window like COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)- @Tenryuu:
Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits.
The editor's rationale was that the removals and alterations were following the discussion on the talk page, which they largely were not.
- @Tenryuu:
- Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Robinvp11 and 021120x to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of uncivil tone, ad hominem, condescension:
- For the third time...
- I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided
- And nearly the entire post as signed on October 9, which begins with, "I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same." is littered with vitriol and ad hominem.
- Additionally, the only reason Acebulf has become involved is because he has been stalking my contributions across multiple unrelated topics and pages, going against Wikipedia's policy of Hounding.
- There was a further contribution from another editor on October 11, 2020 which now presents a more balanced viewpoint, and it seems that the leading paragraph has been adjusted to reflect this. A discussion will be opened on the dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested. 021120x (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@021120x: As I've said before, please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone or just provide context in general: it makes it a lot easier to follow when things have happened and who did what. If Robinvp11 wants to explain their rationale for making that edit they're more than welcome to do so, but so far I don't believe anyone mentioned here needs to be sanctioned or blocked. Please take this to the DRN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment from involved editor. The editor that brought this thread has made controversial edits and refused to address them with anything substantive. As such, the consensus brought forth from the RFC is that they should be removed. Perhaps requesting administrative closure on the RFC would solve this entire situation. Acebulf (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Acebulf, it appears that the RFC was opened on September 6 and closed on October 6, but looking at what's on the talk page, I'm not sure anyone can assume that the RFC consensus is that they should be removed; rather, it doesn't seem there is a consensus, which is when I believe WP:STATUSQUO would come into effect. In this case, I think that would still have the same result as removing those claims.
- That being said, a formal close would probably help alleviate the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, This issue was moved to the DRN as directed. However, the DRN moderator has stated that they will not continue with the review if the issue is still open here. Can the issue be closed here, and are you able to inform the moderator of this once it is done? 021120x (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120x, Since you're already here, care to explain why you're telling people to stop discussing the article on the article talk page? You have no authority to control who speaks on talk pages, nor do you have the authority to silence them when the discussion doesn't go your way. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Acebulf:, Please desist from WP:HOUNDING. The DRN moderator will not continue to review the dispute if there is an active discussion. Thus, commenting must be paused.
As I have become too involved I'll ask someone else to close this if they feel it's appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
As the potential Moderator of the DRN- I just want to be clear- I did not tell 021120x to make people stop discussing this ANI case, I just told them that we could not open a DRN case while this was open. This case takes priority, and does not need to be forced to rush. The DRN will still be there whenever this is resolved Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightenbelle: No worries. I think they went a bit bold when trying to get this sorted.
- Support close Let's close this and move to DRN. This has gone long enough that we have to seek some kind of resolution, and the dispute seems to have moved away from one focused on actions and more on the content, though in a fairly accusatory tone that would need mediation. I support closure for the time being, and so does 021120x. We can always come back later if this escalates. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to confuse an already confused case more, but I have a few comments as another DRN volunteer. First, the rule at DRN is "Comment on content, not contributors". There is a content dispute about the French Revolution. However, the filing party, User:021120x, came here with multiple conduct allegations against other editors. This is now a conduct dispute until the conduct allegations are resolved or withdrawn. And if this dispute does get reopened at DRN, after resolving or withdrawing all of the conduct allegations, it really will be necessary for all of the editors to be even more careful than usual to avoid commenting on conduct or contributors. Second, this appears to be a dispute with ten editors. DRN has difficulty in moderating disputes with large numbers of editors. The method of dispute resolution that works better than DRN when there are a large number of editors is RFC. I am sure that a DRN volunteer will be willing to help formulate a neutrally worded RFC. (I am sure of that because I am willing to formulate the RFC.) If the filing editor and the other editors really want to have moderated discussion, they can close this case and refile at DRN, and perhaps a volunteer will agree to moderate. However, I think that this is a case for a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Robert McClenon. It would be ideal to continue with the DRN process, however several editors involved refuse to end character attacks in the discussion. Even when the DRN was opened, some editors posted only editor attacks in the thread, in direct violation of the DRN guidelines. Some editors originally expressed acceptance of the present article changes; however, they have since reversed this position and stated that they will not accept such changes in the article, giving evidence that content is not the concern, only the preserving of certain preconceptions. If the DRN proceeds, it will be without the editors that have thus far been incapable of behaving appropriately, despite reminders. This would additionally reduce the concern related to editor count and aid the moderation of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x - You say that you want to resume or start the DRN process, possibly with a limited set of editors. It isn't entirely clear whether you are saying that they will determine which of them take part in DRN or that you will determine which of them take part in DRN. If you want to pick and choose who you are discussing with, that is not a way to achieve consensus. I may have misunderstood something, but you seem to be making matters difficult. You originally came to WP:ANI with conduct issues, including that another editor was hounding you. You were asked to provide diffs, and did not provide diffs, and were told that this appears to be a content dispute. Well, it is partly, but there still are your allegations of conduct, and making allegations about conduct can itself be a conduct issue, as is explained in the boomerang essay. You say that several editors refuse to end the character attacks. I haven't seen the character attacks, and so I can't offer an opinion about them other than that I haven't seen the character attacks. You say that some editors posted only editor attacks in the DRN thread. Having just reviewed the DRN thread, I do not see the attacks, so that it may be difficult for a moderator to manage a discussion that satisfies you. I may have misunderstood something, but I have a hard time seeing what will satisfy you, especially since I don't see the attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, a few of the participating editors revised their original posts in the DRN discussion. Wikipedia's policies class the bringing in of accusations regarding perceptions of a Wikipedian's contributions which occurred outside the bounds of the content under discussion, scouring past or historical contributions unrelated to the content, as an example of incivility; yet at least one editor did exactly this. In the talk thread, the posts and tone several editors abound with snide or accusatory remarks, many of which address contributors rather than content. It is impossible to have a productive or objective discussion with such behavior. Further, as above mentioned, certain editors have now undone their acceptance of some changes to the article that were recently brought about under a greater consensus; this is not conducive to a productive discussion in the DRN. Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately. 021120x (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x writes: "Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately." I have a few questions about that idea. First, what would the purpose of the DRN be? What would be gained by spending the time of a volunteer editor, and the participating editors, and the community, in moderated discussion? Would it establish consensus? If it excluded certain editors, how would that establish consensus? Second, who would decide what editors will and will not behave appropriately? Third, why would you rather have moderated discussion at DRN than an RFC? Maybe these are all versions of the same question, which has to do with how a limited discussion will establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am willing to have this discussion of this dispute closed, but I do not want it closed and sent to DRN unless we agree on what the (possibly unusual) conditions for the DRN would be. Otherwise we can just close this discussion, but only if we agree on how it has been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, a few of the participating editors revised their original posts in the DRN discussion. Wikipedia's policies class the bringing in of accusations regarding perceptions of a Wikipedian's contributions which occurred outside the bounds of the content under discussion, scouring past or historical contributions unrelated to the content, as an example of incivility; yet at least one editor did exactly this. In the talk thread, the posts and tone several editors abound with snide or accusatory remarks, many of which address contributors rather than content. It is impossible to have a productive or objective discussion with such behavior. Further, as above mentioned, certain editors have now undone their acceptance of some changes to the article that were recently brought about under a greater consensus; this is not conducive to a productive discussion in the DRN. Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately. 021120x (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x - You say that you want to resume or start the DRN process, possibly with a limited set of editors. It isn't entirely clear whether you are saying that they will determine which of them take part in DRN or that you will determine which of them take part in DRN. If you want to pick and choose who you are discussing with, that is not a way to achieve consensus. I may have misunderstood something, but you seem to be making matters difficult. You originally came to WP:ANI with conduct issues, including that another editor was hounding you. You were asked to provide diffs, and did not provide diffs, and were told that this appears to be a content dispute. Well, it is partly, but there still are your allegations of conduct, and making allegations about conduct can itself be a conduct issue, as is explained in the boomerang essay. You say that several editors refuse to end the character attacks. I haven't seen the character attacks, and so I can't offer an opinion about them other than that I haven't seen the character attacks. You say that some editors posted only editor attacks in the DRN thread. Having just reviewed the DRN thread, I do not see the attacks, so that it may be difficult for a moderator to manage a discussion that satisfies you. I may have misunderstood something, but I have a hard time seeing what will satisfy you, especially since I don't see the attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Robert McClenon. It would be ideal to continue with the DRN process, however several editors involved refuse to end character attacks in the discussion. Even when the DRN was opened, some editors posted only editor attacks in the thread, in direct violation of the DRN guidelines. Some editors originally expressed acceptance of the present article changes; however, they have since reversed this position and stated that they will not accept such changes in the article, giving evidence that content is not the concern, only the preserving of certain preconceptions. If the DRN proceeds, it will be without the editors that have thus far been incapable of behaving appropriately, despite reminders. This would additionally reduce the concern related to editor count and aid the moderation of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
New Personal Attack by OP
The Original Poster of this thread, User:021120x, has just made a personal attack in an edit summary at French Revolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution&type=revision&diff=983974974&oldid=983974314&diffmode=source It appears that 021120x is, on the one hand, asking to discuss at DRN with a subset of editors, but on the other hand, is edit-warring the lede of the main article. I will note that User:Robinvp11 is trying to discuss the lede at Talk:French Revolution. That's what the article talk page is for, duh. Even if consensus is with you (and there isn't a consensus as to what the consensus is), it is still better to discuss on an article talk page than to use an edit summary to say that another editor is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Because a DRN moderator would help to establish a binding consensus. One difficult editor that has recently joined the discussion has already altered consensus decisions which occurred before he began to participate and has expressed a desire to only 'stick to his guns'. Moderation would engender greater respect for the outcome of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Changes as suggested on October 12 were accepted as being sufficient (with the caveat, perhaps, that they may be supplemented by more details further down). A new user has undone them, going against the discussion. The editor has no interest in following agreed-upon changes. Why is breaking the consensus considered acceptable? 021120x (talk)
One Final DRN Offer
Well, I have advised the OP to use an RFC, and User:Nightenbelle has advised an RFC, but I will make one final offer of DRN moderation, if my moderation will be accepted. (If any of the editors think that I have become non-neutral or involved, they can find another moderator, or they can use an RFC.) However, no participant gets to decide which participants are behaving properly. I am willing to make one final offer of DRN moderation. This offer is open for 24 hours, but only if the editors agree, and only if the editors agree that there will be no participant-imposed preconditions or exclusion of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: It appears that a moderated discussion might no longer be necessary, as the position held by editors such as Robinvp11 has recently been shown to be 100% baseless and entirely false. One of the primary authors off of which he and others hinged their argument stated (multiple times) exactly the opposite of what they have been arguing, and the author fully supports the opposing argument. Even direct citations have been included. Any continued contradiction will now stem rather transparently from nothing more than prejudice. The only concern at present is how much more information will be added to the article, and ensuring that such content is respected and unchanged. If this is all that remains to be discussed, I am open to holding a DRN review for it. 021120x (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Still On the Table
I am still willing to try to conduct moderated discussion, until 0300 GMT, 19 Oct 20. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Propose boomerang
While I try to assume good faith, and I abhor confrontation, after the behavior pointed to by Robert McClenon above, I had a closer look at their contribution history. It seems like the behavior of 021120x worse than I had realized at first.
From their contributions history, it seems that 021120x is engaging in widespread POV-pushing with pro-American, anti-British views in an attempt to counter the influence of what they call the "Britclique". (See [2]). Their modus operandi is to inject non-NPOV material directly in the lede, in an attempt to influence the tone of the article.
While the French Revolution incident exemplifies this behavior and has gathered a significant amount of controversy on the injected material, there are at least two additional articles which feature low-intensity edit wars. In these, 021120x injects material in the lede, gets reverted a couple days later and then 021120x adds the content back, often also attacking the user who removed the content.
- They are currently involved in a low-intensity edit war on American exceptionalism to caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique". This is removed by many different editors at this point, but 021120x persists in edit warring to keep it in the lede. (See [3] [4] [5], with the last diff also featuring an edit summary that calls another editor disruptive, see below)
caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique" A statement of origin has no reason to be removed, particularly when the individual insists on doing it anonymously. 021120x (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another low-intensity edit war is being held on American Revolution, in which 021120x is trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy. (See [6], [7], [8]) The last diff here is also calling an editor (me) disruptive.
Personal attacks
Accusing others of impropriety seems to be a key part of this user's interactions with others on Wikipedia. This ANI thread itself features numerous accusations of wrongful behavior on Robinvp11, which were then retargeted to me when I was tagged in discussion. Another editor which came across the dispute and wanted to give a perspective, Mathglot, was also the target of attacks that are described above. To put it bluntly, almost all people who disagreed with 021120x in this dispute have been accused of wrongdoing by 021120x. The pattern is clear; if you disagree with 021120x in a significant way, they will retaliate by making baseless accusations against you.
He has also many, many other problematic edit summaries, as pointed out above.
(None of the following are vandalism, even if the edit summary states such.)
- [9] (Undoing revision by persistent anonymous disruptive editor.[...])
- [10] (Reverting vandalism by "Danloud")
- [11]. (Reverting vandalism by unregistered user. [...], the "unregistered user" in this case being admin Doug Weller. See User talk:021120x for more information on this accusation.)
- [12] (Reverting vandalism)
- [13] (An incontrovertible lie with no reference, no source, no basis in reality or history, no factual support, and intended as a form of denigration.)
- [14] (Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing that his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen.[...])
- [15] (Reverting edit by disruptive editor.)
In short, this user uses Wikipedia as a battleground, and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with them. As much as it pains me to say, I believe that admin intervention might be necessary. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 21:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a very disingenuous post by a user that is now attempting retaliation for the outcome of the discussion not following a preferred viewpoint (and rather blatantly showcases stalking and hounding). Acebulf claims that he began this search after McClenon's post, which is false. He posted troves of references to activity in the DRN review that had little or nothing at all to do with the content of the discussion, and has confronted me on other pages to which he previously had no direct connection (additionally, he appears to be making anonymous changes on other pages). Acebulf may also be unaware of the difficulties created by Snagemit (many of which are still present). Regardless, as has already been stated, there is no basis for further claims of contradiction in the discussion. At this point, we are only working on what material will be added to the article, and likely what additional details would be added to the American Revolution page. If Acebulf would like to contribute towards this, the discussion is ending on the French Revolution Talk page. Otherwise, the only reason to leave the ANI open would be for administrators to be made aware of users who refuse to work with the added changes. 021120x (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- (And, fyi, 'BritClique' is a jocular phrase that was previously used on the ARW talk page in reference to certain difficult editors that were giving everyone a rough time while we were working on the article. It's an inside joke.) 021120x (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have been working with user 021120x with a fair number of other editors and have yet to see anything that warrants him being dragged in here. His "persoanl attacks" amount to nothing more than comments about vandalism and disruption. While a number of editors are currently engaged in a rather heated debate, and at times have made less than friendly comments, including myself, there has been no name calling, threats, etc, made by this user. His comments in edit history are typical among users throughout Wikipedia, especially when there is contentious debate occurring, are not necessarily unfounded, and certainly don't warrant that this user be taken to task here. User 021120x is a relatively new user and has has been ridiculed for being a NewBee with a modest edit-count and has had to deal with his share of not so friendly remarks. (Not by Acebulf) Imo, this case is highly uncalled for and will only serve to widen the gap between the editors in question and discourage a newcomer from contributing to Wikipedia. If anything, this user only needs to be reminded to be careful about making less than friendly comments in edit history, even if they may be called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(1) I've stayed out of this, because I find it more useful to work on article content. But the Comment above is an astonishing rewrite of history. The only reason we're here is because user 021120x raised an ANI. I'm still unclear why. I can't comment on other articles, so these apply to the French Revolution;
(2) Users who refuse to work with the added changes; on 28 May, User 021120x made extensive changes to the Lede. Without consultation and in variance with the Good Lead guidelines (eg including a block quote in the Lede). As a relatively new user, you might want to check process etc before arbitrarily deciding changes in that way, but we're all different...
(3) As someone who did the French Revolution as part of their history degree, I found the content of the edit surprising and the weight given to it in the lede even more dubious - doesn't make me right, so I did a bit of reading (see the body of the article if you're curious). I updated it on 15 September, then after input from a couple of other editors, changed it on 11 October. The ANI was raised on 12th.
(3) The OP now claims 'its only ever been about recognising the influence of the American Revolution on the French'. Look at the wording provided on 15 September and 11 October; if that were correct, this issue would have been settled a month ago;
(4) When Mathglot removed the paragraph on 12 October, I reversed the edit on the grounds it was subject to dispute, so we needed to wait. Mathglot accepted that change.
(5) Despite being the person who raised the ANI and DRN, the OP edited the paragraph on 17 October, with substantially different wording. When it was reversed, he explained Neutral lede was already agreed upon. Discussion is now centered on inclusion of further details. Changes made to lede in previous revision are even less detailed than what was already agreed upon in neutral consensus. Further changes are disruptive. As the person who provided the original wording, news to me.
(6) When Mathglot reversed it, the OP reverted again, on the basis Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen. Consensus for lede was already established on October 12. Mathglot will be reported to administration. If consensus was agreed on 12 October, why was the OP changing it on 17th?
(6) I've provided this detail only because we have to take responsibility for our actions; there is a clear pattern throughout the article, this ANI and elsewhere of claiming (a) Edits have been agreed (when they haven't), and (b) accusations of disruptive behaviour when confronted. Every action is a reaction; if you are involved in multiple debates on esoteric points, why do you think that is? You want to waste your own time, fine by me; raising ANIs etc means you waste other people's time, which isn't.
Robinvp11 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The only reason we're here is because A) users such as yourself maintained an unworkable tone throughout the discussion and refused to accept material that discredited your viewpoint, leading to an impass based on conduct rather than content B) one user who initially clamored for closing this thread decided to instead use it for a retaliatory personal attack to remove an editor who was providing material which contradicted their viewpoint.
- The ANI was raised on October 9, three days before you claim it was raised. The discussion has always been focused on inspiration and influence, which editors such as yourself have been determined to deny, and only begrudgingly gave a passing and superficial mention of.
- Mathglot first deleted the paragraph, then entirely re-worded it. You initially did absolutely nothing to change his re-wording.
- Taking responsibility for one's actions is something you have yet to do. 021120x (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
40,000-foot view
I'm commenting here with fresh eyes, by which I mean that I was pinged, and saw that this discussion is long, and have only scanned it very briefly to see roughly who/what/when, and did not read it. My contribution here now, is to try an offer admins and others a fresh perspective, which I will hope help achieve some context and perspective about what is going on at the article. (I will read this discussion after, and come back if relevant.)
At the top level, this appears to me to be a content dispute about whether the American Revolution can be considered one of the causes of the French Revolution; and if so, to what extent. (At various points in the voluminous TP discussions, the point under dispute has wandered about, and it's been couched differently at times, e.g., "American influence"—e.g., Jefferson or Franklin ⟶ French Revolution; or American documentary influence, e.g., Declaration of Independence/U.S. Constitution ⟶ Declaration of the Rights of Man, but generally it seems to get back to "causes" of the French Revolution, and to what extent American events/people/documents were involved.)
I'm a latecomer to this content dispute at French Revolution; my article contributions involve two reverts of undue material at the article. (Both were undone.) I have contributed more amply at the Talk page. Almost all of my Talk contributions have been in one of two basic roles:
- trying to maintain order in the discussion and promote understanding of the relevant policy issues; in my opinion, the entire content dispute hinges on WP:DUEWEIGHT; it appears strongly to me that either the import of this policy is completely missed by certain editors who either misunderstand due weight, or do not agree with it, and hence, there is essentially a disagreement about policy that blocks any possible progress in the content dispute;
- attempting to help point the way out of a long, circular, unproductive discussion that is going nowhere, by introducing a methodology that could lead to progress towards resolution, where there has been none before: namely, an appeal to tertiary sources to try to reveal what the majority and significant minority views are about the content under dispute. I'm still in the middle of that; it is here (perma) if interested.
My feeling about what's going on at the Talk page is that certain editors are trying to promote discussion, deal with other editors civilly, and reach a proper, policy-based result backed by the preponderance of views by historians; while there are other editors (two to my knowledge; there may be more) who have already made up their minds, and at this point are not interested in working out what the major/minor views of historians are, but rather are interested in seeing that the article matches their views, and that anything else in their view is merely obstruction, censorship, cherry-picking, and bad faith among other editors who disagree.
A key blocking point, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of the tension between WP:V and WP:DUE. In some other topic area of the encyclopedia where there are, say, 100 sources, it's not impossible for editors knowledgeable about WP:V to read a good percentage of the sources and get a feeling for what is majority, what is minority, and what is FRINGE, without really knowing too much about WP:DUE, and to come up with a reasonable balance in an article on the topic. However, in an article like French Revolution, this is impossible. A knowledge of WP:DUE is central, and an ability to properly determine and assess the variety of historical opinion on it is crucial. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in World History, possibly *the* most studied; many hundreds of tomes have been written about it for centuries, and countless articles in historical journals. It is not possible for any one editor to read even a small fraction of it, and to get a feel for the breadth of opinion. Conversely, an editor knowledgeable about WP:V could in good faith find 20 sources to support their (possibly fringe) opinion about some point relating to the Revolution, and not realize that it represented only a very tiny minority in the context of the thousands and thousands of articles written about it. In my opinion, frustrated editors at the article armed with whatever their favorite interpretation is, are falling into this trap by executing targeted searches to find sources to support their view, not realizing (or perhaps not caring) about the massive violation of WP:DUE that this might entail.
By coincidence, I was writing this warning (perma)) at a User TP of one of the involved parties, when the ping arrived, and now, here I am. It seems possible that I'll need to come back with diffs after reading through this thread; if I'm not back and they seem needed as part of the discussion, don't hesitate to reping. Thanks. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot's message has since been removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is another blatantly disingenuous post to prevent a certain outcome from the discussion. The discussion is ending, Mathglot. We are now working on how much material to add to the article. 021120x (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is it? Then I guess that makes two blatantly disingenuous posts by two different editors, right here in this very discussion; what are the chances? But I do agree with you that *this* discussion is ending. Which leaves us back at the article talk page talking about content, where consensus is required and no editor gets to decide things by fiat. If that doesn't work, there are always other methods of dispute resolution. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Admin Guidance
Hello, Admins,
The content discussion is concluded, and we are working on the implementation of the changes. I just want to ask for the admins' direction on how to handle adjustments that may happen further down the line. For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in this discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is a new discussion to be held? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? Or, would an issue of that sort need to be referred to administration? Are matters of this sort covered by some sort of protections? Thanks. 021120x (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tenryuu Are you able to answer this question? What are the guidelines regarding respecting changes? Is there a process for maintaining them after a discussion is concluded? 021120x (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @021120x: For the fourth time, providing WP:DIFFs of what you're talking about will make your life easier. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the bit on tendentious editing. Mathglot has offered their view on the issue and left a friendly message on your talk page that was deleted 2 hours later. Thucydides411 has pointed out some concerns from the 14th onwards and neither Acebulf nor Robinvp11 have implied that they decided to agree with your views at Talk:French Revolution#Lead paragraph on American influences (last posts from Robinvp11 and Acebulf respectively), so I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that 2 out of 4 majorly involved editors constitutes as having achieved a consensus, let alone the majority. This is starting to inch into "I didn't hear that" territory. I vehemently recommend you take Robert McClenon's offer of the RFC. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: This is the consensus I'm referring to. It does not represent "my view". I did not come up with it. Both Acebulf and Robinvp11 agreed to it. Robinvp11 provided the wording. 021120x (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120x, your diff leads to an agreement from those two to a proposed wording by MJL, where you subsequently argued that it
[...] touches on "what" but not "how"
, to which Acebulf replied,[...] it is inappropriate to include it in the lede.
This was later followed by a response from you that was not addressed. In other words, these are two separate issues. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- Thank you, Tenryuu. The wording of that agreement was implemented in the article and stayed in place until the entire paragraph was deleted by a user new to the discussion. It was subsequently restored by Robinvp11, then changed again by the same user – so, this represents the same issue. However, it is about time to end this thread, regardless. What is the proper procedure to close or withdraw the ANI thread? Any further resolutions will likely only be achieved on the talk page itself. 021120x (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120x, the edit summary on Robinvp11's reversion states:
which suggests that while they could agree with Mathglot's actions, by policy it's best to leave the problem area untouched until the conflict has actually been resolved. Mathglot's removal of the material on the 16th takes a difference stance on currently contentious material and has the edit summary:Undid revision 983173427; No disagreeing per se but this is currently the subject of a Dispute so we've been asked not to change it until resolved
Remove undue cause, from rev. 982952507 of 10:53, October 11, 2020; this is not supported by a significant minority of reliable sources, hence, undue. Talk is still ongoing about this.
- which is most likely from invoking WP:ONUS (in this case, undue until proven due). Link to revision has been provided for easier referral. If I have misrepresented these rationales due to my lack of mind-reading abilities please correct me.
What is the proper procedure to close or withdraw the ANI thread?
It's highly unlikely this thread will be closed until your behaviour is completely addressed down in #Unpleasant Conclusion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120x, the edit summary on Robinvp11's reversion states:
- Thank you, Tenryuu. The wording of that agreement was implemented in the article and stayed in place until the entire paragraph was deleted by a user new to the discussion. It was subsequently restored by Robinvp11, then changed again by the same user – so, this represents the same issue. However, it is about time to end this thread, regardless. What is the proper procedure to close or withdraw the ANI thread? Any further resolutions will likely only be achieved on the talk page itself. 021120x (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120x, your diff leads to an agreement from those two to a proposed wording by MJL, where you subsequently argued that it
- @Tenryuu: This is the consensus I'm referring to. It does not represent "my view". I did not come up with it. Both Acebulf and Robinvp11 agreed to it. Robinvp11 provided the wording. 021120x (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @021120x: For the fourth time, providing WP:DIFFs of what you're talking about will make your life easier. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the bit on tendentious editing. Mathglot has offered their view on the issue and left a friendly message on your talk page that was deleted 2 hours later. Thucydides411 has pointed out some concerns from the 14th onwards and neither Acebulf nor Robinvp11 have implied that they decided to agree with your views at Talk:French Revolution#Lead paragraph on American influences (last posts from Robinvp11 and Acebulf respectively), so I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that 2 out of 4 majorly involved editors constitutes as having achieved a consensus, let alone the majority. This is starting to inch into "I didn't hear that" territory. I vehemently recommend you take Robert McClenon's offer of the RFC. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Nightenbelle Are you able to offer assistance or guidance with this concern? Are discussions used as precedents for an article? For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in a discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? 021120x (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x - It does not appear to me, looking at Talk:French Revolution, that there is a consensus on content changes. You may have decided that the discussion is concluded, but I see other editors disagreeing with you. I would suggest that you read the policy on consensus, which discusses establishing consensus and deals with consensus changing. However, you do not appear to have established a consensus. The way that is done, in cases where there is a dispute, and there is a dispute here, is by Request for Comments. You have been advised from time to time to use a Request for Comments. I will advise you of that again. You don't conclude the content discussion simply by saying that it is concluded. That is done by closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I am not deciding anything. The group involved in the discussion already decided on and implemented changes before an individual came along later and first removed, then completely changed them of his own accord, disregarding what we had settled on. I have read those policies, Mr. McClenon, and they clearly state that consensus does not require unanimity. One sole editor is doing nothing but stonewalling and stalling. No one is currently disputing the accuracy of influence having been drawn. 021120x (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the RfC, another user already attempted an RfC (which I have already mentioned to you), and it was not productive. But, we reached an agreement after it concluded. 021120x (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no permanent solution. Any editor at any time may come and revive this discussion with new information, or with a re-examination of the existing information. And if people are still discussing on the talk page- you don't get to decide the conversation is over. Sorry 021120x You are in the wrong here. Go back to the talk page and keep working towards a compramise. I'm not an admin to be clear, just a volunteer. Wikipedia is ever evolving. It would be counter-productive to make permanent decisions about content when the whole point of WP is to create an encyclopedia that can evolve and adjust with new information over time. So I would recomend to go back to the talk page, and keep working with those who are discussing. I also see no consensus currently. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightenbelle:, a consensus was agreed upon on the 12th, then was deleted by a passing user a few days later who had no knowledge of the discussion. The original argument is no longer under dispute, and the new user is simply stonewalling. There are no policies that address such behavior? 021120x (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The new user is not stonewalling..... I read the discussion. There is no consensus- The discussion is not over. I know you want it to be. There are not policies to force a discussion to end because one user wants it to, no. There are policies that require users to continue to discuss until a clear consensus has been reached however. Might I recommend you review those?Nightenbelle (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightenbelle: I am not the only one who is saying this. 021120x (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The new user is not stonewalling..... I read the discussion. There is no consensus- The discussion is not over. I know you want it to be. There are not policies to force a discussion to end because one user wants it to, no. There are policies that require users to continue to discuss until a clear consensus has been reached however. Might I recommend you review those?Nightenbelle (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightenbelle:, a consensus was agreed upon on the 12th, then was deleted by a passing user a few days later who had no knowledge of the discussion. The original argument is no longer under dispute, and the new user is simply stonewalling. There are no policies that address such behavior? 021120x (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no permanent solution. Any editor at any time may come and revive this discussion with new information, or with a re-examination of the existing information. And if people are still discussing on the talk page- you don't get to decide the conversation is over. Sorry 021120x You are in the wrong here. Go back to the talk page and keep working towards a compramise. I'm not an admin to be clear, just a volunteer. Wikipedia is ever evolving. It would be counter-productive to make permanent decisions about content when the whole point of WP is to create an encyclopedia that can evolve and adjust with new information over time. So I would recomend to go back to the talk page, and keep working with those who are discussing. I also see no consensus currently. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tenryuu Are you able to answer this question? What are the guidelines regarding respecting changes? Is there a process for maintaining them after a discussion is concluded? 021120x (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nor am I the only person saying they are not stonewalling.... and the person who says they are- happens to be the main person who agrees with your POV. If you see above- several others are telling you that there is no concensus... that a discussion is still going on. Two editors arguing that a discussion is not going on.... does not prove a discussion is over! There are comments posted as recently as a few hours ago. Just because a discussion goes quiet for a few hours does not mean it is over- it means that the other editors were busy for a while. You, insisting that a discussion is over while others are actively having said discussion, however, is stonewalling. I'm outta this... moving on to reviewing AFCs... which are woefully backed up for anyone with some free time and wants to see some progress today. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Unpleasant Conclusion
When User:021120x stated that the content discussion had been concluded, they were correct, because they switched from discussing content to engaging in article ownership. I think that the community has been very patient with this editor. Some sort of sanction (which will be a boomerang sanction, because they are the Original Poster here) is necessary. Will a short-term block get their attention so that they can discuss when they come off block, or does one administrator or the community have to decide that they are not here constructively? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: What is the basis of this claim of ownership? Multiple editors have stated that they no longer wish to discuss this matter, including myself. If you look at the edit log for the article, Robinvp11 has made nearly all of the most recent edits. I have made almost none. We are all trying to reach a conclusion, and had established a consensus on October 12th (which even Robinvp11 and Acebulf agreed to). See it here. 021120x (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Not an admin.... but 100% agree. This user has been agressive, demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page. He also is engaging in WP:IDHT and WP:OWN. I truly believe he wants to improve WP, but he seems to have lost the forest for the trees. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightenbelle: I have not been "agressive, demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor". I have only even directly interacted with two or three editors on the talk thread out of about 10 or more, who have themselves been 'aggressive, demeaning, dismissive, and/or rude' – which was the entire reason for this ANI notification. 021120x (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am starting to suspect the OP is guilty of selective reading and tunnel vision at best. Aside from the misinterpretation of the diff they supplied to suggest consensus for their position, they appear to have neglected the rest of Nightenbelle's evaluation where she refers to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page
(emphasis added), which would include a dismissive remark to Mathglot, calling Acebulf's diff-supplied evidence "disingenuous", and branding Robinvp11's first comment here as a blatant lie
. They also appear to have misinterpreted my very first comment in this thread about their failure to notify an involved user in this thread according to policy.
I like Robert McClenon's proposal below, but if all else fails I suggest a temporary topic ban. I don't think they're WP:NOTHERE because they are contributing to the page in question with sources and impassioned arguments, but I hope a week or so away will give them some time to cool down and stop with the WP:BLUDGEONING. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: There is no foundation for saying that there was a "misinterpretation" (also, as already mentioned, the change did not represent 'my position'. It was a compromise). Even other users openly agreed that the change represented a neutral consensus:
- Aside from the explicit agreement of others.
- There is also no foundation for stating that any part of Nightenbelle's comment was neglected. She was referring to the article talk page. Further, as has already been posted by a user above, any accusation such as "bludgeoning" is extreme. 021120x (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- To quote myself....... "and rude to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page" I was very clear - i meant THIS page- the one we are on right now. This discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- And furthermore- Please understand.... quoting the one user who is passionately on your side- does not dismiss the opinions and assertions of the half dozen or so saying the opposite. You can't cherrypick the opinions that are valid. I am begining to think you really are a troll out to cause disruption... can you really not see that there is a problem with your behavior and responses? Not with the validity of your argument- but the manner in which you present it and debate it? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nightenbelle, on the PM you left for me, you gave absolutely no indication that you were referring to the ANI. You explicitly discussed the talk page. Regardless, even in regards to the talk page, another user below as well has stated that he sees absolutely no substance to these claims. "Just reading the above thread, nothing he has written is so terrible as to merit that". There are not a "half dozen" users saying 'the opposite'. There are "three" users who have made it clear that they will disregard anything presented to them. Also, you yourself are ignoring the complaints of their behavior. Multiple users have referred to them as condescending and unwilling to hold an honest discussion on the subject matter. 021120x (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Notice this post from the article talk page:
On several occasions I have offered compromises in terms of covering American involvement in the years leading up to the French Revolution, offering to make well sourced brief statements in appropriate places in the narrative, as is currently reflected in the lede of this article. In every case, after one issue after another is addressed, the goal post, just keeps being pushed back. For example, the original objection was that "zero" sources support the idea of any American influence. After that assertion was refuted the argument changed, and that only a "tiny minority" of sources are supportive. After it was shown that many reputable sources cover these things someone came up with the idea that we should only consult Tertiary sources, e.g. general accounts in encyclopedias, ignoring the many dozens of scholarly sources in our Bibliography and elsewhere, and on and on. Now we're at a point where the arguments are repeating themselves. This is not one of those cases where, 'Oh well, it's everyone's fault', which too often is how lengthy disputes are treated unfortunately.
- There are users that are simply ignoring or disregarding any material that is presented to them. That is the biggest hindrance here. 021120x (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not that bothered about behaviour - we can't sanction everyone on Wikipedia who won't admit error. I do object to the OP continually rewriting history, which they have now done on numerous occasions. Please see their entry on 19 October at 17:08.
- If you look at the edit log for the article, Robinvp11 has made nearly all of the most recent edits. I have made almost none. Yes, I've worked on the article because that's the best way to challenge my assumptions, rather than just assuming I'm right; tbh, I long since lost track of exactly what it is the OP wants (apart from his own way);
- We are all trying to reach a conclusion, and had established a consensus on October 12th (which even Robinvp11 and Acebulf agreed to). Even I agreed it? I wrote it!!!, based on input from two other editors; when Mathglot removed it, I reverted the edit explaining it was subject to dispute and Mathglot accepted that change.
- The person who didn't accept that consensus is the OP, who edited the paragraph on 17 October, with substantially different wording. When it was reversed, he explained Neutral lede was already agreed upon. Discussion is now centered on inclusion of further details. Changes made to lede in previous revision are even less detailed than what was already agreed upon in neutral consensus. Further changes are disruptive. When Mathglot reversed it, the OP reverted again, on the basis Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen. Consensus for lede was already established on October 12. Mathglot will be reported to administration. If consensus was agreed on 12 October, why was the OP changing it on 17th? There is a pattern of behaviour there which is verified by the edit history. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is another misrepresented claim. Mathglot entirely changed the paragraph a second time after he first deleted it, and Robinvp11 initially did nothing at all to correct it. My only comment regarding the paragraph was that it could have used more details, but the reversal I made of Mathglot's edit was even less detailed. 021120x (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is another misrepresented claim No, this can be verified by looking at the edit history. As I believe you've been advised several times, that can't be tampered with.
- Let's assume you are a ceaseless searcher after truth who has continually sought compromise only to be persecuted first by other editors on the TP, then by the three (or is it four?) volunteers you have dragged into this (and btw You're only volunteers, nobody asked you to waste your time is possibly the most outrageous comment I've seen on Wikipedia). What is it you want? Specifically?
- If that sounds condescending, I'm tired of pretending I'm talking to an adult and if you want to raise an ANI, please do so. The amount of time and energy wasted because you can't admit you might be in error is disgraceful, and if it were me, I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I know you won't be because otherwise we wouldn't be here. I will not comment further - so go ahead, have the last word. I'm a parent, I'm used to it. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- My biggest mistake has been attempting to participate in a discussion with several users who have made it plain that they have no interest in holding an honest academic examination. You are the only user here who cannot under any circumstances acknowledge that they have possibly been in the wrong. And, why on Earth would I raise another ANI? 021120x (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is another misrepresented claim. Mathglot entirely changed the paragraph a second time after he first deleted it, and Robinvp11 initially did nothing at all to correct it. My only comment regarding the paragraph was that it could have used more details, but the reversal I made of Mathglot's edit was even less detailed. 021120x (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
And, why on Earth would I raise another ANI? Well, it does appear to be part of your MO and makes as much sense as anything else on this thread.
You are the only user here who cannot under any circumstances acknowledge they have possibly been in the wrong. I'm not the one being threatened with sanctions, or who's been repeatedly tagged as aggressive, demeaning etc but you may be right. Why don't we honour the founding fathers of modern democracy by polling everyone associated with this thread or the article TP and take a vote on which of us best fits that description? I'm game. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Truth Is King 24: Here is another user who would agree that there is an issue with ignoring sources, and disagree with any of these accusations. 021120x (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- 021120xRobert McClenonRobinvp11 I have not followed the threads here closely enough to really form an opinion regarding editor courtesy, or the lack thereof. There are two things that Robinvp11 ("Robin") has done, however, that I do find rather disturbing. In an October 6 talk page comment he states that Simon Schama does "not agree" (by the context with American inspiration [AI]). Robin had earlier noted a mention of the American Revolution in Citizens (by Schama), so Robin had some knowledge of that book. But it is not true that Schama disagrees with the AI thesis. As I noted on October 17, on page 24 and 27, of Citizens, Schama is pretty clear that he does support the AI thesis. And here is the thing that I find a bit disturbing - it is so easy to find in that book. Just go to the index, look for "American Revolution" and it is the second page-set noted. Really, Robin just missed that? Oh my goodness, it is so easy to find, how could anyone really miss it? The other, as I've noted on the talk page is that the Rossignol reference does not at all support the sentence Robin uses it to support. It is so far off, not discussing at all sentiments during the F.R., but historiography long afterward. Robin just did not notice that? Hey, as long as I'm weighing in, to me Robin comes across as infuriatingly condescending. That would make a lot of folks loose their cool. So, no, I do not feel that 021120x should get boomeranged here. Just reading the above thread, nothing he has written is so terrible as to merit that. There must be some latitude, here, for an occasional impassioned remark. And editors should be able to call on an administrator without fear of an unwarranted boomerang, perhaps inspired in part by an administrator's weariness in dealing with a contentious issue.Truth is KingTALK 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Truth Is King 24: Here is another user who would agree that there is an issue with ignoring sources, and disagree with any of these accusations. 021120x (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x: Again, I'm referring not to the diff you linked, but your thoughts on it later, which was thought to be inappropriate for the lede. As demonstrated above with Nightenbelle's reply, you misread where she was talking about, which makes me worry that you may be misspeaking for others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user shifted his position after Mathglot arrived and encouraged him to reject any changes to the article. He was originally in agreement. 021120x (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "shift" was done four hours before Mathglot made their first edit to the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user stated his shift of position at 19:37, which was 1.5 hours after Mathglot proclaimed that he deleted the paragraph, mentioning that he initially felt it was a "responsible compromise". He then changed his position to side with Mathglot. The earlier comment was in reference to the "additional details" that I suggested, not to the wording of the paragraph itself. But, regardless, he was initially in agreement. 021120x (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot boldly edited, got reverted, then discussed. All part of the WP:BRD cycle. Consensus can also change overtime, and it's harder to "nail something down" without something like a formal RFC, which brings us back to square one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Talk Page discussion was intended to be an RfC, but the user did not realize that he formatted it incorrectly. There is nothing stopping another user from attempting a second RfC. There was common agreement on this change, and, as can be seen, it is currently present on the article page. I followed the discussion for three weeks, then contributed sufficient amounts of sources and argumentation to the matter. Other users can continue to discuss if they see a need. 021120x (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot boldly edited, got reverted, then discussed. All part of the WP:BRD cycle. Consensus can also change overtime, and it's harder to "nail something down" without something like a formal RFC, which brings us back to square one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user stated his shift of position at 19:37, which was 1.5 hours after Mathglot proclaimed that he deleted the paragraph, mentioning that he initially felt it was a "responsible compromise". He then changed his position to side with Mathglot. The earlier comment was in reference to the "additional details" that I suggested, not to the wording of the paragraph itself. But, regardless, he was initially in agreement. 021120x (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "shift" was done four hours before Mathglot made their first edit to the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user shifted his position after Mathglot arrived and encouraged him to reject any changes to the article. He was originally in agreement. 021120x (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Truth is King I don't have the energy to go through this yet again, but for the first time in this entire discussion, I'm genuinely annoyed. I spent some time on the TP explaining exactly what my interpretation of Schama was, based on reading the whole book, not picking out one page. The clear implication here is that I simply ignored which is infuriating. Next time, I won't bother - save us both time.
(1) The current wording of the Lede is supplied by another editor - if you disagree with it, let me know and I'll take a look.
(2) If you think I've been "infuriatingly condescending", give me an example on my TP (not here) and I'll think about how to address it. On the condescension scale, where would you categorise this as an opening statement; reverting as editor does not know difference between American Revolution and American Revolutionary War?
(3) If you're going to contribute, read the whole thread, so you're commenting on all of it; yes, its pretty long, but do the work, earn the right. Once you've done that, maybe reconsider this comment; And editors should be able to call on an administrator without fear of an unwarranted boomerang, perhaps inspired in part by an administrator's weariness in dealing with a contentious issue.
(4) If you don't want to do any of that, at the very least please stop tagging me so I can avoid getting dragged into a conversation that long since ceased to have any relevance to anyone other than the OP, who has now been given multiple opportunities to stop digging this hole. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Robinvp11 OK, now I'm confused. Where on the talk page is your analysis of Schama? I've looked and I do not see it. I read the whole book, also, even though I only cited to a few pages. The book moves on from the origins to give the details of the action. So, its not addressed again, so far as I remember. But, I do see that it was MJL who brought in the Rossignol reference. So, I apologize for that. As for (3) and (4) — you have a point. I started writing and got a little carried away. I'm just pinging you now so you can direct me to your Schama analysis, in which I would be interested.Truth is KingTALK 17:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Truth is King My Schama summary is somewhere on the TP in a response to the OP, but I'm sorry, I avoid looking at that because it simply winds me up.
There are two issues; (1) Whether the American Revolution influenced the French; and (2) whether that was so significant it warrants inclusion in the Lede. I've never disputed Point (1); I was neutral on Point (2), although leaning towards a No. That's why this thread is so frustrating, since its not clear what the issue is (I think I know, but its not worth adding fuel to the flames).
While all this has been going on, I've rewritten large chunks of the article (because I wanted to make sure I was presenting a fair picture). Take a look at the sections on Causes and the one further down on 'Creating a new Constitution'; the Ludwikowski article is a pretty good summary (although I don't agree with all of it). Robinvp11 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
To the Original Poster
I posted this about ten hours ago to Talk:French Revolution, but it was collapsed as not having to do with article improvement. Although I think that this does have to do with the way forward on the article, I am reposting it here:
User:021120x - You were the original poster of the ANI thread, and you were the original poster of the DRN thread. So obviously you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a content dispute, and you have thought, at some time in the past, that there was a conduct dispute. You also referred more than once to personal attacks. You have said that the content discussion was finished, but you asked for administrative guidance about changes to consensus, and you referred to stonewalling. Of all of the editors involved here, you are the one whose positions either are the most variable or are the hardest to define. Now, my suggestion to you, User:021120x, is that you do one of the following threefour things:
- 1. Write a draft of what there is agreement about, and ask for buy-in.
- 2. Write out a set of A-B questions that you want a new RFC on.
- 3. At ANI, identify what administrative action you want taken against what other editors. ANI is for administrative action, such as topic-bans or partial blocks.
- 4. Apologize for having wasted our time, and agree to closure of the ANI, and agree to avoid editing in these areas for a few weeks.
- Your call.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I already responded to this on your user talk page. Here is a repost:
- Robert McClenon, in response to your post, my preference is to close the ANI and resolve matters on the article talk page. This was always my preference, however this reached point where it would seem difficult to accomplish without external help, which is why I went to the ANI. The ANI directly sent me to the DRN, which began its review, then closed for several stated reasons (too many editors, contributors not pausing TP discussion while the DRN review was in progress, and because the ANI was left open). So, we were sent back to the ANI. One editor originally expressed desire to close the ANI and go back to the DRN, then reversed this position, which is why it remained open. Things appeared to be resolving on the talk page, then the concern of "stonewalling" held by a few editors in regards to one user arose. Despite the frustration, I would still like to keep matters in the Talk Page. It appears that there is no way to establish a discussion outcome as a precedent for the article, even if the discussion goes through the DRN, so just letting the conversation finish its course is my position at this point. Also, I already told the ANI that I would like to close. 021120x (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 021120x (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, Nightenbelle and yourself are volunteers who intentionally chose to get involved. No other users wasted your time. 021120x (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- So... You are not going to do any of the 4- but continue to WP:IDHT and you asked for help, then when it didn't go your way- you want to close it (I'm going to guess because you are afraid it may result in sanctions against you at this point) and walk away, continue to WP:Bludgeon and WP:OWN an article and its our own fault because we attempted to help you? Just want to make sure I'm completely clear with what you are saying? Wow... Have you looked at the talk page of the FR? You do realize that you do not have consensus there, and it doesn't seem that one is any closer than it was a week ago- but you and your friend are posting walls of text in an attempt to filibuster the issue and get people to give up so you can have your way. Seriously- is this how you think WP should be edited? This is how you think things should work here? *slams head into desk* I just can't anymore. Good luck to you. If you continue editing WP with this attitude.... you're going to need it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nightenbelle, once again there is no substance to these claims. The only user posting "walls" of text is Mathglot. I'm not the one who prematurely closed the DRN. I explicitly asked the group multiple times to work along with the moderators (yourself). You willingly volunteered to get involved in this discussion. And, what, exactly, is "my way"? 021120x (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You keep saying that ... I don't think it means what you think it means. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nightenbelle, once again there is no substance to these claims. The only user posting "walls" of text is Mathglot. I'm not the one who prematurely closed the DRN. I explicitly asked the group multiple times to work along with the moderators (yourself). You willingly volunteered to get involved in this discussion. And, what, exactly, is "my way"? 021120x (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- So... You are not going to do any of the 4- but continue to WP:IDHT and you asked for help, then when it didn't go your way- you want to close it (I'm going to guess because you are afraid it may result in sanctions against you at this point) and walk away, continue to WP:Bludgeon and WP:OWN an article and its our own fault because we attempted to help you? Just want to make sure I'm completely clear with what you are saying? Wow... Have you looked at the talk page of the FR? You do realize that you do not have consensus there, and it doesn't seem that one is any closer than it was a week ago- but you and your friend are posting walls of text in an attempt to filibuster the issue and get people to give up so you can have your way. Seriously- is this how you think WP should be edited? This is how you think things should work here? *slams head into desk* I just can't anymore. Good luck to you. If you continue editing WP with this attitude.... you're going to need it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Nightenbelle If you really want to depress yourself, take a look at the American Revolutionary War TP, where some of the same participants are having a similar value-added discussion on who should be included in 'Belligerents'. Thanks for trying to help. As ever, Oscar Wilde comes to the rescue; in response to a complaint from a friend "Oscar, there's a conspiracy against me! What should I do?' 'Join them Arthur.' :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Not doing it. I'm going to just watch quietly until the admins decide how they want to deal with this and I'm going to never, ever, mediate a discussion on the DRN involving these two users. Thats what I'm going to do.... Glad I keep to local history in my editing. I got about half way through a masters in American History.... I think if I saw this debacle on a topic I was passionate about- I would probably get myself in trouble. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: strongly-worded warning
Proposal: an admin statement should be placed on 021120x (talk · contribs)'s Talk page requiring that they scrupulously adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV (and any others that may be deemed necessary), along with a warning that they are under increased scrutiny, and that a continuing pattern of violations of policy or guidelines may be met with a suspension of editing privileges. This editor's disruptive behavior has gone on long enough. I'm not in favor of blocks for a fairly new editor, but on the other hand I fear that doing nothing will be an imprimatur, and cause these disruptive behaviors to be set in stone, or get worse, and we'll just be back here again.
Reasons for this, beyond what has been stated previously by various editors, are as follows:
Beyond battleground behavior on the Talk page, my main problem with 021120x is a lack of a neutral point of view coming in, and bringing the battle to the article in the form of warring and personal attacks. From a content perspective, 021120x's first appearance at the article was on 28 May, with this edit, where he inserted a claim of American influence at the top of the list of causes of the French Revolution, including: "The Americans' victory over the British may have been the 'single greatest impact' on the start French Revolution." In the vast literature of the French Revolution, this is a highly WP:FRINGE view of causes of the French Revolution, as a (still on-going) assessment of tertiary sources demonstrates. Rather than simply looking dispassionately at what the sources reveal as a whole and going from there, his mind appears to have been made up at the outset, and ever since that initial foray at the article, 021120x has battled to try to keep American influence of whatever kind in as prominent a position in the article as the general opposition to his views will allow, brooking no opposition and manifesting that in the article with reverts and personal attacks in the edit summary (as previously linked), and making declarations on the Talk page about when discussions have ended, and what they have decided.
One might think that the range of possible responses to a neutrally worded offer to take the matter to DRN again might be anywhere from "yes" to "no" and points in between, but even that elicited battleground responses (see Talk:French Revolution#Call for dispute resolution; perma).
This all has to stop; collaborative discussions to reach a non-predetermined result are imperative, and so is assumption of good faith and civility. Ownership behavior must be avoided.
I have to admit that I'm at wit's end with how to move forward collaboratively at the article with the OP. Pretty much *everything* is a battleground, now, and expressing a different opinion than they is immediately ascribed to some nefarious, shady purpose and shouted down or removed with accusations or personal attacks; neutral offers of DRN are litigated. Hence, this proposal. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot, as I have already stated multiple times now, I have no interest in either this discussion or in the FR talk page any longer. You claim that I am turning this into a "battleground", yet I am doing nothing but responding to new accusations that are being endlessly hurled, with all other objections, such as those about your own behavior, being ignored. The perspective you present is both unfounded and inordinately vindictive. And, why you and a couple of others are choosing to prolong this ANI discussion is a question that only you can answer. 021120x (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment about my "mind being made up", it is quite frustrating to see the objections raised about others in the thread, including yourself, now attempt to be projected onto different editors. I didn't even comment in the discussion until it had been going on for three weeks. I already accepted a compromise. You yourself are among the foremost participants who refuse to accept anything that differs from your predetermined perspective, rejecting every bit of material that has been shared with you that differs from your position. There is no purpose in continuing to participate in a discussion when participants do such things. 021120x (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- It has been my experience that the most effective way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support the proposal by Mathglot for a strongly worded formal warning. I will note that I still or again don't know how User:021120x wants to end this ANI thread.
- In the section headed To the Original Poster, 021120x writes: "my preference is to close the ANI and resolve matters on the article talk page."
- In response to Mathglot, 021120x writes: "I have no interest in either this discussion or in the FR talk page any longer."
- So once again, 021120x is shifting their position in a way that makes resolution difficult, which makes a warning necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The only thing making resolution difficult is the insistence on persisting in this thread. "Just letting the conversation take its course is my position at this point". That isn't clear? I have shifted nothing. I have no interest in trying to have an honest discussion with people who are determined to prevent any changes that contradict their biases, and who it now quite plainly seems will stop at nothing to achieve this. The conversation can continue until it comes to its close. If someone wants to attempt a second RFC, they can go right ahead. I will not invest more energy into this. This thread can be closed.021120x (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Due to the endless redirections and continual attempts to WP:OWN even on this page. User does not seem to understand etiquette among editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not sure I get a vote but this is not a one-off; if the OP could be persuaded to redirect the energy spent on this thread towards actually working on article content, it would help Wikipedia. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reject Multiple users have already stated both in this thread and on the talk page that such accusations are entirely unwarranted. This proposal is itself an example of a WP:BUNGEE. Mathglot has repeatedly engaged in violations of Ownership and stonewalling, and did not begin his criticisms in this thread until another one of his efforts at stonewalling was thwarted. Other users have engaged in various forms of WP:Harassment and uncivil behavior, including but not limited to endless condescension and contributor attacks such as tu quoque. Several of the users that have posted above are not even involved in the content discussion. They are currently engaging in baseless bullying while ignoring complaints against their own conduct or that of other editors, and refusing to adjust or even acknowledge their own actions, and have lost sight of the discussion as a whole. I have already stated that: I am not interested in continuing to participate in the FR discussion, yet they have persisted in prolonging this thread. I recently engaged in a very civil discussion with another user regarding a change on a page which we both peacefully agreed to. He was not determined to 'stick to his guns' at all costs. 021120x (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- uninvolved non-admin Support I've gone through this whole thread and WP:IDHT seems to be a real concern. Also, 021120x, I don't think voting on the sanctions that are to be applied to you a) looks very good or b) carries much weight. MrAureliusRTalk! 20:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would help to have familiarity with the talk page, and you seem to have overlooked those who disagree. 021120x (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. After reading a few more comments from the OP here I'll finish the rest of what I had not wanted to say earlier: the OP is guilty of selective reading and tunnel vision at best, and deliberately twisting other people's words and bludgeoning others in a battle of attrition at worst. They bungeed down to the ANI with their complaint and were surprised when it was snapped back with evidence pointing to their behaviour and the thread shifted to examining their conduct (also known as "being unable to put the genie back in the bottle"). Had they been more apologetic and recanted some of their asserted claims (
as an exampleespecially this one which is demonstrably false (altered at 06:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC))), I would have been more inclined to suggest maybe having them get adopted by a WP:MENTOR to make sure they aren't getting into bad habits like WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. Unless their attitude and behaviour improve, I would not be surprised to see them at the ANI noticeboard again from an incident at another article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The original "complaint" was that the discussion was going nowhere for non-content related reasons. At such an impass, users are instructed to make use of forums such as the ANI. I have never done this before and did not know the "complaint" would be taken less seriously for not having an assortment of "diffs". We were directed to the DRN, the volunteer looked over the case, and sent us back. One user suggested that this thread be closed and we go back to the DRN. There were no behavioral differences, so I did not see a point in doing this. We continued on the talk page until a point was reached where none of the original content objections held ground, and a user simply resorted to stonewalling. So, it seemed that things had worked out on the talk page, with no need for external intervention. But one user then changed positions and decided to use this forum for a misconstrued personal attack. The thread was left open to continue what was little more than an attempt to remove a user that was providing sources that disproved a certain viewpoint. That is why this was prolonged. 021120x (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "especially this one which is demonstrably false". Tenryuu, Nightenbelle left a PM on my talk page in which she explicitly referred to the article as "that page"; her only reference to the ANI was that a complaint about "that page" was brought to the ANI. The statement is not false - or, if she truly was referring only to the ANI thread, it honestly was not seen; to paraphrase someone above, it is impossible to read minds. Also, you earlier gave another user the benefit of the doubt in referring to comments with a harsh tone as simply 'born from frustration'. A flurry of targeted allegations is not enough to elicit 'expressions of frustration'? 021120x (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x: The user that you're talking about (Robinvp11) has not demonstrated a "harsh tone" from a sample I picked at random out of his editing history, nor was he the one who tried to collapse something that was considered "not directly related to article improvement".
Nightenbelle left a PM on my talk page in which she explicitly referred to the article as "that page" [...]
Sure, but that wasn't what you were originally talking about. You specifically and directly quoted Nightenbelle (and I truly am sorry to notify her for this, but her comments are being manipulated and I think she should be informed as such) to state that youhave not been "agressive [sic], demeaning, dismissive, and rude to almost every other editor"
, typo and all. There is no way that either one of you don't know how to spell "aggressive", as in the same comment you follow up withI have only even directly interacted with two or three editors on the talk thread out of about 10 or more, who have themselves been 'aggressive, demeaning, dismissive, and/or rude'
—emphasis mine, and the message that Nightenbelle left on your talk page (which had subsequently been deleted by you) mentioned:I'm not saying you are the only one being aggressive and rude on that page [...]
—emphasis mine. Said message also doesn't carry the string that you quoted. What's more, her "PM" was posted to your talk page at 18:00 UTC, 19 October 2020, while your statement was posted here at 17:51 of the same day. Your statement preceded hers by 9 minutes, which chronologically makes no sense when you say you referred to her comment that occurred in your statement's relative future.- Yes, I (and let's not mince words here, you can say I, Tenryuu, said it) said that I have a
lack of mind-reading abilities
, which is why I rarely ever call someone a liar. The evidence I have given above, however, should attest to the fact that your claim (and attempt of misdirection as a shoddy attempt to double down and refuse to apologise) is demonstrably false and provide credence to the position that your behaviour is troubling, and dare I say, disruptive. I strongly suggest you also personally apologise to Nightenbelle because that is absolutely unacceptable conduct on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)- Tenryuu, you're missing the point. The fact that she referred only to the talk page on the message she left nine minutes later underscored that this was likely the only thing she had in mind during that interaction, and that there's no reason to harangue someone for seeing it as such. Now you're accusing me of twisting someone's words? Multiple users have expressed issue with Robinvp11's tone. And you accuse others of suffering from "tunnel vision" and "selective reading"? 021120x (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x:
Now you're accusing me of twisting someone's words?
Yep, because (unless you're accusing her of lying) she has explicitly stated (on here, the ANI) contrary to your claim:
Emphasis in original. She quoted herself from a statement that she posted on here, said statement occurring before she even went to post on your talk page, though by all means, quote her deleted message on your talk page in its entirety here (the ANI) for everyone to compare. If she meant to, on here (the ANI), refer to Talk:French Revolution vaguely, she would've originally said "that page", not "this page", because "this page" would mean WP:ANI. Incidentally, it is possible to be "aggressive and rude" in multiple places. Obviously, the only one who can decide what Nightenbelle meant is Nightenbelle herself, and if she feels like clarifying this point of contention she is more than welcome to.To quote myself....... "and rude to almost every other editor discussing the issues on this page" I was very clear - i meant THIS page- the one we are on right now. This discussion.
Multiple users have expressed issues with Robinvp11's tone.
Diffs please.And you accuse other of suffering from "tunnel vision" and "selective reading"?
I know that was a jibe made at me, but for the record, I do, specifically at you. I was originally neutral to the claim at first, but observing your behaviour here (the ANI) (and elsewhere) changed my stance. I'm in awe of the mental gymnastics performed to reach such outrageous conclusions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)- Tenryuu, you are twisting facts. She didn't say "I meant this page" until a day after she posted on the talk page (19th and 20th, respectively). And Truth is King 24 said even in this thread that he found Robinvp11 "infuriatingly condescending", as well as expressing other grievances about him. But, selective reading and looking for reasons to demonize someone probably make it difficult to find that. 021120x (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- My behavior elsewhere? Following the appropriate procedures for reporting, which are stated at the top of this very page? Yes, that's quite terrible. 021120x (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Again (I think it's the sixth time now?), diffs make it easier to find and confirm what people say. If Truth is King 24 has the diffs they're welcome to submit them here, though I notice they have started a conversation on Robinvp11's talk page (originally here) that Robinvp11 responded to.
[...] twisting facts.
How so? I specifically said this statement, which occurredbefore she even went to post on your talk page
. The main object was not this one. If you would like me to explain my grammar and sentence structure to everyone (not that I think it's necessary), I shall happily oblige so that everyone understands 100%. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[...] selective reading and looking for reasons to demonize someone probably make it difficult to find that.
I'll take that to mean you're running out of arguments, which hopefully means a decision can be made sooner. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)- The statement you quoted "i meant this page" occurred 21 hours after the post was made on the talk page'. Your usage of it above is entirely misapplied. It is a twisting of facts.
- Regarding Truth Is King 24, asking the other person to find the diffs for this very thread – a page that one claims to have read but it appears has not, is rather low. He wrote a very lengthy paragraph.
- Regarding "running out of arguments", I'm only responding to these inaccurate and seemingly endless assertions. Perhaps they should stop being raised. 021120x (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Your usage of it above is entirely misapplied. It is a twisting of facts.
How so? I find it easier to believe that she kept her quoted content on here (the ANI), offered you a different message on your talk page, took a break, then clarified that you misunderstood what she said here (the ANI), rather than her covering up for whatever flub she made. People are allowed to take breaks from commenting. Convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Nightenbelle recanted.- What I said was if Truth is King 24 has the diffs (implied to mean Robinvp11's activities elsewhere, but I shall clarify here), they're welcome to supply them. Of course, they admit that
have not followed the thread closely enough to really form an opinion regarding editor courtesy
, which is what we're here for. inaccurate and seemingly endless assertions [...]
Please prove the former (or have the person in question explain everything) while I take this time to appreciate the irony of the latter. At this point I shall attempt WP:DFTT as much as I can. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @021120x:
- Tenryuu, you're missing the point. The fact that she referred only to the talk page on the message she left nine minutes later underscored that this was likely the only thing she had in mind during that interaction, and that there's no reason to harangue someone for seeing it as such. Now you're accusing me of twisting someone's words? Multiple users have expressed issue with Robinvp11's tone. And you accuse others of suffering from "tunnel vision" and "selective reading"? 021120x (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- ’’’comment’’’ op has now posted a wp:boomerang and on me for edit warring after I reverted a change on the talk page of this article twice when they and her user tried to hide comments of another drn volunteer suggesting how they could move forward productively. Two reversions is not an edit war. I have no intention of reverting a third time making it one. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User: Nightenbelle reported by User:021120x (Result: Filer warned) (Adjusted link to anchor to resolved case) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Behavior is out of control. I don't think it will do much to curb the behavior, but we can try. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Question for the Original Poster
Well, I guess I have another question for the Original Poster, User:021120x, but maybe I am only summarizing a lot of the responses on this board and at Talk:French Revolution and elsewhere. You are complaining that you are being harassed and bullied. What editor or editors are you saying are treating you unfairly? If it is one or two editors, then perhaps you can name them, and perhaps either something can be done, or you and the Wikipedia community can agree to disagree as to whether you are being wronged. If, however, you think that you are being wronged by a large number of editors, then why are you still here? If you think that the Wikipedia community is mistreating you and is being unfair to you, then why don't you find a more reasonable virtual community? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I rarely have negative experiences within the Wikipedia community (actually, only one comes to mind). The nature of this discussion (the article discussion) seems to have elicited certain emotional responses from the participants, which manifest themselves in an unreasoning stubbornness not seen in most other areas. I have only felt directly wronged by two editors (Robinvp11 and Acebulf), for reasons which have been touched on above. However, the reason for coming here was to take the initiative in moving the discussion out of an impass. To reference an earlier comment:
"The only reason we're here is because A) users such as yourself maintained an unworkable tone throughout the discussion and refused to accept material that discredited your viewpoint, leading to an impass based on conduct rather than content."
- Lacing interactions with both subtle and direct ad hominem, including a frequent reliance on tu quoque, does not encourage discussion (although Robinvp11 apparently believes that I don't know what ad hominem means). Other editors have as well stated that he has been "infuriatingly condescending". He also seems to have taken a view of ownership, making himself solely responsible for nearly all of the article's wording and changes. And I believe that some of the commenters above lack insight into the matter, and are possibly showing a degree of groupthink.
- Regardless, this is the only forum I was aware of. I had never before heard of the "DRN". I complied with the instructions and encouraged the group to do the same. I watched the discussion for three weeks, then contributed material. There is no longer a need to add more material to the discussion if a handful of the editors are committed to disregarding it. 021120x (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- This encapsulates the whole problem. I have never seen this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia before; at what point do you stop blaming everyone else and maybe ask what should I do to prevent this happening again? That's the issue.
- Yet again, the OP has manipulated reality. I have not participated in the FR Talk Page discussion, except to suggest maybe everyone needs to back off.
- Yes, I've been working on the article; I've now invited comments three times. No one has, probably because they're spending all their energy dealing with this rubbish.
- Other editors have as well stated that he has been "infuriatingly condescending". Actually one editor; I asked for feedback to see what I might do differently rather than whining about how nobody understands me. I won't speak for him but once he looked at the entire thread....
- And even if I was the most condescending b@#$ alive, would that justify the stream of abuse and constant self-justification that has absorbed so much energy? If I had driven three separate administrators to recommend that I be sanctioned, I might be at least curious. I find that genuinely astonishing;
- And I believe that some of the commenters above lack insight into the matter, and are possibly showing a degree of groupthink. This has been the issue all along ie anyone who disagrees lacks insight
- ...don't know what ad hominem means Again, if that's considered sufficient grounds then you're going to spend a lot of time on these boards. And read your own TP (the version before you deleted it); I'm not the first person to suggest that.
- You've been told several times that deleting entries doesn't delete the history; ergo sanitising your TP doesn't work and is not recommended because it can affect how people see you. So look through the entries on your TP; the very first on 28 May (ie the day you started) has 'Welcome but...', then the extremely conciliatory post from Acebulf on 7 September etc. Or the friendly note from Mathglot you deleted. Whenever people have tried to compromise or advise you, its been shoved back down their throats. This isn't interpretation; its all there in the edit history.
Threats and dubious decision by Ymblanter
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although Ymblanter arbitrates articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, he/she has repeatedly made obvious pro-Azerbaijani decisions. The latest dubious one was when he renamed and protected [16] [17] the new name of the village used by president Aliyev in Twitter, three days before it was officially renamed by the Azerbaijani parliament. After I pointed this out to him, he twice tried to threaten me [18] [19], calling me "Dear user with 68 edits" and claiming I'm uncivil. Vaan23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Boomerang for this personal attack, which as far as I can tell, is the only attempt Vaan23 made to discuss this before coming to ANI. Lev!vich 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vaan23, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to be able to make any meaningful comment on whether or not this is a case of the wrong version or not; it also doesn't really matter. As Ymblanter has pointed out, the venue to litigate that is WP:RM. The point of move protection is to prevent move warring and have people talk it out, not to enforce the protecting sysop's opinion. I do however agree with Lev!vich that your comment did constitute a personal attack; while references to edit counts might not be the nicest thing to say, accusing people of acting in bad faith to promote a dictator's interests is far worse. I recommend you retract that statement. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vaan23, I don't know which of Ymblanter's edits you consider biased or unjustified; if you want to have a discussion about bias, you'll have to provide diffs supporting your argument. Again: I recommend you retract your statement and apologise. Whether you agree with the actions Ymblanter has taken or not, accusing him of being in the pocket of a dictator is not acceptable – and it is definitely not conducive to actually having a constructive conversation about your grievances. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I indeed seem to be the administrator who has recently been most involved with arbitration enforcement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. As you may know, a few days ago a war resumed over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, with a lot of disinformation from both sides of the conflict, and this resulted in a lot of partisan editing on Wikipedia. None of the sides likes what I am doing, and I was repeatedly accused in being pro-Armenian, anti-Armenian, pro-Azeri, and anti-Azeri editor. I will be by the way really delighted if some other administrators show any interest in the topic, and I then have more time for other things, which I find, to be honest, more interesting. Anyway, after I semi-protected Suqovuşan, Tartar for 6 months as arbitration enforcement due to the extensive disruption and move-protected it at the WP:Wrong version after I have seen repeated moves of the article, it happened to stay at the Azeri name, which made Armenian users particularly unhappy. As a result, Vaan 23, a relatively new user, accused me and Solavirum, whom I do not know, in "distorting the facts" [20]. Well, I am obviously aware of the fact that as administrator I am subject to a greater number of personal attacks then I would like to, and that my actions are supposed to be scrutinized, and in most cases I just let the accusations go. However, distorting facts is not an aspersion I will let stand on Wikipedia. I suggested that Vaan23 apologized, and Solavirum left a message at their talk page warning about personal attacks. Vaan23 ignored both messages and continued editing. When I realized this, I made clear to them that they need to apologize and strike down the aspersion, otherwise I would take them to ANI. Apparently, they decided that the best strategy is not to apologize, but to go to ANI and to double down repeating the aspersion and portraying me as a pro-Azeri editor. I am afraid at this point we need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Vaan23:, whereas this is a step in a good direction,. it is not really acceptable since I was responding on your old statement, not on the new one. You should have crossed out the old statement and add the new one. For the record, I obviously do not consider my edits biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Vaan23, please be calm and patient during discussions. Anyways, as I've been tagged here, and kinda a part of this issue, why not give my opinion about it. Vaan23 called Ymblanter (and for some reason, me) of being 'ahead of a dictator and distorting facts', which violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and I left a message informing Vaan23 here. And this application is just WP:BUNGEE. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- .
- Ymblanter earned himself quite a notoriety by pushing his anti-Ukrainian as well as anti-LGBQT views in his edits and reverts on List of people from Ukraine. See, for instance, just a small sample of his edits and reverts [21] and [22]. In the first of those, Ymblanter deletes the LGBQT section in List of people from Ukraine, while simultaneously claiming that the editor who added this section is blocked from Wikipedia for calling Ymblanter a homophobe. As Ymblanter puts it, "for unfounded accusations in homophoby". No less. In the second edit, Ymblanter likely sets the Wikipedia record for the most succinct justification of a revert, by entering just "wtf?" for an explanation. Should the guy be given some sort of uncivility medal, perhaps, as soon as possible?
- Ymblanter also launched quite a few of personal attacks on distinguished Ukrainian editor User:Mzajac and mass-reverted the edits of this editor on Ukrainian spelling of the name of Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, while threatening the editor with bans - see for instance [[23]] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C: Asking an editor to stop their disruptive edits is not a personal attack. Neither is threatening to seek consensus for a topic ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mzajac is obsessively trying to rename any mention of the Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'", despite opposition by other editors in an ongoing discussion. Ymblanter was justified in reverting the article to its previous state. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No he was not justified in reverting that spelling change in a non-historical article on a Ukrainian subject, which is not being discussed. It’s another example of editors who refuse to accept the consensus RM of Kyiv, staking out “historical articles” as their fighting retreat, and then counterattacking anywhere and everywhere they think they can. Now they’ve enabled each other to revert, disparage (“obsessively”? Sour grapes, Dimadick!), and claim everything is being discussed to put a chill on progress. If you have specific edits of mine you have a problem with, list them at an ANI, and justify your objection with specific guidelines and facts. In the meantime stop slagging me in public and disrupting my editing. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C If you see Ymblanter continue to conduct personal attack among other editors, I suggested you to report the administrator to AIV because vandalism from administrators and see what consensus to be. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- This looks to be a content dispute, with plenty of edit warring from both sides. I also can't see much evidence of Ymblanter's wrongdoing here; indeed, those who are bringing grievances here are WP:BOOMERANGing themselves.
- [24]: Addressing a message to someone this way is not a PA. Sure, as mentioned above, not the nicest way to word things, but not a personal attack nevertheless.
- [25]: Don't see how this is a PA either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I had an issue with Ymblanter negatively labelling a recognizable group, and specifically me. It was only in a single comment, but I asked him to remove it, and he did so grudgingly, making it clear that he did not see anything was wrong with it. I blame this on a permissive environment for such offensive remarks in talk:Kyiv and related articles over the previous months and years, despite their being subject to discretionary sanctions in topics related to Eastern Europe.
- The full comment, with my emphasis:
(ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.--
This was two weeks after the community demonstrated consensus to rename Kyiv. - Our discussion on his talk
- His initial token strike and comment while reinforcing his intent.
- final strike.
- This is not about edits or article naming, it is about labelling individuals and groups, creating and reinforcing negative national or other stereotypes, and thereby letting others infer the community’s permission to indulge in and escalate such language. I have seen many other negative and indefensible comments by other editors about “Ukrainian governmental interference in the process,” “Ukrainian nationalists,” “Ukrainian trolls,” “the torrent of nationalistic fervor,” “how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes,” a “Ukranian 'invasion',” and so on. I don’t see much point in a specific sanction over this. Some others have made worse comments, repeatedly, and shrugged off any criticism. But I have started to recognize a pattern of tacit reinforcement, and decided enough is enough, now. It would be nice to get some expression from the community that this toxic rhetoric is no longer welcome. —Michael Z.
- Based on what I saw in the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv - many editors indeed are routinely labelling a recognizable group of editors, who edit anything tangentially related to Ukraine, with derogatory language described above by Mzajac to belittle them and/or silence them. Recent case in point - editor felt it was okay to say that "English Wikipedia allowing "certain" editors to make Kiev->Kyiv changes on Wikipedia" is akin to "European powers allowing Germany annexing of Czechoslovakia" - I do not have a problem with an editor who wrote this and I even suspect maybe that they did not realize the gravity of the words they wrote (I even told them myself that, frankly, it is probably best to take this whole "Ukrainian nationalists editors invasion" thing as humorous hoax)), but regardless of someone's possible good intentions when writing such things, these repeated inflammatory comments from a large number of editors against a recognizable group of editors who make edits on Ukrainian topics do not make this group feel welcome on English Wikipedia. In terms of how to respond to this: again based the discussion from the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv, it seems that the majory of the community does not care about this, with only two admins taking an active approach on this in that discussion: Mzajac made comments on Talk:Kyiv that he thinks such anti-Ukrainian rhetoric being used routinely and nonchalantly is toxic to English Wikipedia, while Ymblanter actively reinforces this kind of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. I do not know what can the community do about this (and if it is even possible to find a workable solution to this), but this is probably not good for the community if this continues any longer.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this is Piznajko who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The full comment, with my emphasis:
Break
Well, now in the above topic we got aspersions cast against me by three users: One user is relatively new, one is an LTA, and one is an administrator. I do not consider any of the accusations valid and any of the aspersions justified (though I am sure diffs can be found and carefully presented showing that in some episodes I could demonstrate a better behavior). I am not quite sure what the community expects of me now. Ideally, I would do nothing, but last time I have chosen to do nothing in a similar situation the consequence was that a significant fraction of the users believed the aspersions. I would welcome advise from users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, I didn’t think I was casting any “aspersions.” I accused you point blank of insulting me and any editors from a national group you decided to associate with me as the next best thing to nazis and fascists, in a public forum, and refused to admit anything wrong with that. Sorry if I was too polite for this to be clear. —Michael Z. 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. May I ask if you’re saying I should happily accept the label “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist” without looking up what that means? I apologize for that to everyone that I’ve wronged by it.
- Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits? —Michael Z. 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @TheDragonFire300: this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, @RogueRickC137:. Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack".
My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists
could be a reference to past disruption by saidultra-nationalists
. Or a personal attack against those in the dispute. Then again, this is an uninvolved editor's opinion, so it could be read differently by those in the dispute. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- Sorry if I was not clear the first time. I read your comment as a sarcastic challenge.
- Ymblanter’s comment labelled me and an unspecific group of editors POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists. Apparently the “POV” is that the consensus name Kyiv is used in articles where it is not challenged. The comment was part of a long exchange that Ymblanter entered with this comment, referring to an edit that I had made, they reverted, and we discussed.
- When I look up ultranationalism, which I linked above, I see that this is a political view. Having not discussed either my nationality nor my politics with Ymblanter, I assume Ymblanter is applying the label to me and to Ukrainian editors strictly for its negative associations, and using a negative stereotype that is found in hateful anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. That article’s second and third sentences say “When combined with the notion of national rebirth, ultranationalism is a key foundation of fascism. Some ultranationalist organisations have been designated as terrorist movements by certain nation states.” Since Ymblanter brought editors’ politics and nationality into it, I would suggest that they have actually revealed something about their own views on politics and nationality in the offending comment, and offer them the opportunity to clarify those views. —Michael Z. 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry but may be you should assume less and actually read and listen more.
- I have explained my views at least several times, but you just dis not listen.
- Let me try again and let me be very clear.
- We had a RM which was concluded as move Kiev to Kyiv. I did not participate in this discussion and in fact had the page unwatched.
- You have understood the conclusion that it meant that (almost) every instance of Kiev must be replaced with Kyiv, with the possible exception of Chicken Kiev. You indeed started to move everything. In particular, you started to replace Kiev and Kievan Rus' in historical contexts, i.e. applied to the entities at the time the term "Kyiv" does not exist. Other users disagreed with you. I reverted on a couple of occasions (and I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions I have not reverted).
- I opened the topic at ANI. You never reverted me back, but continued to make changes to other similar instances.
- We also had influx of editors whose only contribution was to massively replace Kiev with Kyiv. One of them moved Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv, another one was doing replacements in the articles on Kiev Governorate.
- JzG has opened an RfC at Talk:Kyiv concerning the historic usage, You actively participated in that RfC and badgered every single support, bringing all kind of arguments, to the point that people got tired and stopped replying to you because they thought it is useless.
- Now, during this RfC you continued to replace Kiev with Kyiv in historical contexts, even though you were perfectly aware of the RfC ongoing and that it does not have a clear cut consensus for this replacement. I suggested one that you stop, I suggested another time that you stop. Other users suggested that you stop. You have not stopped.
- You have seen the argument that the overwhelming majority of sources currently use Kievan Rus' (or Rus) but ignored it, continuing to insist that Kyivan Rus' is the only proper form since Kiev was moved to Kyiv.
- As a result, we have I do not know how many - hundreds? thousands? instances of Kyiv in the articles which are doubtful, and even before the RfC has been concluded. This is exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like to see on Wikipedia. I have written this. Now, you have thoroughly ignored everything I was saying before that, and instead said something that there is a group of people who is not ready to accept that Kiev is now Kyiv and so on. Now, you suddenly assumed that I wanted to say you are a Nazi.
- But I said what I wanted to say, and not even necessarily anything about you. I apologize if you have understood in this way, this was not my intention.
- You came to my talk page and proposed me a deal - I strike this reply, and you stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv for a month. This did not make sens to me - either replacing Kiev with Kyiv is correct, and then you should not stop it, or it is not correct, and then you should stop it forever, or at least until the consensus changes. I first said no. Then I had another thought and removed my comment.
- Shortly before this, another user told me that I looked like an active promoter of Kiev. That was a clear sign to me that I should stop. I still think that what is going on is massive disruption, but I decided that if I am the only person who cares, I will let it go. If many users share this feeling, they will find some way to stop the disruption. I probably should have stopped earlier.
- And I did. And I have not written anything about Kiev/Kyiv for more than a week, except for one message at AN, which was merely to support another user.
- And now you came to the ANI topic which was not even about Kiev and hijacked it. I tried to make a subsection, and you hijacked it again. I am not sure what I should do. Last time I had such a pressure was from Fram, and we all know what the final result was.
- And, to finish this wall of text, my motivation is not to impose pro-Russian views, not to label you a Nazi, and not even to keep Kievan Rus'. My motivation was to try to enforce WP:CONSENSUS. I failed miserably, and nothing good came out of it. I am sick of all this bullshit to be honest. However, I maintain that you do not have a slightest idea about my political views, and you will never be able to derive my political views just looking on my edits. It is very convenient to label everyone who disagrees with you (and dozens of users disagreed with you) but this is not how Wikipedia works.
- I do not intend to resume this Kiev/Kyiv debate in any context, but unfortunately per WP:ADMINACCT I had to write this explanation - which I have provided to you at previous occasions, at no avail.
- Now could we finally stop this please? I am not editing in the topic area and I do not intend to edit in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- See, for example, in Mzajac's comment above:
Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits?
. For having the audacity to ask for evidence, I must have some extremist political ideology? Now that's a personal attack IMO, but we'll see what others think. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- Ymblanter, you have a bit of nerve dropping your complaints here, with ample assumptions on motivation, assumptions of bad faith, and aspersions of your own (“You have understood . . . ,” started to move “everything”, “I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions”), to continue to try to justify your inexcusable remark. You and I disagree on facts and interpretations, but I took every revert by you and a minority of others to discussion, respected their disagreement regardless of the merit of their arguments, adjusted my work based on feedback, and I am continuing it without further complaints. I suppose I might have eaten breakfast “exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like” in your opinion, but that doesn’t give you the right to label and smear me and “a group of people,” either for eating breakfast or using a consensus spelling where it seems appropriate. Even if your interpretation of the facts and consensus were a hundred percent correct and those you have name-called are all completely in the wrong regarding this question of writing style. And okay, I fully accept your explanation that you didn’t mean “Nazi,” and appreciate the apology for that. But you still labelled me and other editors as POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists, over spelling. You continue defending it, right in front of everyone here at ANI, but it remains unacceptable. —Michael Z. 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- See, for example, in Mzajac's comment above:
@Mzajac: I'm sorry, but could you please stop assuming that I'm leaving comments in bad faith? I'm simply trying to make sense of the dispute. Personally, if this is what your replies are going to be to every editor who leaves a comment on this thread (that personal attack above was already unacceptable IMO), then I can see this ending in a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, @RogueRickC137:. Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack".
- Hi @TheDragonFire300: this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter : please immediately cease and desist any homophobic censorship attempts on the LGBQT-related entries in in the List of Ukrainians ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:DD57:B9E9:23C4:8821 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- He has already stopped long before your comment. And what
homophobic censorship attempts
have been written? Please provide diffs. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- Addendum to above reply: If you are talking about this, then it really is what it says on the tin; unsourced. Also, the name changes in the reverted edit are against consensus while an RFC is ongoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The harrassment of @Ymblanter: should just be stopped, as well reiterating issues that have been discussed or settled, as I have partially taking part of the discussions. He followed the other admins ask, striked the comment, removed even parts, and voluntarily retreated already from the topic for now. He has the right to have an opinion despite, as others as well, even there are disagreements. It is a fact there are have/been a group of editors who were acting to quickly in the Kiev/Kyiv issue, a little bit misinterpreting the resolution and without waiting the complete outcome of the discussions. Overheated Ukrainian-Russian issues should not be imported here, not even at admin-admin level, all of us here are Wikipedians. Factually and professionally, his concerns on the issues were legitimate, also shared by non-Ukrainian or non-Russian (related) editors, btw. Again, as he retreated from the issue, any rally on him about after this is just not elegant. The worst thing is when editors precious editing time is wasted for a bit unserious soap operas, which could be better used on useful editing. I am disappointed to see an Armenian-Azerbaijani issue ended up a different nationalityX-nationalityY issue. This issue should be closed and only root cause shout be artbitrated, which outcome seems clear (no problem with admin conduct). Anyway, I would restrict administator related complaints strictly to WP:AN, since administrator issues should be separated from average community issues. Have a nice day everyone!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
- Ymblanter didn't move the page, just protected it in response to a move war. OP then personally attacked Ymblanter. Ymblanter then advised the user to apologize, and left a followup message saying that if they did not apologize they would be reported to AN/I. This whole protracted thread we're having is a bit ridiculous. I don't like the optics of an someone demanding an apology under threat, but in this context Ymblanter literally would have been entirely justified in simply deleting the comment and blocking OP indefinitely with no further comment. It's probably what I would have done. Given how explicit the personal attack was, in response to an uninvolved admin action, giving you the choice to apologize or get reported to AN/I for an uninvolved review of the situation is hardly abusive. If Ymblanter has a provable bias and should not be working as an admin in this or any topic area, then that should be properly reported, reviewed and discussed, and it needs to go to Arbcom if necessary. But this is not the time or place. This complaint has no merit. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations
Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.
Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).
At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.
The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.
Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season
These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.
These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season
Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [26] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)- Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Good news![citation needed] SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.
Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:
- We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
(from WP:NSEASONS)
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Bad news!
Oh wait, there are more.
Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.
These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.
This is from the PAST MONTH:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004–05 Carlisle United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Darlington F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Derry City F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Bray Wanderers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Lokomotiv Tashkent season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 FC Istiklol season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Galway United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Drogheda United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Recreativo de Huelva season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shelbourne F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_HNK_%C5%A0ibenik_season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 BFC Daugavpils season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Aberystwyth Town F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Budafoki MTE season* <- Nom. still open
... and there were more before that.
These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.
Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!
- Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!
- It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson
The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:
From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
- Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
- Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
- Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season
- Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
- Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
- Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
- Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
- Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
- Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season
- Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
- Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
- Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
- Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
- Additional canvassing (diff)
This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 57 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [27]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [28] and June 2019 [29]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Lev!vich 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment
This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.
Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.
There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.
- Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.
- Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.
In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note
From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from Millwall London City Lionesses.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season
I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Lev!vich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Propose boomerang
- This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- At no point did I propose a topic ban. This was done by Number 57. And given how massively disruptive you have been at the AfDs on which you have been commenting, I think it merits attention. And reubtting points made against myself is perfectly legitimate argumentation. Literally the point of AfD is to make arguments on whether or not an article should be kept. Comparing my actions to yours is completely absurd. Your slinging of ad hominems and hostile tone, while frequently contributing nothing to discussion, is not comparable to my rebutting points made in an AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, if you wanted to look through the diffs, you will notice that I did not initially attach this complaint to this discussion; it was added as such later by an uninvolved individual. Claiming that I am trying to "silence [you] and open up a new front in the above content dispute" is completely absurd and continued showing of bad faith. Jay eyem (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the diff showing my initial post on ANI. Here and here is the uninvolved user incorporating it into this argument. The diffs are clear, that wasn't my doing. And yes, your abusive language and bad faith arguments had gotten to the point where I felt it was necessary to bring it up at ANI, and it appears my concerns are shared. As Number 57 noted, this is not your first time dealing with issues like this. Responding to questions with reasoning is not bludgeoning. Linking individual users to a discussion is the clear definition of vote-stacking, which is covered under WP:CANVASS. You have, and continue to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive editing, and this "boomerang proposal" is another pretty clear example of that. No idea what you are proposing here. If an uninvolved admin would let me know, that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This user has harassed me and another user, vandalized and broke 3RR. Needs a block of at least 72 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked. bibliomaniac15 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
In case you losers didn't realize, I have virtually unlimited IPs where that one came from. Check the history of Quarantine and Freedom of movement. Losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.134.62 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know! We'll be on the lookout. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)
- Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
- I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
the guy definitely loves the word "loser"
– Could be Trump. EEng 07:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)- If that's true, it would be absolutely YUGE news! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- All IPSharkk.com 's IPs should be blocked for being the same as open proxies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: at some point we need to file a WP: LTA for him. Singing off for the night. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose per WP:DENY. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know about WP: DENY, but this clearly needs tracking. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's on prison now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly sounds like a LTA but who is the LTA using the IP address Dq209 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Block 108.32.50.49 ASAP -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly sounds like a LTA but who is the LTA using the IP address Dq209 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's on prison now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know about WP: DENY, but this clearly needs tracking. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose per WP:DENY. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: at some point we need to file a WP: LTA for him. Singing off for the night. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
- Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)
We could always make a new LTA, the loser vandal. This does seem like an LTA. The question is who? Or we could make a new LTA. This clearly is gonna be a problem for a while. Anyone making an LTA should link to this. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest a filter for this behaviour, with DatBot reporting filter triggers to AIV. Might be one of our older IP vandals, but identifying one specifically is a pointless fishing expedition in my opinion, and the time which would otherwise be used for this can be put to some other use. JavaHurricane 06:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will put up a repository of his common edit summaries and phrases when I have time, but for a start perhaps let the filter detect the word loser from ips and report it to aiv. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 10:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What am I even doing at this point? Is what I have in my sandbox usable or salvageable? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is now on Health Department -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If anything, IP addresses, linked by their contributions, are the most useful thing to collate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- We need to see how this goes. The vandal might have stopped. In that case, we can archive this section. I reported the abuse to IPSharkk. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- If anything, IP addresses, linked by their contributions, are the most useful thing to collate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is now on Health Department -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What am I even doing at this point? Is what I have in my sandbox usable or salvageable? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will put up a repository of his common edit summaries and phrases when I have time, but for a start perhaps let the filter detect the word loser from ips and report it to aiv. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 10:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
LTA?
I strongly think this might be an LTA. It might be an IPSharkk vandal, we can always report abuse to IPSharkk or whatever it's called. I don't say we file for LTA, but we make a note of IP's used. They are likely open proxies. I suggest we convert current blocks/make new blocks that are hardblocks for 6 months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some of these blocks could be extended, but they're mostly fairly dynamic so protection is going to be more useful. I think IPSharkk might actually have a response department, if you do wish to contact them. Personally I haven't come across evidence that IPSharkk is actually being used. However I do think it's no coincidence that 99.247.195.218 and 24.85.226.201 were previously used by Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: I believe it might be an open proxy. If that's the case, then they need to be blocked for months. And this could easily be a proxy. Try geolocating. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've no doubt they're open proxies. I'm just commenting on the appropriate length. Most will be entirely gone within a few days. Others not of course.. those are the interesting ones.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could the LTA be Blue Barette Bam? or is it a different LTA 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've no doubt they're open proxies. I'm just commenting on the appropriate length. Most will be entirely gone within a few days. Others not of course.. those are the interesting ones.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: I believe it might be an open proxy. If that's the case, then they need to be blocked for months. And this could easily be a proxy. Try geolocating. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(merging section named "Range block of IP-hopping vandal" as it's about the same IP) Isabelle 🔔 20:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone - over the past half hour or so I've been constantly having to revert an IP-hopping vandal on an assortment of different disease-related articles and I was wondering if there was a common range between the IPs, and if so, if it could be temporarily blocked. Here are the IPs they've used so far: User:73.85.202.178, User:66.158.213.197, User:108.215.70.164, User:71.238.143.181, User:72.76.174.204, User:24.130.9.49, User:24.128.106.154, User:187.152.120.49, and User:24.128.106.154. Cheers! — Chevvin 18:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Add User:75.83.182.59 to the list too... — Chevvin 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could someone do a REVDEL on the edits too?Citing (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- And another User:68.251.96.213. Vandal claims that he's bored during quarantine. Look out for his "Loser" statement. Transcendental (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Having dealt with Blue Barrette Bam IP socks earlier this year, I believe that the behaviour of these socks is consistent with that of the older socks of Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's the same old behaviour from April-May - using IP socks to post attacks on the TFA. It's Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- JavaHurricane is right - see Connie Glynn's revision history. I think there are more IPs that may need blocking in Prison. Pahunkat (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's the same old behaviour from April-May - using IP socks to post attacks on the TFA. It's Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Having dealt with Blue Barrette Bam IP socks earlier this year, I believe that the behaviour of these socks is consistent with that of the older socks of Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blue Barette Bam claims that they will stop if they test negative on their next COVID-19 test. I still would keep an eye out on their edits. Goose(Talk!) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Appears to now be vandalizing Nasopharyngeal swab Pahunkat (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why is the potential lta tag no longer in use? That thing was amazing. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is one of only few times. Why did the discussion become stale,is a better question? --98.116.128.15 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- GoatLordServant, looks like zzuuzz modified it as a result of this discussion at the help desk. Dylsss(talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah ok, but dang it! I was using it to track Blue Barette Bam! I believe his "famous" quotes were added to the filter and I could see where Bam went. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why is the potential lta tag no longer in use? That thing was amazing. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I have a dispute with user KIENGIR for a while [[30]], so far the discussion was very unproductive so I asked for a 3rd opinion. He makes accusations, when I give him a reply, he makes the same accusation, when I make the same reply he accuses me of "repetition", despite being merely the same reply to the same accusations he keeps making. The moment he loses the argument, he starts switching to ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, with the conversation leading nowhere. He has often misinterpreted me in the past, but this time he went one step forward. In the RFC posted above, the said twice that I said something I in fact did not say: [[31]] and [[32]]. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.
When in fact, I did no such thing. I wrote a reply with diffs explaining that I in fact did not: when I asked him for a source - [[33]] and when he replied not providing a source - [[34]]. He then posted one of his diffs as "evidence" that I indeed agreed with him - [[35]]. Where it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not a diff where you say that I said X. He then moved the goalpost, saying it was about an older source not this one, despite his original "funny you start to deny again I provided a source" being a direct reply to my "you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim", and the RFC being about this one.
Now he insists in a bravado that "the fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page", despite that not being the case. If that was the case, he could have easily posted a diff with my post, just like he posted a diff with his post. He is unable to provide diffs where I supposedly said what he claims I have said, because I in fact said no such thing. He is trying to lie that I said something I did not say to make me lose credibility in front of the RFC. I understand cases of misinterpretation either deliberate or by mistake, but this is completly another level, he is putting words into my mouth. What can I do? LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Relevant links: User talk:331dot § A user is putting words into my mouth, what can I do? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, you have not notified the user KIENGIR on their talk page (as the banner said when you edited the page). I have placed this notice for you. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG, ([36]).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
- And I have to add, the user again reiterated the casting aspersion what he was blocked for "He is trying to lie", other diffs are present in the one I already gave. It's enough also to check the his talk page, multiple warnings from admins, and the other talk pages encountered, bullying everybody, administrators ([37]), users ([38]), etc. lately he copy-pasting other user's comments and reflecting/inverting them, inlcuding WP policies and warnings others told him ([39]), this goes all along WP:TE, WP:LISTEN, more editors tried to always with extreme patience care about the user, but in the end all of us are wrong and evil, shall they be users or administrators (and I could present gazzilionths of other diffs for the aforementioned, but it would just tire all the community). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
- KIENGIR, I couldn't help noticing that, although you claim various things about LordRogalDorn, not a single one of your links is to a diff of something LordRogalDorn wrote. Would you please be so kind as to back up your descriptions of what another editor did with diffs showing the behavior described? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon:,
- - the first link I gave (the user copy pasted here what he wrote there contains the casting aspersion, which I highlighted. The prevoius block log you may check on the user's talk page and additional comments and links (in the first unblock request another editor became a "liar" around 4 times, in next around 9 times. After you see an extensive WP:NOTTHEM, milestones far from the reality.
- - the next other link directly shows conversation with others, including his posts
- - if you wish to see evidence for the copy-paste accusation attitudes, see talk of Hungarian irredentism, History of Transylvania, Origin of the Romanians, and lately very intesively in the already incited Hungary in World War II articles (and don't get scared, because you will meet an impossible walloftext, although more of us tried to shorten aswers ar far as possible...)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- No need to ping me. When I comment on a page it is on my watchlist. Also, I have not yet formed an opinion on which one of to is in the right. To do that, I need to look at the evidence, hence my request that you provide diffs. I have purposely not looked at LordRogalDorn's diffs because I don't want to see just one side of the story, but if your next response does not contain diffs with LordRogalDorn's signature I will have to assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims. Again, none of this assumes that LordRogalDorn has a case. I haven't looked at the evidence yet so I have no opinion on that yet.
- No, I am not going to read through an entire section that you link to. Either provide a diff with LordRogalDorn's name on it or it didn't happen. I know how to access the context, but first I need to see a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, but because you are not willing to see the diffs and evidence I provided (now you outlined you wish to see diffs with his signature), it does not mean your assumption is valid, because you just outlined you won't read an entire section, so in fact I work instead of you. But no problem, I'll pick of every issue one short demonstrative sample. A moment.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- I have to mention, last time, user KIENGIR deliberately misinterpreted a source and I knew that he knew it was a misinterpretation because we discussed that source. So I called him out for it. He told and admin and I got temporarily blocked for accusing another user of lying. In the appeal, I attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying, but the admin declined my appeal because it was too long and he was not going to read all that. I understand this, as I could have been more succint. I also understand that my comment regardless of truthfulness or evidence was unhelpful and unnecessary, I could and should have only sticked to proving the arguments of the other person wrong without any accusations about the person itself. But this is a completly different level, it's not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing.
- The diffs he brings up as "evidence" that I'm a bully are rather ironic. I was new to Wikipedia and tried to add something to an article. Another user opposed and we had a discussion. He stopped talking for 2 days saying something like "I'm done" at the end. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. Got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert, so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. But I considered it's not worth it so I dropped it. A few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, the same user opposed him again, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way. I had the right information, but didn't know the Wikipedia method.
- The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR. He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this. Beside other things that he refers to as "we". He only cherry picked a few that I previously explained, there are no gazzilionths.
- Anyway, this is what I meant about him going for ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself. As Guy Macon pointed out, he claimed a lot of things about me, but did not present a single diff where I said what he claims that I said. This is a reccuring theme for him, with making accusations and his evidence being "it's self-evident" or "you can just read above", being as vague as possible so he won't have to back up his declarations. You can probably see how defending myself is redundant at this point, as he can make accusations on a conveyor belt, which is why I hope you don't mind if I only defend myself when the admin tells me to defend myself in order to avoid future walls of text and not get too much off-topic. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, but because you are not willing to see the diffs and evidence I provided (now you outlined you wish to see diffs with his signature), it does not mean your assumption is valid, because you just outlined you won't read an entire section, so in fact I work instead of you. But no problem, I'll pick of every issue one short demonstrative sample. A moment.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- KIENGIR, I couldn't help noticing that, although you claim various things about LordRogalDorn, not a single one of your links is to a diff of something LordRogalDorn wrote. Would you please be so kind as to back up your descriptions of what another editor did with diffs showing the behavior described? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- And I have to add, the user again reiterated the casting aspersion what he was blocked for "He is trying to lie", other diffs are present in the one I already gave. It's enough also to check the his talk page, multiple warnings from admins, and the other talk pages encountered, bullying everybody, administrators ([37]), users ([38]), etc. lately he copy-pasting other user's comments and reflecting/inverting them, inlcuding WP policies and warnings others told him ([39]), this goes all along WP:TE, WP:LISTEN, more editors tried to always with extreme patience care about the user, but in the end all of us are wrong and evil, shall they be users or administrators (and I could present gazzilionths of other diffs for the aforementioned, but it would just tire all the community). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
- WP:BOOMERANG, ([36]).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
- Sorry about that, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For Guy Macon's request: On the exact issue here, sampled from here ([([40])]) The user told I did not provide a source in the article's talk ([41]), ([42]), also at AN3 ([43]), ([44]) (just a few samples from the many, the last diff - again a boomerang report, even contain the lying casting aspersions and reptititvely that I did not provide a source, etc.), although it has been always there ([45]). After the admin warned him ([46]), after he acknowledged I provided a source ([47]) (highlight, "yes you provided a source". Now, one month later, at another talk when I was referring back to this evidence, he responded ([48]) (highlight, "Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing. (...) although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN)" (in this you see also evidence for the copy-paste issue, since the second part of the sentence is what I directly told him before).
So after I faced him it is not a good thing after recurrent denial that I provided the source he again starts to deny it, although by admin pressure he finally acknowlegded I did....after, again in a counter-accusative rant ([49]) he again denied I provided a source, but foxily he cited in diffs from another recent discussion, in which he claimed a source (which anyway I don't have to provide since we have them already and that's all just about the user's fallacious interpretation), but it was unrelated to the discussion 1 month ago.
So now we have this boomerang report, when the user in a very lame way tries to coin the community and in fact he does what he is accusing me (despite I told him with experienced and diff-issue check-willing - huh, to even get through of those specified diff's walloftexts' - editors/admins he has no chance.
For further casting aspersions, see ([50]) or [51] (just search on the word lie) or previously this ([52]), but there would be much more. Guy, I hope you are satisfied and catched the issue.
(disclaimer, I just noticed meanwhile composing this, the user already put a long something, I will review it only now, may be the answer will built into this composition)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- ADDENDUM on the user's new "demonstration":
- - "attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying" -> WP:NOTTHEM, the user did not understand/acknowledge why he was blocked for, and now again uses this argumentation as an excuse, however I never lied, but it does not matter
- - "but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing" -> Sorry, to say that, epic fail as just here, recurrently
- - "He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this." -> ([53]) (Highlight -> "Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days")
- - "so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way" -> It will be reviewed, as the perpetrator seem to be an IP generic following the same argumentation as the user ([54]), while another IP which appears to be a sock anyway ([55]) was just blocked for 6 months.
- - "The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR." -> yes, maybe I am the devil incarnate.
- I really sorry I have to spend so much time with obvious issues and not happy editing, in the aforementioned pages in every (half?) year we encounter some very tendentious and enthusastic trolls which are consuming our precius time, but our patience are almost unlimited.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- Please, read the whole text from the diff provided by user KIENGIR in order to avoid cherry picking, [[[56]]: "You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration.". He provided a source. Not a source relevant on the subject at hand. We were talking back then, as well as right here, about the 1940 censuses. For those, I have provided 2 sources, while he provided no source.
- Admin pressure? wtf? Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured me to acknowledge your so called source. About his "highlight", is again a poor attempt to mislead by taking things out of context: it was part of that funny discussion. There were no three editors who tried to explain me a basic rule for days, and the admin acknowledged there were no 3 editors, but nonetheless he temorarly blocked me for reverting edits. I would like to ask a simple question to his out of context accusation: If 3 editors tried to explain me a basic rule for days, how come the guy who came after me to restore my edits explained 1 single rule, turns out he was right and my original edits were restored? There are 2 possibilties: (a) the 3 editors were wrong (b) there were no 3 editors. Go ahead and review them out of WP:REVENGE if that is what you wish, I don't think you will have any luck with it as the user who restored my edits quoted Wikipedia's policy simply and succintly: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". As for the other user who was blocked for 6 months, how is he relevant to our discussion? LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I really sorry I have to spend so much time with obvious issues and not happy editing, in the aforementioned pages in every (half?) year we encounter some very tendentious and enthusastic trolls which are consuming our precius time, but our patience are almost unlimited.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
My analysis of the the diffs KIENGIR just provided:
First link: Diff to something written by KIENGIR. Ignored.
Second link: Confirmed that LordRogalDorn asked for a source on 23:39, 11 September 2020
Looking at the context (the entire page as it existed at that time is easily accesses by clicking on the "Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020" link at the top), I see that it was preceded by
"Can you list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification? -- posted by LordRogalDorn 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"Surprising you enter into issues you don't know exactly, although they are widely known by those who analyzed the subject. E.g. [1] --posted KIENGIR at 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
With a link to "A történelem tanúi - Erdély - bevonulás 1940 p 56. - The witnesses of history - Transylvania - Entry 1940 p. 56. - ISBN 978-963-251-473-4"
(I have no idea at this point whether that ref contains "the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification", but no doubt someone will quote the exact words.)
Third link: confirmed that 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDornrote:
"It's impossible to gain consensus with a non-cooperative user who won't offer verificaiton for his concerns but at the same time is against edits whose sources have been listed. ... Since you are either unwilling or unable to back up your counter-claims with evidence, your concerns are not legitimate for they are based on empty words alone. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Fourth link. Did not read. It's an edit warring report, I am not investigating edit warring at this time, and KIENGIR has already established that LordRogalDornrote asked for a source. Moving on in hope of seeing the answer.
Fifth link: In [57] KIENGIR wrote about the "1930 Romanian census" and the "1941 Hungarian census" arguing that both should have been included.
So it appears that there is a disagreement as to what sources to use, and that there are sources for two censuses. but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Please do so calmly, factually, and with zero added personal comments. We already know your opinions about each other.
Sixth link: The claims "the admin warned him" is misleading. The result of the edit warring report was:
- "Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is risky to charge that another editor is lying. User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, WP:RSN is available."
Seventh link: confirmed that at 15:00, 13 September 2020 LordRogalDorn wrote
"You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration. Which you didn't do. We already talked about this but you won't listen. The 1930 and 1941 censuses were real, but so were the 1940 one. So why use the 1930 and 1941 ones when the 1940 are available and more accurate since the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940."
I stopped there. My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source. It is clearly a disagreement about which sources to use.
I am not seeing anything here that requires sanctions, and I recommend closing this ANI case. I advise both KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn to completely stop saying anything about the other editor (clearly doing that isn't working out for either of you), that you make all of your reposes way shorter, and that you each hake your point and then shut up rather than a lengthy back-and-forth where you repeat the same points.
I recommend a NEUTRALLY WORDED inquiry an the reliable sources noticeboard about what censuses the include and how much WP:WEIGHT to gave to each of them. On the RS noticeboard, you should both do your best to imitate emotionless robots who are only capable of discussing facts and figures.
Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the user's reaction:
- - There is no cherrypicking, I told in advance the collection is not complete, just fulfilled what Guy asked, just becase you declared something about the source which just your own sepculation and you keep telling I did not provide a source does not change the fact I provided even more.
- - "Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured" -> The link is inside the diff above, only after this admin warnings you finally declared I provided a source, whilst denying it before around 5 times
- -""highlight", is again a poor attempt" -> it was a help to Guy to guide through huge walloftext, nothing misleading on them, meet the facts
- - it is fact the three editors explained you something, it is linked as well above and traceable in the relevant talk pages, why do you think you denying evidence will lead to somewhere? Again you expect some editors/admins will not check them?
- - There is not any WP:REVENGE, you are the one who is making reports and abusing other editors
- - "how is he relevant to our discussion?" -> you mentioned that case
- - - - -
- For Guy:
- - What you wrote in brackets, yes contains
- - "12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn wrote" -> denial again of the fact I provided a source, with other invalid speculations
- - fourth diff you chose not to read, (highlight) -> "such as refusing to provide sources" (so again denying I provided a source)
- - Fifth link -> I provided further source
- -""census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"" -> no, not the same things, on the other hand on this issue the user did not ask futher source since then, the current issue here that he started to deny again what I have already provided, etc., as I detailed more upwards
- - not it is not misleading, read it properly, you mistaken something:
- "LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you,"
- -7th link and your comments -> I basically agree with your summarization, however, but what is after the user's "You provided a source..." comment, it is just the user's inaccurate speculation which has been already demonstrated (the problem was he was denying this and hence the whole convesation about this occured)
- -I restricted myself to the shortest anwers possible, but when the users denying reality and I present earlier evidence of the opposite, it is nothing ad hominem, but if someone is consenstently denying the existence of diffs how else should it be demonstrated? If you have noticed, the whole discussions are about the user is denying reality, and making inverted/counter accusations towards others, while mostly never acknowledging any mistake he did, but continuing casting aspersions. Dispute reolutions are ongoing, the sources we have, the problem is the user tries to draw or invent things which are in fact not represented or related or even said, and the issues are mainly is not about which source to use primarily, but the user's problematic, self-invented assertions.
- "cooperating, respect and dignity" -> A basic rule of our community, which to the other user should follow, since I've spent a horrible amount of time of caring about him with extreme patience, explaining him, but I did not get any appreciation, just tendentious and disruptive accusations, casting aspersions, etc. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and at a point if user refuses evidence and the existence of diffs and tries to respond with manipulative denial, it cannot always continue like that.
- Summa summarum, besides all of these, I disagree with you on no sactioning, the reiterated casting aspersions about "lying" has to have a consequence (recidivious), along with this boomerang report when I was again accused about something I did not do, however the opposite happened. It's very annoying.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- Comment thank you Guy Macon for taking the time to look into this, and I agree this content dispute should be closed without action. @KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn: even after looking at your diffs and reading your complaints, it's difficult for an outsider to understand what this argument is about. In the future, I'd suggest that you provide a short description of the content dispute so that uninvolved editors can provide their advice. Based on these two recent diffs [58][59], I assume the conflict might be summarized as follows:
Early in the Second World War Hungary was awarded or captured ethnically mixed territories in Romania and Slovakia, and lost those territories at the war's conclusion. Since that time, the ethnic compositions of those territories have been disputed: for instance a Hungarian nationalist narrative suggests that the captured territories contained larger numbers of ethnic Hungarians, while Romanian or Slovak nationalist narratives suggest the territories contained fewer Hungarians. Today at Hungary in World War II and Hungarian irredentism, we are disputing whether to emphasize sources and census data collected between 1930 and 1945 that support the presence of more or fewer Hungarians and other ethnicities in these territories (link to sources). Outside comment is appreciated.
- Is that accurate? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you both can contextualize these disputes, other editors can more easily help you. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- A "census" is not the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return". The former is about the 1940s censues, the latter is about what happened between 1940 and the 1941 census. When we started our discussion, I originally made this claim [[60]]. He asked for verification [[61]] and I provided verification [[62]], while also mentioning the oddity of the 1941 census as a separate issue. The questionability of the 1941 census does not confirm in infirm the 1940s censues, they are separated issues with separated soruces. He did provide a source for the mass return of Hungarians after Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary, the one you mentioned and the one I confirmed here [[63]]. But no source for his refusal to accept my sources for the 1940s censuses, as I mentioned in the same comment [[64]]. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). As I suppose it stands to common sense that if you want to contradict a scholarly source you should do so with another scholarly source, not personal opinion or OR. Which he did not provide to this day.
- In our recent discussion [[65]], the subject was the 1940s censues, not the 1941 census (notice the flow of the discussion: "the earlier mentioned (official censuses) don't have the percentages oscillate near 50%. We have the 1940 censues which clearly states: 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian according to the Hungarian census, and 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian according to the Romanian census, see the connection to Hitchins" followed by "you identify estimations as censuses", this is clearly a discussion about the 1940s censuses). For which he provided no source, but said more than once that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.
- Concerning the 1941 census with the "the official agreements and mass return", it's worth pointing out that not only the source he provided, but also his own words [[66]] speak of the Hungarians that returned after 2nd Vienna Award, a fact that he now denies and does not wish to be mentioned in the article next to the 1941 census.
- It is not a disagreement about which sources to use, because we have 2 separate issues: the validity of the 1940s censues, and the Hungarian migration between 1940 and 1941 leading to completly different numbers in the 1941 census. He provided a source for the latter, but provided no source for the former. Yet he insists that he provided a source for the former and I acknowledged it. In the discussion we have here, he misleadingly used my diff when I acknowledged his source about the mass return, to make it seem like I acknowledged his source about 1940s population.
- Edit: replying to Darouet as well. As you can probably see, the argument goes deep. But here specifically is about that fact that user KIENGIR put words into my mouth. He said twice that I said something I in fact did not say. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it. In summary: We were talking in an RFC about the validity of saying in the article that Northern Transylvania in 1940 was "divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians", because according to the sources I provided, it was not even. While he said: [[67]] and [[68]] that not only he provided sources in support of this, but I acknowledged them. My issue here is specifically about the fact he insisted I said something I did not say. In his defense, user KIENGIR pointed out to this diff [[69]] where I acknowledged he provided a source. But in that diff, I acknowledged he provided a source on a different subject, not on the subject we were discussing in the RFC.
- I never denied that he did not provide sources in his life. I denied that he provided a source and denied that I acknowledged it on the subject we were discussing at that moment in the RFC.
- I disagree that the dispute should be closed without action because at the end of the day, he did claim I said something I in fact did not say, even after I clearly told him I did not say it. But I understand that this is not an issue about the deeper argument, if we could call it that. And for that I agree with your summarized version for content dispute, where is the best place to place it? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Darouet:, Thank you for your comment (however why do you think recidivious casting aspersions are ok?).
Any outsider will deal hardly with this issue, since as you see, over 70% of the disputes and page content is about the user's misinterpretations and accusations (where you are not even sure if you provide or incite/explain evidence, will have an effect but continous denial you meet)
Short description of the content dispute is something hard, the one who is interested sadly has to crawl through the conversation, on the other hand I am not sure the content issue should be imported here, because the result may be again 80 km long copy-paste walloftext, which we are all fed up, dispute resolution is already ongoing in the respective pages, keep them there.
In fact, you grabbed the cutting edge diffs appropriately, however your summarization is a bit broader of the current issue (and it is about not necesarily nationalist narratives). Very shortly, the user wishes to add POV and misleading content, as well insist a Romanian majority in fact we don't know exactly what was then, but what we know the population was etnnically mixed, divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (other side-by edits of him which I don't detail now are on similar problematic patterns). At one page there is short summary without data and after another section census data, at the other just a short summary reference cited with a link. In my edit I added the Romanian census next to the Hungarian census, thus I fulfilled the neutrality part, the user disputed the significant Romanian population remark above (I don't detail the very astonishing (?) argumentation on the talk about this), but I already proposed to write instead ethnically mixed. In the other page, since the summarization is short, does not take sides and vast details are out of scope, I don't see a reason to change. These issues are already handled by an RFC, in fact from small, flea issues an elephant have been created.
(disclaimer, now I noticed the user posted something, will review now and update)(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- @LordRogalDorn and KIENGIR: I appreciate that you both are rightfully upset about behavior. It seems to me that this dispute has gotten overly personal. I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and focus on the issue of scholarship. One possible resolution to the conflict is to describe how historians disagree on the ethnic composition of these territories, and to describe the historical and geopolitical implications of opposing viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Darouet:
- UPDATE:
- unfortunately the user's recent post is just what I was concerning, importing copy-paste partially outdated issues here. The user reiterated the identical WP:LISTEN issue I draw the attention ([70]), which was one month ago, the denial of again I did provided a source is false, since I did (diffs above, acknowledged by Guy the claim and accusation has been false). The user funnily is again saying I am putting words in his mouth, of course not. Blatant boomerang, as he again comes up with a diff which was a response to the root issue of this report; claiming I did not provide source 1 month ago (which I did) has nothing to with a recent issue (claiming a source for a recent issue where we have in fact sources; the lame trial of explaining out his failed accusation, that is an impossible contradiction, just reaffirming the invalidity of this report). So he starts again...
- Darouet it is not a mutual issue as you describe, I concentrate on the facts, while demonstrating the other users manipulative accusations has nothing to do with personal issues (just explained). I am the victim of this, and the issue is apparently obvious, amazing he tired again the same trick. Really boring (and in front of the whole community, and proof again he is not willing to acknowlegde anything, despite the evidence shown and even reviewed by others. So, WP:LISTEN, WP:TE, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- Comment: This is basically a heated content dispute between good faith editors; this is an issue for an RfC or DRN, not ANI. Since I think both editors are trying to act in good faith, I think Guy's statement above is the best advice, "Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity." I'd add both editors should refrain from using the word "lying"; even if it is true, it is most often counterproductive to resolving a dispute. Comment on content, not contributors is sage counsel we all should heed. I propose closing this as not the appropriate forum. // Timothy :: talk 18:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TimothyBlue:,
- Hi, I think you did not read well the issues, unfortunately the other editor does not practise good faith, please read the evidence entirely. I never used the phrase lying towards him, while he did around 22 times accumulated, to more editors, even after sanctioned for this. I think anyone who gives a comment should entirely read the details, the good faith approach in normal circumstances the dispute between two editors would just an overheat would be understandable, but the evidence is hardly striking, even repetitevely (even on this report). If the user won't learn from this issue, he will just continue casting aspersions and manipulative accusations, without acknowledging anything, as it has been so far (while he sees other users barely will check all the details of the walloftext because of time , so better will likely take neutral stance).
- Please reiterate Guy's summarization:
- "My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source" -> in other words, the report was a boomerang, useless waste of time.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- Reply: KIENGIR, Your comment above about me, is an example of what is not helpful. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TimothyBlue:, I appreciate you, but without appropriate investigation was not really helpful to insist on both editors what is in fact a problem of one.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- To be clear - your accusation that I am commenting before having read and thought about the issue is an example of what is not helpful. It is insulting and especially irritating after having spent time reading walls of text. // Timothy :: talk 18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TimothyBlue:, I never said you would commenting before having read and thought about the issue, I said entirely read the details. However, even if you read through everything, then you could not conclude what you concluded. I appreciate and respect your efforts, but not seeing what I have drawn the attention is problem, especially when I am recurrently insulted and accused, though the counter-evidence have been already presented. I hope you understand me.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- To be clear - your accusation that I am commenting before having read and thought about the issue is an example of what is not helpful. It is insulting and especially irritating after having spent time reading walls of text. // Timothy :: talk 18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Funny how user KIENGIR complains about "outdated issues here" when the original discussion is 1 month old and he previously brought up here an old discussion I had on another page, not related to him or this discussion, only to discredit me. Where those not "outdated issues"? In the same comment, Guy asked whether is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? And invited me to describe exactly what I was asking for a source for. I replied that no and explained above that I was asking KIENGIR for a counter-source to justify his denial of the 1940s censues. In his reply, user KIENGIR is again trying to move the goalpost from the 1940s censues discussion, to the 1941 mass migration. Because he did provide a source for the 1941 mass migration, but not for the 1940s censues. And the reason I made this complain is that he argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it, for the 1940s censues; [[71] and the reply [[72]]. In the first comments in this discussion, he spammed accusation after accusation, now he claims he is the victim of this.
- In the meanwhile, user KIENGIR made a reply. I would like to remind him that in the same comment Guy said ""My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source"", he also said: but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Which I did now.
- Also, please check the conversation after the diff [[73]] that he uses as "evidence" that I acknowledged his source in our recent discussion. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). He replied [[74]] "It's not about countering a source, on the other hand you should drop that fallacious assertion that 1941 census would biased" and I replied that [[75]] "If you don't have a source that counters my original source, then on what grounds you disagree with the 1940 censuses? and why you consider that disagreement valid? as in, justify your personal opinion with facts". I hope this shows I was asking him for a 1940s censuses source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reply: LordRogalDorn, I would read my comment above and then quietly let this close without any further comment. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now at least the community see the inverted copy-paste accusations, as this user tries to operate with the same trick which has been already debunked at by the demonstration of "03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))", reinforced by Guy's summarization. Even citing in Guy's other remark, which is not related to main issue of this report, but was a question, indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh). This user seem never acknowledge what he did wrong, but enthusiatically continues the same style. Now at least here it is reinforced as well, pity....(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- If "indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh", can you then please repost the link of the diff where you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it? Just as you said I did on the RFC[[76]] page? You say there is a link here, but I haven't seen any.
- To TimothyBlue, I appreciate that you took the time to read this huge wall of text to understand the matter, I can see it's not an easy task. However, from experience, I can tell editor KIENGIR is not acting in good faith, as evidence, his attempt to put words into my mouth in an RFC discussion. User KIENGIR's defense was moving the goal post, taking out of context a comment where I acknowledged another source not related the subject at hand. It is the equivalent of we talking about Disney+ and him posting a diff where I acknowledged he provided a source on Cartoon Network as evidence that I acknowledged he provided a source Disney+.
- I came here at the recommendation of an admin, as I don't know what is the best place for this issue. But at least in this particular discussion, I am not reporting about the vailidity of his claims or my claims in our debate. I reported solely the fact that he said I did something that I didn't do. We can discuss the vailidity of his claims and my claims on other pages, this is only for his attempt to put words in my mouth. I have made serveral attempts to stop fighting and start cooperating, but please just count the number of accusations from each user and see who's the one to make more. The point I'm trying to make, is that, although I would like to and tried to on occasion, it's difficult when the other user spams ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation on a a conveyor belt. He is talking more about me than about the subject at hand.
- I also understand that the word "lying" is most of the time counter-productive, but this is not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing. When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do? Anyway, I'm not willing to continue this wall of text discussion of mostly off-topic things if this is what you fear, I wished to keep this short too, I only replied for admin Guy as he asked me to, as replying to every one of KIENGIR's accusation would ressult in even more wall of texts and off-topic, so I will only do it at the request of the admin. Admin Guy will likely come back and look at my response, as I replied his question and explained why the other user's defense is misleading. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am not intending to play your games further, when you try to desperately escape by rendering lengthy discussions and deteriorations from the subject. Above there is everything, your denial and competence issues are not my problem, and also others asked this thread should not be continued. Regardless what evidence you'll face, you'll just continue and try to turn the world outside of it's four corners. This is the last time a provide you a diff for a content issues which does not belong here (and already posted here anyway ([77]), which proves there was no census in 1940 (and I never had to provide anything for something that did not happen), anyway your new foxy inventions to create new claims of sources/acknowlegdement will not help you to escape from this serious boomerang issue.
Your last walloftext blurb of yours just reinforce everything I said, you just can't stop this behavior ("Cartoon Network", "Disney+", amazing (!)
If you continue further an administrator should block you without further warning for failing WP:LISTEN, WP:TE and the other disruptive behavior you just reinforced here. Enough, I am done here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
- The diff you provided as evidence that you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it [[78]] has some problems: (1) Its your diff, not my diff, it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not one of your diffs. (2) Your source is off-topic, I was not talking about the 1930 census whose ressults were published later. In fact, if you look, you will notice that the numbers from the 1930 and 1940 census are different. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- KIENGIR, even if LordRogalDorn is lying, be the bigger man. Concentrate on the issues, not the person with an alternative viewpoint. As has been said, it is possible to have diametrically opposed views to another editor over an issue, but still be respectful of them and their right to express their view. There have been good suggestions in this thread re resolving the issue keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Stating both sides of the issue and letting the reader decide is a good way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @LordRogalDorn: here's some info/advice: first, just so you're not under any misapprehensions, not everyone commenting here is an admin (I'm not); the editors who have commented here so far who are admin are Dreamy Jazz and Mjroots. (Admin highlighter helps distinguish.)
- Second, there comes a time when you've tried to work things out with another editor and you're just hitting a brick wall. You have reached that point in this dispute. Just forget about that editor; you don't need to convince every single editor here that your edit is an improvement. You need consensus, not unanimity. So just work the content dispute resolution system, instead of trying to convince one particular editor. You asked: "When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do?" Ignore it, that's what.
- Third, go make the edit you want to make, whatever it is. If it's reverted, don't reinstate it or edit war. Instead, go to the talk page and start an WP:RFC proposing the edit (or if it's not a matter of one edit, proposing whatever it is you want to propose). Make the RFC question short (like one sentence if possible) and neutral (like "Should this edit made" with a link to the diff of the edit that was reverted), and then post a !vote, "Support as proposer..." with your reasons. Let anyone who wants to oppose, oppose, including Kiengir. Don't respond to Kiengir no matter what they write in that RFC. Let other editors voice their opinions, discuss it with them if need be, but don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and basically let the RFC take its course and decide the outcome of the content dispute. While the RFC is running, go work on something else. If you make another edit elsewhere that is also reverted, repeat this procedure for each such edit. (Except try not to launch too many RFCs at the same time.) If you decide to follow this and have questions about formatting or whatever, feel free to ask on my talk page. Lev!vich 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Lev!vich. Let me be blunt. Both parties have been asked by several people to stop saying things about each other. If either of you continues this behavior, even if the person described is as evil as you say and even if everything you say is 100% true, it is extremely likely that an administrator will simply WP:TOPICBAN you because you have shown that you are unable to control yourself. It won't be me that topic bans you -- I am an ordinary editor, not an administrator -- but if I see further personal comments I may end up recommending such a topic ban. Consider this to be a golden opportunity; if you suddenly start acting like an emotionless robot who only (and briefly!) talks about the issues at hand without saying anything bad about the other person and they keep trashing you, chances are that any sanctions will be one-way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Continued disruption
I just looked at the edit history of both of the above users after they got the above advice:
KIENGIR:
- 22:14, 16 October:[79] This single edit contained a fair amount of saying bad things about LordRogalDorn, but this was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. I checked the entire history after that without finding any comments about LordRogalDorn other than asking me to look into this.
LordRogalDorn:
- 07:14, 17 October 2020 [80]: "The other user is taking sides by attempting to go for a middle ground logical fallacy... not only this is OR, but sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. He tries to hide his POV by claiming the NPOV version is POV."
- 07:59, 17 October 2020[81]: "This discussion was already over when the other user started making the same fallacious arguments that were already discussed and disproved in the other page. I'm aware it's impossible to reason with him due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE and failure to WP:LISTEN. When he made the same accusations he repeatedly makes on other pages, dispite substantial evidence of the opposite being clear for everyone to see, I merely gave him the same reply. Once that was done, there was no reason to play his game of off-topic mirror accusations. "
I would also note that LordRogalDorn is now in a fight with Borsoka: [82]
My recommendations:
It appears that KIENGIR is capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments, but LordRogalDorn is not capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments. So I recommend:
- A topic ban for LordRogalDorn from the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed.
- A caution issued to KIENGIR saying that we appreciate him disengaging and that we expect him to continue talking about content and not about other editors.
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- And now LordRogalDorn is removing the comments of other editors who he is in a content dispute with:[83]
- I am not the only one to notice. EdJohnston wrote:[84]
- "It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions."
- --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Defending the clear WP:TPOC violation by arguing that the rules don't apply to them.[85] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The other user, KIENGIR, made the diff you posted [[86]] after the discussion above. And your argument was that it was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. But in my case, the comments you posted were made the following morning, yet in my case you did not consider whether I may have not read the advice yet.
- My first [[87]] diff, except for the POV part, contains nothing personal about KIENGIR. There is truly no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was "near equal". And to argue that because the census before that showed one thing, and the census after that showed another, then the correct ressult must be the middle between the two censuses is indeed the Middle Ground Logical Fallacy, it's not a personal attack, it's merely stating logic.
- While the discussion with Borsoka had no personal attacks and was a disagreement on Wikipedia's policy.
- You could of course argue that after that comment [[88]] user KIENGIR stopped making any personal comments, but the same is true for me [[89]] when I saw that he has stopped making them.
- And the reason I attempted to remove the comments [[90]] was already stated here [[91]] and here [[92]]: "the reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive". I understand now that it's not allowed, but the reason I made it was not to distort information or something similar that could be implied.
- My argument here [[93]] was not that the rules don't apply to me. In fact, if you read the whole diff, you can see that I never said or implied that "the rules don't apply to me". If you read the whole diff, you'll find that at the end of it I looked for an alternative way of doing this, removing the huge wall of text without destroying previously made comments. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two different things. I and others advised you and KIENGIR to stop trashing each other and in fact to stop talking about each other entirely. This is about you violating WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments.[94] And now you are searching for "an alternative way" to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments. It isn't your place to decide what comments made by the person you are in a fight with should be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the first thing: As mentioned above, I did stop. I didn't stop immediately after you posted the comment, and neither did KIENGIR. In his case, you argued that he may have not read the advice yet. In my case, you didn't even consider that. It was not a comment about him, it was a comment about your judgment based on which you made the recommendations.
- For the second thing: You can interpret the last part as "searching for an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments" or "searching for an alternative way to remove the huge wall of text without deleting other people's comments", it's entierly up to the reader's interpretation. But if you look at the context (ie: I only removed the comments of us trash talking each other and kept the ones where actual arguments were made, I started the comment on the diff with "you are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed", and perhaps the most obvious: I clearly declared my intentions and reason for doing this on WP:TEAHOUSE when I asked this question, which was done before I removed the answers) I believe one interpretation has more weight than the other. I broke WP:TPOC by removing other people's comments, my mistake, but after I realised that I broke WP:TPOC I didn't do it again and for sure I wasn't looking for "alternative ways to violate WP:TPOC", what would even be the point of that? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. You were "searching for an alternative way to remove the huge wall of text [that contains other people's comments] without deleting other people's comments." Thanks for explaining that. You still don't see the problem with removing a "wall of text" that just happens, by an amazing coincidence, to contain comments by the person you are in a fight with. Yes, KIENGIR does get wordy. So do you. How would you feel if KIENGIR decided that your comments were "a wall of text" and deleted them? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you would've got it, you wouldn't be sarcastic about it. Consider this: "you are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed", what do you think, do I see or still not see the problem? If you really look at it, you'll see that I didn't delete only KIENGIR as you keep saying, I deleted the whole conversation, that means my comments as well. And I didn't delete the most recent comments of both of us, so the conversation could keep going. I know now that you're not allowed to, but since you asked: If KIENGIR would delete the comments of us exclusively accusing each other while keeping the ones where arguments were made, I will be fine with it. There are ways to remove wall of texts without deleting the comments, such as achieves or an apendics sub-section, maybe others too, but I don't know whether either or those are allowed on Wikipedia, so I asked. Is that so hard to understand? LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- And once again, we see the problem that LordRogalDorn is incapable of seeing. Consider the sentence "If KIENGIR would delete the comments of us exclusively accusing each other while keeping the ones where arguments were made, I will be fine with it". That would be against Wikipedia's policies. The only situation where you could delete all of the comments accusing each other would be if you have the express permission of everyone who's comments are to be deleted, and even then the actual selection and deletion really should be done by uninvolved third party, not by one of the editors involved in the fight. Deleting your own comments does not give you permission to delete other editor's comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- - You asked me how I would feel, not whether or not it's against Wikipedia's policy. I replied how I would feel, and you use that as evidence for what? That I'm "incapable of seeing it's against Wikipedia policy"? It's not like I said "I know now that you're not allowed to, but since you asked" in the comment you just replied to. But let's ignore all that because it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want. From the start of this conversation, my point about the deletion of comments was that I haven't done it to distort information or break rules (in bad faith), I didn't do it again (as I realised it was against the rules) and for I wasn't looking for "alternative ways to violate WP:TPOC". Not that the deletion of comments was right. I think I was pretty clear on this. So why you lecture me on something I already acknowledged in previous comments that I did wrong and that I shouldn't have done, what are you trying to prove with this?
- - Wikipedia has this principle of assuming good faith WP:AFG, I don't think you have lived up to that, though maybe not intentionally. In the diff about which you said it means "searching for an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC", there are 2 possible interpretations entierly up to the reader. I understand if you were uncertain "it could be this, or could be that". But you jumped straight for the bad faith version. Just like in the other talk you found an excuse for KIENGIR, but not for me, despite the same excuse you found for him being equally valid for me. In his case, you argued that he may have not read the advice yet. In my case, you didn't even consider that. It's a matter of judgment based on personal belief and opinion about me, not based on evidence, equal treatment or presumption of innocence. In this talk, after you jumped directly for the bad faith version, I told you about the context. Even with the context, you still insist on the bad faith version. And despite how many times I told you that what I did was wrong, you still try to frame me as being incapable of seeing I was wrong. Your judgement doesn't seem exactly impartial, and I'm not saying that as a personal attack or criticism, it's just something for you to consider.
- - On your accusation of bad faith, let's throw the presumption of innocence WP:AFG and context [[95]]. [[96]] out of the window:
- Consider this sentence: "You are right that stealing is wrong, but I need to find a way to get food for my familiy, do you have an alternative way of doing this?", is the person in question asking for an alternative way of stealing or an alternative way of getting food? The whole point of "stealing" was "getting food for my family", that was the goal. So it's likely the person is asking for alternative ways to meet their goals.
- Now consider the same person is asking this the cop who just caught him stealing. Which one of them is more likely? Is that person seriously asking the cop for advice on new ways to steal?
- Replace "stealing" with "removing other people's comments", "getting food of my family" with "removing the wall of text", and you have my case.
- Not to mention that, how difficult can it be to find other ways to steal? or in my case, how difficult can it be to find other ways to break WP:TPOC? if that's what I wanted to do.
- - I know "removing the wall of text" is not exactly like "getting food of my family", but neither is "removing other people's comments" like "stealing", the point I'm trying to make is about semantics. I know that no matter what I say won't believe me, which is why I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just to base your judgement on evidence, equal treatment and presumption of innocence. Not to do me any favor but because that's how a fair judgement is supposed to be. But to be honest, given the above I feel like the sentence was already set and my long text of wall here is useless. Why am I even wasting time? So go ahead and ban because "I clearly showed I continued the personal attacks with KIENGIR while he probably didn't read the advice yet", "I am incapable of seeing what I did wrong and won't listen", and not only that I still can't see what I did wrong, but "I argued that the rules don't apply to me" and even had the guts to ask the same person who reverted my comment deletion for "an alternative way to violate WP:TPOC" if that is what you want, and end this show trial. I'm done replying to this. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you would've got it, you wouldn't be sarcastic about it. Consider this: "you are right that other editor's comments shouldn't be removed", what do you think, do I see or still not see the problem? If you really look at it, you'll see that I didn't delete only KIENGIR as you keep saying, I deleted the whole conversation, that means my comments as well. And I didn't delete the most recent comments of both of us, so the conversation could keep going. I know now that you're not allowed to, but since you asked: If KIENGIR would delete the comments of us exclusively accusing each other while keeping the ones where arguments were made, I will be fine with it. There are ways to remove wall of texts without deleting the comments, such as achieves or an apendics sub-section, maybe others too, but I don't know whether either or those are allowed on Wikipedia, so I asked. Is that so hard to understand? LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. You were "searching for an alternative way to remove the huge wall of text [that contains other people's comments] without deleting other people's comments." Thanks for explaining that. You still don't see the problem with removing a "wall of text" that just happens, by an amazing coincidence, to contain comments by the person you are in a fight with. Yes, KIENGIR does get wordy. So do you. How would you feel if KIENGIR decided that your comments were "a wall of text" and deleted them? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two different things. I and others advised you and KIENGIR to stop trashing each other and in fact to stop talking about each other entirely. This is about you violating WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments.[94] And now you are searching for "an alternative way" to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments. It isn't your place to decide what comments made by the person you are in a fight with should be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Defending the clear WP:TPOC violation by arguing that the rules don't apply to them.[85] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition
——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——
I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.
Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes
" of other editors.)
Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.
I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).
- The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a
permanent(this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu workingon my draft and future articles(already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a
- non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [97], and this [98], and this [99]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. EEng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests
Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.
I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.
There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?
Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- My advice to
cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening
didn't penetrate, I guess. EEng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Lev!vich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Lev!vich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- My advice to
- I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't
entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia
is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't
- I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I know quite well what the community does and does not accept
, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Lev!vich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. EEng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't be too impressed. I was pretty sure he'd blow himself up with his suicide vest so I'd get all the Gunga Din credit without the headache of having to actually deal with him in the future, and my crystal ball did not fail me [100]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. EEng 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. EEng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
Request for Boomerang site ban
It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Re-blocked. Good god, I'll never get back the time I spent slogging through the above. What a life. It's obvious that Eissink has not lived up to the promises that were the basis for their unblock in May 2019, where they for instance said "I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal."[101] The unblocking admin, Huon, warned them at the time: "Should the previous behaviour recur, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again, and getting unblocked again would be far more difficult". Yup. I have indeffed again, based on Eissink's personalising of disputes, as can be seen in this very ANI discussion as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, which Eissink, according to his own statement above, took part in purely in revenge against The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC).
- Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- +1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Bish, you beat me to the punch. This was a timesink of the highest kind, and we don't need an editor like this here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- +1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support siteban. Thanks to Bish for stopping the immediate disruption. This is now Eissink's second indef on enwiki, plus they're indef'd on nlwiki; seems to meet the criteria for a site ban, and if disruption occurs again on some other project, a cban here will probably make a global lock easier. Lev!vich 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed (but of course I always agree with Bish). Is this still necessary? Indef-blocked with TPA revoked is essentially site-banned, is it not? Does a formal site ban serve any distinction at this point other than officially making him persona non grata? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Lev!vich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as
a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole
[102]. We've seen this pattern from him over and over and over. It's the way he is. He's harassed and abused people at multiple projects, and meta. No moresecondthirdfourthchances. Done. EEng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as
- As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Lev!vich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support siteban though this editor is now blocked with TPA revoked, I think a siteban is still appropriate. The personal attack they made on their talk page after being blocked and the modification of another users comment as a "joke", when it modified the meaning of said sentence to imply the said user thinks their writing is unintelligible, on top of the other issues / personal attacks they have made, pushes me to support a site ban. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support siteban Eissink managed to get out of an indef block once before, so let's make it official this time. This comment, which is clueless on multiple levels, was enough to send me over the edge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:
- An editor:
I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around.
- Eissink:
Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia.
- An editor:
- EEng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? EEng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well if that finger is in a dike please don't have them remove it. We don't want to be responsible for any national catastrophes. EEng 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC) That's d-i-k-e. No tasteless jokes, please.
- EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? EEng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:
- Support siteban Nope. That comment shows this isn't someone we want editing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support siteban Just in case it wasn't clear. EEng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support siteban to prevent another admin from unilaterally overturning the block, as unlikely as that may be. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support siteban This user had their second chance and blew it spectacularly. Going out with a parting insult just proves they are WP:NOTHERE and should not be a part of this community. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln
Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.
Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:
- First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
- Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
- Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11
What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[103][104].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)]
Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.
- I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary to date
My it's gone quiet. TL;DR perhaps. In summary, then: Three highly experienced core members of a significant WikiProject (WikiProject Aircraft) have come here to complain about a new editor. "His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings.", "this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION.", "The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words." -- none of them my words.
Two admins have responded. Tide rolls has criticised my wording here but not followed up their shallow-skimming opinion on the issue itself. Swarm also failed to do their homework and chose to believe the disruptive editor, for reasons which they remain silent on despite clear in-your-face evidence to the contrary. "I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue" - not my words again, but I share the sentiment wholeheartedly. When I say to you both that Your personal obsessions are devoid of factual nature, you should stop your obstreperous obfuscation, the guy should be let off to avoid offending the profound dignity of the almighty Wiki Gods Tide Rolls and Swarm, whatever their actual names, it seems that fiction is acceptable and fact is not to said Wiki Gods, and [assuming you now censure me for all that] Tide Rolls and Swarm you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself, you will of course be quite happy about that and not regard it as any way insulting, injurious, or contrary to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- because you are not sloppy hypocrites, are you, you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there, and stand by the utter crap words of profound wisdom you wrote straight afterwards. Right?
Hey, can a real admin do something about this, please? Ban me for whatever takes your fancy if it helps you sleep at night, but do something about the guy who came up with all those insults in the first place, that's all I an asking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're doing a good impression of the editor about which you complained. Tiderolls 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Following a comment I made at the aircraft project I was attacked by Mark Lincoln for not agreeing with him, these have been linked above and I was accused of lying, making things up and being obstreperous whatever that is. I was then called a wiki god for bringing up the word consensus which went against his years of being an expert on the subject. He seems to have a dislike for people not using real names and has made a few digs like "Enjoy writing fiction if you wish to appease MilborneOne what ever his actual name." I was also attacked on the R101 page although I had not edited it since August. I returned from a break from a bereavement as an escape only to harshly attacked for not agreeing with Mark Lincoln. He is clearly not a team player, doesnt understood the consensual way wikipedia works and attacks everybody that disagrees with him. I would suggest he is blocked until he shows signs of being able to contribute in a team environment and show respect to others. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I should point out that User:MilborneOne is the very tolerant admin whom I mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- What was that thing that was repeatedly said about the reported user? Something about beating a dead horse? You've successfully driven the editor off the project, which is unfortunate, and yet you continue to provoke and antagonize them endlessly, then you use their responses to further justify why they should be blocked. It's really not a good look. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with Lincoln's comments, just that if he's quitting the project, move on with your lives and let him leave. There's no preventative angle at that point, thus the complaint is inactionable. Continuing to beat this dead horse, which Lincoln was ironically accused of doing multiple times, and then reporting his provoked responses as more evidence of wrongdoing is patently ridiculous. Go find an article to improve and leave the dude alone. He's clearly not some troll who's only here to antagonize you, he's just an editor who got frustrated with a content dispute and is now so fed up that all he wants to do is quit the project. Continuing to antagonize him is bordering on harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Who is the "you" in your rant? The aggrieved admin MilborneOne, me Steelpillow whom he asked to report the incident here, the others who have contributed here Ahunt, Nimbus227, one or two others who contributed at the time but have stayed away from this discussion, or some combination of all those highly experienced editors? And where is your evidence that I/we/"you"-unspecified "drove him off" ... "the project?" Unlike me, you have neither referred to nor posted a single diff or link. No, you are factually wrong yet again; when half a dozen editors politely explained that his edits were unacceptable, and why, he became abusive before responding to warnings by flouncing off in a huff. Here's] one of the diffs again, posted on an uninvolved editor's talk page claiming he has left Wikipedia entirely - just one example of his coming back over and over to repeat the claim that he is not coming back. He very explicitly states that this is because Wikipedia does not respect WP:THETRUTH as he sees it - in other words he is verifiably WP:NOTHERE, a fact pointed out by one of the many involved editors whom you choose to ignore.
- Now for the sting. Was he really insulting? That is key to our argument, so I set up a little experiment. I am confident the other involved editors will confirm that insults are not my style; go back and you can see clearly that I deliberately prodded you and Tide rolls with Mark Lincoln's insults and wild accusations that you claim are not insults, to see how you would react. You did so beautifully. You both felt sufficiently insulted to be suckered into trading like for like. Tide rolls, bless them, even pointed out how well I had spun the impression. Thus your claims, that they are not insulting, are exposed by your own actions for the hypocrisy they are. Your comments here are now very visibly not evidence-based arguments intended to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but mere trading of opinion-based insults and wild accusations, and a desire to shoot the messenger (that's me, remember?). I just wanted to draw that point out for everybody to see. And now, if you don't mind, I will return to my usual polite self.
- — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:
- Four editors, all highly experienced, have argued the case against Mark Lincoln.
- One admin is in favour of sanctions, two are against.
- There is patently no clear consensus yet. Hence I have appealed for more admin voices here.
- Your argument is flawed in other ways. Of course Lincoln is gone - for now. He lurked on long enough to contribute to this discussion, before realising that acting the absent editor while it concludes is his best strategy. (Is he still lurking now? If he reappears once this is over, would you change your verdict? I have a feeling we will find out in due course.) You also fail to address several points which other involved editors, including a fellow admin, have all raised.
- My actions were designed to draw out the hypocrisy, and hence falsehood, of "I don't find such words insulting" arguments, which your latest reply reinforces nicely, thank you. But yes, I do owe you both an apology for winding you up, I hope that you can appreciate it was in what the majority of contributors here regard as a good cause. I can assure you that no personal hostility is involved and I will not be doing so again.
- — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @HandThatFeeds: Thank you for coming here, at least somebody has responded to my request. But you are wrong about my behaviour, I was very careful not to mislead, I stated explicitly to Swarm & co. that "you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there"; they knew perfectly well I was throwing Lincoln's insults back at them to provoke their reactions. I will be very happy to back out once the corroborative comments of other involved editors are being taken seriously and not just being ignored or scoffed at. Perhaps you could do them the honour, now that you are here?
- @MilborneOne: Sorry to call on you again, but do you feel that I have failed to represent your case in a useful way? Am I now untrustworthy here? Happy to bow out if my presence here is now doing more harm than good.
- — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would say your
presence here is now doing more harm than good
, honestly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would say your
- The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:
- This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
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: [[105]]
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: [108][109]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120]) 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" [121] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [122] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [123]. 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 [124], 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: [125][126][127]. 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 [128] 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 [129], 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 ([130]) 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 [128] 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 [129], 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)
- Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. EEng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.
- Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. EEng 14:05, 9 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)
- @Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- "I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)
Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.
- Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 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)
- Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 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)
- Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I retain the position that more than the case of the three or so articles which have become the focus of discussion so far, subject's dismissive behavior towards other editors and towards sources which disagree with his view, and his insistence on his own interpretation of other editors's supposed intentions (his refusal to acknowledge the difference between supposed net worth vis a vis ill-gotten wealth, for example) - thus creating an environment where it is impossible to have discourse under WP:Assume Good Faith - are the broader and more-essential arguments in favor of Proposals 1 and 2. These violate WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, quite blatantly. I do not see that this broader behavior has been sufficiently addressed, thus my continued support for Proposal 2 and 1. - Chieharumachi (talk)
Proposal 3 (DS)
I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block
It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Firstly, let me point out that I am mainly uninvolved in the article. My only edits there are correcting her position (Manila -> Metro Manila) and removing an excess period. I agree with what Object404 has said. Typically, disruptive editors are given blocks. Also, I don't think I could still assume that the edits were made in good faith based on everything on this thread and on the article's talk page.
Having said that, I am at a tipping point. I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for Proposal 1 and support a heavier sanction.I'd like to see how this will go and how other editors would comment. To the other editors, a lot of you are probably irritated already with how things are going here.The user is unapologetic.However, I would like to remind everyone to exercise caution with the proposals. Please support the proposal that you think is the most appropriate with regard to his behavior/actions. Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC) - Comment In this dispute I made the mistake of TE and RGW rather than running a RFC (or other DR process). In retrospect that would have been more logical in this type of highly politicized article. I apologize for that and accept whatever punishment is meted out even if it means the end of me editing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - at last we seem to be getting somewhere. Jtbobwaysf has at last acknowledged they were in the wrong. If there is a chance that they will participate constructively in a DR process, then let's allow them to take that chance. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this is too much. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - The articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos are unbalanced, and I believe Jtbobwaysf was trying to remove the clutter of undue weight on Imelda's article.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I periodically try to cleanup this article (havent made any attempt at the husband's as he is not a BLP and less priority I figured), and made the mistake of TE rather than doing an RFC. I have started Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire on the subject that related me my veering off course in my approach that ultimately resulted in this ANI. Feel free to comment. Apologies and thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Resuming
Thread retrieved from archive after a lull
|
---|
Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
|
- I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. EEng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op
Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.
Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.
. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.
Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterinarians
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Sofia
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Bay Cat
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog camp (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Leveen
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Foundation
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Russell
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Phipps (2nd nomination)
while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.
Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.
I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.
- Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [131]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [132] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban:
"Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this."
[133] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)- I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [134], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [135] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [136], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [137] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [138], as was the third [139] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
- The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- That 60% figure is only because someone just split the page and there's only one year left in it... 2020. So I'm responsible for adding 60% of the content for fatalities in 2020. Before the split, just two days ago, I was responsible for 42% of the content [140] (fatalities in 2010-2020), and before the first article-split (in early 2019), when ALL the fatalities were on one page and I had finished the bulk of my work adding dozens of fatalities, I had still only authored 8% of the page [141]. That list-article has been edited for over 11 years and 4,000 edits; having been started 9 years before I was even an editor here. I am NOT the predominant editor for the content (of four list-pages of fatalities). Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above:
At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off
, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with
"Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian"."
because we were discussing an AfD for the three articles List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians and that was too much of a mouthful (or typing-ful). I never "compared" veggers to ordinary folks, either — that was your misinterpretation and you got pissed off, and regardless of how I tried to explain what I'd wrote you continued to push the button (as you did above) that somehow I "contrasted veggers to ordinary people". And perhaps you're contributing to this ANI because you're still pissed off about that, and that a week later I arrived in your wiki domain and opened some cans of worms (at Template:Discrimination) and some other editor has picked up that baton and is beating you in your own debates (at WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism) and you see that as a reason to pop one at me here. (BTW, I bowed out of those conversation because I couldn't keep up with the esoteric language and had no access to the sources being discussed, and that other editor was a master at all that and has been doing just fine without me.) Perhaps you should re-read WP:Casting aspersions which refers to accusing others "without reasonable cause". Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with
- I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have been mentioned a few times here as someone who made Normal Op "pissed off". I don't have a dog in this hunt and simply advise that any interested party peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album). Compare my brief and rather bland comment to the vociferous fury that it unleashed in Normal Op, which has continued here and caused a lot of work for everyone. Good luck. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to "get the facts straight", let's clear up a few errors in your last post. I have not said that no editor can be pissed off; quite the opposite. And I do not know why you think I am angry. I am not. And I did not say that you compared "veggers" to "ordinary folk". I said that you contrasted "veggers" with "ordinary people", which you did, here -- there are "veggers", including those people who are "veggers" who "ordinary people" wouldn't believe didn't eat meat. You can accuse me of misinterpretation until you're blue in the face, but it's right there for all to see. I don't really have anything to say about your "beating you in your own debates" nonsense, but I think it's striking that the accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who disagrees with you is such second nature that I'm not even the first person you've targetted in this subsection. I've already said more than I want to; I do not want to be pulled into some pointless back and forth. I will not be posting here again. If anyone wants to talk to me, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normal Op, if you weren't contrasting 'veggers' to 'ordinary people', you must acknowledge that the way you worded your points could have given that impression to a reasonable observer. When I first read "
If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat...)
", that's exactly what I thought you were doing. I appreciate that being discussed at ANI must be stressful, but your tone here is exceedingly combative; a more conciliatory approach might be more effective if your aim is to convince people that you can collaborate effectively when you disagree with people. GirthSummit (blether) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [142] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit (blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- And the majority of my interactions with other editors have been just fine, but I'm sure it's especially important to focus on the minority that haven't. Stress? Introspection? Sorry, but I'm scheduled for surgery tomorrow and introspection isn't going to happen this week. Signing off now and un-watchlisting this page. If anyone needs to reach me, they can try the email function. Normal Op (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit (blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [142] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support indef t-ban - he has slid back into the same behavior that caused his t-ban a little over a year ago. He had a successful appeal July 6th, and within 2 months he was back at it, and received a warning from JzG on Sept 1st. A few weeks later, he received another warning by Nosebagbear. I think he is much too impassioned against bulldog types and a few of the larger breeds to edit collegially in that topic area. His responses in this discussion also speak to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support indef tban - despite warnings, the behaviour seems to have rapidly reoccurred. I'm willing to give the tban a chance before resorting to full on blocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support reinstating/expanding tban - WP:ROPE was given... Lev!vich 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support reinstating the t-ban. Normal Op clearly can't hold back here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment was hoping Normal OP would take a break from this area. I realize the stress of being at ANI so I do not hold the frustrated comments against them. Hard for me to argue with the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin recommendation - no Tban but a block for one week. WP:TBAN is used to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Only one editor in this section has claimed that the edits made were disruptive, without elaborating how. Other editors have stated that good work has been performed at times. The issue is one of behaviour and not of disruption. WP:CIVILITY allows blocking in cases of major incivility, therefore in this case a block is more appropriate. The editor would be well-advised to spend this blocked time reviewing the Wikipedia policies on CIVILITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and reference to RELIABLE SOURCES. Beyond this period, further incivility should result in a block for a longer period of time. William Harris (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support broadened TBan, to cover animals in general (including animal products such as meat). Normal Op's combative attitude in this thread, and at the discussions listed above, and their unwillingness to accept that their own approach may be responsible for the heat in these discussions, in spite of two warnings issued since their TBan was lifted in July, convince me that there is a problem that requires action. I've considered William Harris's suggestion of a short block, but don't see that having the desired effect, whereas last time a TBan was applied, it seems that Normal Op was able to moderate their approach sufficiently to convince people to lift it. I don't know whether issues around animal welfare, vegetarianism and so on raise particularly strong feelings in them, but the civility issues on display in those areas at the threads above do constitute disruption in my view, and justify a reinstatement and expansion of their original TBan; the fact that the issues have spread to discussions about other animal-related matters suggest that it should be broadened. I wish them a speedy recovery from their surgery, and hope that they return to editing in some of the other areas where they have apparently contributed constructively. GirthSummit (blether) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support broad T-Ban per Girth. This editor appears incapable of having a reasonable disagreement with other editors on the topic of animals or vegetarianism/veganism. The fact they felt the need to coin a new term for them versus "ordinary people" is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia griefing my Talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry to bother anyone about this but Emir of Wikipedia continues to edit my Talk page after I've requested that they no longer post at my Talk page. I believe this activity falls under the user space harassment. Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment
It's time-consuming and discouraging to encounter these messages and have to undo them upon logging in and I would like guidance or support in ending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Some of their edits seem tedious. Like you made a statement about not wanting these messages on your talk 1 and they ignored it to get one more bothersome template in. 2. They made bothersome edits instructing you to archive. 3 4. Also not really sure why Guy Macon needed to involve himself. 5 Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I cannot say why Guy Macon felt the need to involve himself, but I can say that a few hours before he placed the OW tag on my Talk page we had this interaction [143] on an Article Talk page we were editing collaboratively. He has also stated in the TfD on OW resulting from this ANI report that the OW tag is to be used against registered editors "who have something to hide." Good Faith requires me to let it slide and, notably, Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my Talk page after I asked him directly to stop. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- At least ping @Guy Macon: so they are aware. I do not feel too strongly about readding the OW tag, but I think we should remind TheMusicExperimental to assume good faith and not just accuse harassment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)
- If someone had put that OW template on my user talk page, I would have been miffed. Not sure why we even have it, as adding to a user talk page is ALWAYS going to be seen in a negative light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Emir of Wikipedia: IMO you were harassing them. And you ignored their request to get another trolling edit in at the end. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- If someone had put that OW template on my user talk page, I would have been miffed. Not sure why we even have it, as adding to a user talk page is ALWAYS going to be seen in a negative light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)
- Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry I was on about Guy Macon. I got them mixed up with JzG who signs their signature with Guy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- More importantly, they are fully allowed to remove notices from their page unless it's a declined unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)
- I didn't add User:Guy Macon to this ANI because after he edited my page and I then asked him to not edit my page he stopped. In my opinion, he was a dink no big deal, I asked him to stop, he did. End of it. In the case of Emir of Wikipedia I asked to Emir of Wikipedia to stop posting to my page but Emir continued to return and post to the page, becoming a nuisance. Continuing to post to my userspace, after being given a direct request to stop is in fact harassment per the way harassment is defined on Wikipedia. This is why one but not the other is included in my ANI. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- My comment about pinging Guy was not directed at you, but at Lightburst. I will not restore that OW tag again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Unless @Emir of Wikipedia: or @Guy Macon: can explain what warning on the talk page fall under "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user" they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that adding that OW tag, absent a diff, is obnoxious.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unless @AlmostFrancis: is talking about the OW template itself, (which at the time was listed as being something that cannot be removed by the user) they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that making up rules such as the nonexistent requirement that OW may only be used for deletions of nonremovable warnings is obnoxious. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I think the dispute arose from if {{ow}} was one of the few things that were not allowed to be removed from user talk pages. Joseph2302 removed the item today as they did not find any discussion about adding the item in the first place; it was first added by Ad Orientem roughly a month ago. This issue had been raised at WP:HD by Guy Macon (WP:HD#Minor infraction) and had seemingly been resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In this edit[144] I wrote "(Please read WP:BLANKING, which says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: [...] The "Old Warnings" {{ow}} template.)"
- At the time[145] that was what was in the guideline.
- TheMusicExperimental deliberately violated the guideline by removing the tag.[146]
- I raised a question at the help desk:[147]
- As a result, the prohibition was removed.[148]
- If you don't like the existence of the {{ow}} template, then take Template:OW to WP:MfD. Until you get it deleted, please don't criticize other editors for using it as intended. I personally think it is entirely appropriate for any editor who deletes all warnings.
- I question the legitimacy of a user who declares that anyone who posts a warning is a troll and forbids all user warnings. I also question the legitimacy of a user tells everyone who posts a warning to stay off their talk page. Wikipedia policy is that warnings can be removed, not that an editor can preemptively forbid any warnings.
- That being said, if an editor specifically asks you to not post to their talk page, you should not post to their talk page. If the result of this is an ANI report that starts with "normally I would have warned this user but...", too bad. You brought it on yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The section of WP:USER you're citing was added barely a month ago, with no discussion, and an edit summary of "+", tucked into a group of uncontroversial edits. It had no consensus behind it and obviously does not reflect current practice; beyond that, it was patiently absurd - obviously it wouldn't make sense that an editor in a dispute with another could slap a template warning on the other editor's page, then slap {{ow}} on it when it is removed and insist that the template cannot be removed by the user. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was not aware that it had been added a month before. And it seemed odd enough that I raised a question about it at the help desk, which resulted in it being removed. Nonetheless, we are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, asking that they be changed if we find them to be "patiently absurd" (patently absurd?) rather than deciding that they don't apply to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are defined by what has consensus, not by what's written on a page; we are required to follow consensus, not to do whatever the most recent edit to a policy page instructs us to do. Therefore, if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice, it's common-sense to glance at the page history to make sure that eg. the page hasn't been vandalized or had some ill-considered addition slapped onto it recently without discussion. Otherwise, what, if I were to add something to a policy page stating that it is against the rules to revert Aquillion's edits, would that have to stay because it is now policy and no one can remove it without contravening it? --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you always, without fail, research the consensus discussion behind a policy, or do you, like most people, assume without specifically checking that most written policies reflect consensus? I did check the entire revision history at Template:OW Revision history and saw nothing amiss. I also took a quick look at Wikipedia:User pages: Revision history (I normally do this when citing any policy or guideline just in case it got vandalized a few minutes earlier) but didn't notice any changes in the previous week or so.
- You say "if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice" But it didn't look ridiculous to me and I was not aware of any current practice either way about removing an OW tag. It did look nonenforceable, and I raised a question about that here[149] but I don't see where I did anything wrong. I added a template once, and when it was reverted against policy started asking questions about the policy rather than adding it again. My behavior was completely correct. I did nothing wrong. Even TheMusicExperimental chose not to file a report over one edit to their talk page that was never repeated after they asked me to stop. So please, put the pitchforks down and find another monster to slay. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are defined by what has consensus, not by what's written on a page; we are required to follow consensus, not to do whatever the most recent edit to a policy page instructs us to do. Therefore, if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice, it's common-sense to glance at the page history to make sure that eg. the page hasn't been vandalized or had some ill-considered addition slapped onto it recently without discussion. Otherwise, what, if I were to add something to a policy page stating that it is against the rules to revert Aquillion's edits, would that have to stay because it is now policy and no one can remove it without contravening it? --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was not aware that it had been added a month before. And it seemed odd enough that I raised a question about it at the help desk, which resulted in it being removed. Nonetheless, we are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, asking that they be changed if we find them to be "patiently absurd" (patently absurd?) rather than deciding that they don't apply to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- The section of WP:USER you're citing was added barely a month ago, with no discussion, and an edit summary of "+", tucked into a group of uncontroversial edits. It had no consensus behind it and obviously does not reflect current practice; beyond that, it was patiently absurd - obviously it wouldn't make sense that an editor in a dispute with another could slap a template warning on the other editor's page, then slap {{ow}} on it when it is removed and insist that the template cannot be removed by the user. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why on earth is Emir of Wikipedia lecturing anyone on archiving their talk page, when they themselves delete warnings without archiving [150]? They should at least add {{ow}} to their own talk page,no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have sent the OW template to MFD. We really need to not be using that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the purpose of {{OW}}. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412 T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, there is a separate template for IPs, {{old IP warnings top}} & {{old IP warnings bottom}}. If they are using this on IP's talk pages, then they have missed the whole point and are using the wrong template, which is another reason to remove this template. I agree that it is useful for IPs, but not registered users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the purpose of {{OW}}. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412 T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be clearly marked as being only for use on IP pages? The use case for that is obvious, but putting it on the account of a registered user is only ever going to piss them off. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- That would be my second choice, but either will work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: WP:TFD § Template:OW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to note that my requests to both User:Guy Macon and User:Emir of Wikipedia were initially direct to them on their own userspace. See Oct 9 for Emir of Wikipedia [151] and Oct 15 for Guy Macon [152]. I added the note to my Talk page once it was clear that, despite receiving a direct notice that I did not welcome posting from them on my userspace, Emir of Wikipedia continued to post. The message on my Talk page is for future trolls and griefers. Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my talk page and Emir has stated that he's now going to respect my request. Given that, so long as this conversation remains available for use for people in the future to refer to--especially as Emir [153] and Guy Macon[154] have a history of griefing others--my individual needs are satisfied though I remain concerned that Emir and Guy Macon will just move along to grief someone else and thus lower participation in Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance everyone and I'm glad to hear that there is some movement toward deprecating a template that is so often used by editors to attempt to "shame" others. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Emir and Guy Macon have a history of griefing others" is a clear violation on WP:NPA. Making accusations like that without providing evidence is toxic behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize for not providing any citation for statements to which you are taking offense. I have fixed that above. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I CATEGORICALLY DENY "GRIEFING" ANYONE.
- I will repeat what I wrote then:
- "In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Fæ with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: 'Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others'. "
- "I really did make a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar (plural and singular have meanings) and I am still doing my best to do this in this comment, yet Fæ still decided to fire up the well-used flamethrower. And, it appears, there is a crowd gathering with pitchforks and torches. If you want to sanction a 12-year/45,000-edit veteran editor with a clean block record -- all without any prior warning -- for doing his level best not to offend, go ahead, but please start by quoting the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you believe I violated. This will save time when I go to Arbcom to have the sanction overturned."
- TheMusicExperimental, I am not going to stand here and be your personal punching bag. Go find someone else to bully with your bullshit false accusations of "griefing". And yes, I am angry. Angry and deeply hurt. Angry at you for picking a fight with me for no reason when I did nothing wrong. Hurt that nobody here has chosen to address your personal attacks. I am seriously tempted to blank my user pages, scramble my password, and never edit Wikipedia again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment - banning anybody from posting on your talk page for whatever reason, which is what you seem to be doing by your talk page note is effectively just saying that you are not willing to edit collaboratively. This is unhelpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the timeline and reasoning behind why I felt that the statement on my Talk page is necessary. I'm not super committed to it though and seeing as the OW template is getting revisited that's fine. I could certainly revise to include reference to WP:HUSH -- "User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. "
- I had encountered both of Emir of Wikipedia and Guy Macon on another article where there were disputes and lengthy confusing passages [155] in the Talk page. My statement specifically notes that conversations about collaborative editing belong on the Talk page of articles in question.
- WP:HA begins with a quick definition of the term as it relates to Wikipedia: "Harassment, including . . . repeated annoying and unwanted contact." The opening lines of WP:HUSH are "A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them. . ."
- Oct 9 Emir of Wikipedia added a variety of edits [156] [157] [158] to my Talk page, some of which were couched in terms that sound like trying to be helpful but taken altogether I do not believe were sincerely intended to be helpful.
- Oct 9, deciding to assume good faith I removed Emir's edits and directly notified [159] Emir that I did not want them to be posting on my Talk page--a clear statement that their contact with me was unwanted.
- Oct 15 Guy Macon also posted an unneeded template to my Talk page [160]. Note: aside from the "notice of discretionary sanctions" previously posted by Emir, I had had one other warning from an editor who, previously this year, was confused about copyright for an image and whether the caption was correct, said editor and I worked it out and you can see that in the edit summaries of my Talk page [161]
- Oct 15th I notified [162] Guy Macon that contact was unwanted and subsequently Guy Macon has not posted to my Talk page and for that I am exceptionally grateful.
- Oct 15th I also created my message to discourage griefers and trolls on my Talk page because, by this time I had two different editors encouraging me to read three different policies (none of which, it turned out, were relevant to my Talk page) and research two templates that had been applied in an attempt to understand what was trying to be communicated to me.
- Oct 17, despite being asked directly to not edit my Talk page 8 days prior, Emir of Wikipedia returned to my Talk page to revert my edit with a non-descript edit summary [163].
- Oct 17, since I had notified Emir of Wikipedia that their contributions to my userspace were unwelcome but they continued to edit my Talk page, I filed this ANI because the behavior outlined and documented above is counter to the policies regarding Harassment noted above.
- Emir of Wikipedia has stated that they won't continue to revert the Old Warnings template and that satisfied my personal needs, but also note that it is less than my request of him which is to not post on my Talk page at all. But I do think the entirety of the situation--posting unnecessary warnings, asking an editor to read a variety of unnecessary policy documents, teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page, in response to this ANI Emir of Wikipedia claims that I should have "assume[d] good faith and not just accuse harassment" even though they had been directly asked to stop posting to my page, Emir above also suggests that they were obligated to edit my userspace--these are all problematic in my opinion and certainly discouraging to deal with as an editor. Dealing with and researching the issues above took time away from making more useful contributions to Wikipedia. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding "teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page" (I haven't had a lot of interaction with Emir of Wikipedia), let's look at the record, shall we?
- I posted the following[164][165] bog standard inquiry as to the scope of the White House COVID-19 outbreak outbreak. I commented "This has expanded from people who were in contact with Trump while he was infectious to people who were in contact with Trump after his doctor said he was no longer infectious to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump and caught the virus to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump but tested negative."
- TheMusicExperimental, in their very first interaction with me, started with an insult.[166]
- Now, in an ANI report about their fight with Emir, they accused me of "griefing" without producing any evidence. Later they added a link to a previous dispute with another editor entirely where I had made a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar, and when informed that this was not acceptable, immediately ceased all interaction with that individual so that their insistence on incorrect grammar no longer mattered.
- I also had -- and still have -- a legitimate fear that, after the person who was attacking me had previously gone off-wiki and tried to get two individuals who opposed them fired, I would get the same treatment.
- Regarding the false and scurrilous accusation that I am somehow "griefing" people over gender issues. I have a long history of supporting LGBTIQ rights. I put in hundreds of hours on the phone banks opposing the Briggs Initiative and 2008 California Proposition 8.
- Following the advice of several admins, I have increased my use of the singular they even though I still believe that it is bad English. I am not alone in this view, and holding this view is not in any way "griefing" TheMusicExperimental or anyone else.
- Others who share my opinion on the singular they:
- "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing" --Oxford English Dictionary
- "And yet since singular they will still annoy many readers, many writers will want to write around the problem... Use singular they in relaxed prose, when you know you're in the company of those who get this right, or if you don't mind annoying a determined and vocal minority." -- The Economist
- "The Singular 'They' Must Be Stopped. The misused word is everywhere, proliferating like fruit flies 'round a bowl of rotting bananas. We must stop it before it goes too far." --The Atlantic
- There is room for good-faith disagreement regarding Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns -- and I use whatever form someone asks me to use even if I consider it to be incorrect English -- but falsely accusing me of "griefing" with zero evidence to back the accusation up is a personal attack and I am extremely disappointed that ANI has decided to let it slide. This is the sort of false accusation that can ruin a person's reputation and could even cause them to lose their job. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't characterize the situation as a "fight" between Emir of Wikipedia and I. He's been polite throughout, including here in the ANI. However, the reason for this ANI is that I asked him directly and personally to stop posting to my userspace but instead he continued editing my userspace. This isn't a content dispute or some sort of "wikipedia as battleground" thing, it's about what the community standards are regarding harassment, whether it's acceptable for editors to ignore direct communications that indicate less contact is desired for irrelevant matters on an editor's own userspace. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Griefing break
Lots of diffs to sort thru,but I think I got it. TheMusicExperimental was adding content to White House COVID-19 outbreak#People who tested positive for COVID-19. Guy Macon came along and criticized that section on the talkpage, possibly not knowing who was editing it. TheMusicExperimental was disappointed with the tone, things got off on the wrong foot, one thing led to another, and here we are. Doesn't everything else stem from the initial talkpage posting? Can we drop everything that happened after that & just focus on that interaction? Seems like both of you may have assumed the worst of the other before even interacting with each other. Or is there more to this that I am missing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I had paid no attention to who had edited what section. I just thought that listing people because they didn't catch coronavirus after contacting someone who had contacted Trump was a real stretch. I still do. --Guy Macon (talk)
- For my part, I was responding because Guy Macon was indicating he was about to make changes to the page without gathering consensus due to impatience with not getting a response to his initial text. In my response I was trying, unsuccessfully, to encourage him to be less emotional in his approach and also to provide a specific proposal around which consensus could be built. I was hoping to stem some of the drama [167] which had been building within the talk section and was obviously unsuccessful. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The only thing that's important to me, in regards this ANI, is that I asked Emir of Wikipedia to stop editing my userspace and then Emir of Wikipedia continued to edit my userspace. Guy Macon's tone etc doesn't bother me especially, though I find it tedious. I specifically did not include him in my ANI because, unlike Emir of Wikipedia, Macon honored my request to stop editing my userspace. It isn't about disagreements on an article talk page etc. It's about whether continuing annoying and unwanted contact on a userspace after being asked to stop is within the community standards. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I really have to ask, then, why not simply talk about Emir not honoring a request to stop posting to your talk page? (Note to Emir: No. Don't do that.) Why go to the extra effort of posting about an unrelated content dispute with me? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of griefing? Why go to the extra effort of dragging up a year-old interaction I had with someone else who appears to have nothing to do with you and which was settled to the satisfaction of everyone concerned when it happened? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of somehow colluding with Emir -- an editor who I have seen around but don't remember ever interacting with?
- I would really like an explanation for your behavior. This should have been an open-and-shut case; you report unwanted posts to your talk page, a couple of admins say "don't do that", Emir apologizes and promises to never do it again, case closed. Why pick a fight with me starting with your very first "It's just difficult to engage with you Guy because you get so cranky whenever you post something. No one wants to hurt your feelings is all" interaction with me? Can you not see how insulting a demeaning that was? I think you owe me an apology. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize to you Guy Macon. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- TheMusicExperimental, thanks for doing that - I wish a lot more people would be willing to make an actual, up-front apology on this page. I'll leave it to Guy Macon to indicate whether he is satisfied with that, but can I ask you whether you're satisfied with the responses here or are you looking for any further action at this point? You've requested that Emir stay off your talk, I'm sure they will respect that (users are generally expected to respect requests like that, it would be frowned upon if they didn't). Is there anything else you want from this thread, or would you be satisfied with its closure? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was going to accept the above apology and unwatch this page, then I saw that, two hours after posting the above, TheMusicExperimental again posted a link to a previous conflict that had nothing to do with them and which resulted in no sanctions.[168] None of this has anything to do with any thing Emir did so why go to the extra effort of attacking me yet again? How do I get this behavior to stop?
- Before this is closed, I request a repeat of the above apology combined with a commitment to stop talking about me and to stop digging through my edit history and posting links to unrelated accusations that resulted in no sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, ah - yes, that was a strange thing for them to have done. TheMusicExperiment, would you care to address Guy's point? GirthSummit (blether) 17:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, botched ping TheMusicExperimental GirthSummit (blether) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize to you Guy Macon. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would really like an explanation for your behavior. This should have been an open-and-shut case; you report unwanted posts to your talk page, a couple of admins say "don't do that", Emir apologizes and promises to never do it again, case closed. Why pick a fight with me starting with your very first "It's just difficult to engage with you Guy because you get so cranky whenever you post something. No one wants to hurt your feelings is all" interaction with me? Can you not see how insulting a demeaning that was? I think you owe me an apology. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, after posting my apology to Guy Macon I noticed his undated response to Bison X in which Bison X asks for information about the nature of the interaction that occurred several hours before Guy Macon posted an OW on my userspace. In light of Guy Macon's response, I felt that Bison X was not asking hypothetically and that I should provide an answer. I provided additional context because in previous interactions Guy Macon has asked for things to be specifically noted or backed up. The drama that was occurring on that page was material to the reason I attempted to engage with Guy Macon in the first place. It's become very clear that I have no idea how to respond in a way that is satisfactory to Macon and I certainly won't seek out any further interaction with him. As to whether I'm satisfied with results so far, the truth would be I'm mostly exhausted by it. Emir of Wikipedia has agreed to refrain from reverting the OW tag on my page which seems the absolute smallest available gesture, not even honoring my request which was to refrain from posting on my Talk page. You note in parenthesis above that it is frowned upon to not honor such a request. It is the not honoring of that request which caused me to file an ANI. If this is the community standard on harassment then I have obtained what experience I can from this ANI and can move on to more productive things more the wiser. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like very much to exclude myself from the narrative that is now taking place again apparently back at the Talk page [169] in question. I would be very happy to see no notifications or interaction with Guy Macon, especially in Articles which I have already abandoned due to interactions with him. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Edited 18:41, 21 October 2020
- I accept the apology and support a speedy close. Please let it end here. I encourage TheMusicExperimental to only talk about article content without commenting on other editors. If I see any further disparaging comments about me from TheMusicExperimental I will file an ANI report for harassment and we can discuss the issue there. I advise TheMusicExperimental to drop the WP:STICK, stop replying, and wait for this to be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, thanks for that.
- TheMusicExperimental, I'm sorry you feel exhausted by this process. All I can say is that the purpose of this board is to stop on-going disruption. Emir has not posted on your talk since this thread started, and they have been told by more than one person that it isn't on for them to do so, and I doubt that they will do so again - if they do, you can come back here, and they will need to explain why they have chosen to ignore that request, but I very much doubt that they will, and for now the disruption has stopped. I'm going to close this thread now, as I believe all the substantive matters have been dealt with; please do go back to doing something more enjoyable. Cheers all GirthSummit (blether) 19:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I accept the apology and support a speedy close. Please let it end here. I encourage TheMusicExperimental to only talk about article content without commenting on other editors. If I see any further disparaging comments about me from TheMusicExperimental I will file an ANI report for harassment and we can discuss the issue there. I advise TheMusicExperimental to drop the WP:STICK, stop replying, and wait for this to be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive
ShonRoY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note: User name changed after ANI opened
- New userlinks: MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Further comments: I have asked the user again to explain their edits, but it seems they have ignored as rather than explaining they again claimed something without providing any source. It's now out of control and quite frustrating to deal with such editing behaviour, my request to any admin please take the necessary actions, it seems the user is highly incompetent. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Furtherthanfrappe
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Furtherthanfrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account appears to have been blocked by a CheckUser six months ago as a sockpuppet account. The blocked sock is now using their talk page for an obscene rant. Blocking the talkpage is obvious. I don't know who the master account is, and so can't file a sockpuppet report, but would suggest a CheckUser check for other accounts from the same IP address (or address range). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked the talkpage, but I can't handle the sockpuppet side of things - so this should not yet be closed Nosebagbear (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, mebbe someone with the bit should revdel those edits? At least one of those is pretty damned egregious. Heiro 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Heironymous Rowe, agree. Special:Emailuser/Oversight finds them, I've emailed. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did rev-del those edits earlier, Guy thanks for the email to OS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Heironymous Rowe, agree. Special:Emailuser/Oversight finds them, I've emailed. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, mebbe someone with the bit should revdel those edits? At least one of those is pretty damned egregious. Heiro 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- This looks mighty similar to a user I blocked a few days ago and then removed TPA from this morning: User talk:Bring democracy to Belarus NOW. Don't have a minute to look into it at the moment but will do so later if another CU doesn't beat me to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, please don't remove {{checkuserblock-account}} from the block rationale when a CheckUser adds it. This needs to stay in the block rationale because there are special rules about CU blocks. I also don't quite understand why you re-enabled email access. Do you think this person needs the ability to email people? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would bet that was Twinkle's fault, it has a nasty habit of applying default settings even when they've been changed in prior blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Before this gets closed, this was the creep that I refer to here. Just wanted to spread awareness of how to deal with this. In short, everyone here did the right thing. Thank you I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you had that experience. I've seen some rude bullshit, racism, sexism, and assorted other nonsense in the 12 years I've been here, but that may been the single most loathsome edit I've ever encountered onwiki. Heiro 01:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Heironymous Rowe, this delightful comment about the death of my sister certainly sticks in my memory. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you had that experience. I've seen some rude bullshit, racism, sexism, and assorted other nonsense in the 12 years I've been here, but that may been the single most loathsome edit I've ever encountered onwiki. Heiro 01:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, it's Evlekis. Just when it seemed we had some fresh blood--no, same old same old. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Offsite coordination of harassment against two audio engineer–producers
A wide variety of IPs and new users have been attacking the BLPs Kenny Beats and Alex Tumay, a record producer and an audio engineer. The harassment is likely from social media coordination. Both bios were protected for a couple of days, but that seems woefully insufficient to me. Can we permanently protect the two BLPs from new users? Below is a list of harassment IPs and new users. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- KNNY808! (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Pryor4x (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Camige1210 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cruise11 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Binksternet, protection is for 3 months, so no rush. You could ask Drmies to extend it? It feels a bit like wheel-warring for someone else to. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Three months might – just maybe – make the trolls look somewhere else for their fun. I'll be back in January otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, it's remarkably lame. Let's hope they discover porn or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hahaha! Eggzackly. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, it's remarkably lame. Let's hope they discover porn or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG - Why would that be wheel warring? :-) Wheel warring occurs when an an admin reverses or completely undoes the admin actions instated by another admin because they disagree with the action (or for a similar reason), then another (or the previous admin) re-instates the original admin action that was completely reversed because they disagree with the reversal. Example: I block User:Troll. Another admin removes the block, stating that it was "unnecessary". I'd be wheel warring if I (or another involved admin) were to go in and put that original block back saying "no it wasn't!" Extending a page protection, block, or making modification to an action after legitimate discussion or after evidence is presented later doesn't constitute a wheel war. Sure, when it doubt, always discuss things with the admin first just to be sure. Wheel warring is like edit warring; it's the repeated reversion of one's admin actions back-and-forth (in lieu of discussion) that makes it such. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah, it just feels wrong to change a recently imposed protection when the protection itself has months to run - there's plenty of time for Drmies to do the needful. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Three months might – just maybe – make the trolls look somewhere else for their fun. I'll be back in January otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Should Draft:Blazercore be nuked? It's the term that these IPs keep trying to insert. The editors of that page are:
- Kazoworld (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ImNotZake (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- and they have not edited anywhere else. And
- Nah'Sun (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- also seems to be involved in that activity (Talk:Kenny Beats). DMacks (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I now have the audio engineer on my watch list. (Full disclosure: I am among other things an audio engineer myself, but the kind who designs the audio equipment at the factory, not the kind who uses it). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Siege of Plevna
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More eyes needed at Siege of Plevna. I suspect ongoing sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 and Special:Contributions/Barbaros10711923. @Drmies: pinging the blocking admin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah KutDestanı1916 is User:KazımKarabekir500 is (apparently) KızılBörü1071. That's one out of the way. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, this article is being bombarded. Obvious sockpuppetry and abuse. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent promotional editing by multiple accounts; I've reverted it to the last cleaned up version by Drmies. Requesting page protection and/or user blocks if necessary, but mostly more eyes and some sort of assistance. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Someone please block that IP for a good long while. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, 100.8.253.110 (talk · contribs). But I wouldn't be too surprised if the registered account from last year, or some other new account, suddenly appeared. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked for 72 hours. If things continue, let me know, and I'll take things from there. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
VFS Global
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
VFS Global was ANI protected until September 30. Since then, a few fake accounts with no other edits have started to whitewash this account, adding a bunch of marketing double-speak (changing "service fees" to "user-pay revenue model" for instance) and removing criticism. See User:Geo198 for instance. VFS Global has, coincidentally I'm sure, recently shot up from 1.6 to 4.4 stars at Trustpilot with thousands of reviews from first time users... Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mr.choppers, semiprotection re-imposed for 1 year. I blocked the whitewashers. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG - thank you, that was quick and painless. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive unsourced edits to BLP articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Robertleyva2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Though this editor has received multiple warnings, including at least 3 final ones, a previous block for this very reason as well as a personal plea from myself, they continue to add unsourced info to BLP articles and have made zero attempt at discussing these issues on their talk page, as is required. Examples of these disruptive edits can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It should be noted that these edits were all made after my personal plea, linked above. If an admin could cast an eye on this I'd be most grateful. Robvanvee 08:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indef blocked until they communicate, as they've been warned many times and blocked before for the same problem. I linked WP:Communication is required on their page for their reading pleasure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Rangeblock needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been asking over and over on AIV to have a rangeblock placed on 103.203.92.1/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but no action has been taken. Since August (it's back further than that but they've been increasing activity since then), one user on the range has been continuing to vandalize Subcontinent television network articles (mainly children's networks of the 'Cartoon Network Pakistan carries Disney shows from India and is owned by Viacom's Bangladeshi division' type) and has refused to communicate through voluminous talk page warnings. Some action needs to be taken; RFP on the affected pages is nigh useless here. The good edits on other IPs in the range sadly are outdone by the one user spamming their garbage. Nate • (chatter) 14:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- A /16 is comically overbroad - that range has addresses in (at least, I stopped looking) China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and North Carolina. 103.203.92.0/22 is as far as that one isp holds. I'll likely block shortly once I look into the history a bit more. —Cryptic 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Legal Threats by Kyle Falconer PR team
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following information was added by both an IP address and Jellyman12345 that claims to be part of Kyle Falconer's management team and or the PR Team. There is this edit and this edit summary both stating that they will take things further. Thank you, --VVikingTalkEdits 15:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- IP is blocked. Is the account also part of the team? 331dot (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is never mentioned that the account is part of the team but IP responded on the users talk page making it seem like the same account, in addition to the probable sock or logging out to exit. But I cannot be positive--VVikingTalkEdits 15:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- If this was SPI I would say this is a clear behavioral match, as such I have blocked the account as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is never mentioned that the account is part of the team but IP responded on the users talk page making it seem like the same account, in addition to the probable sock or logging out to exit. But I cannot be positive--VVikingTalkEdits 15:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Threats by User:MrsCaptcha
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fair warning: This is more Sushant Singh Rajput bullshit.
After coming off a 24h block for edit-warring (they had been adding conspiracy theory nonsense - the intervening edits are all her), MrsCaptcha (talk · contribs) came back with this threat on the article's talk page. When challenged on this, her responce was, shall we say, inadequate. I'm thus here asking for a partial block from Sushant Singh Rajput and the related article Death of Sushant Singh Rajput for her, as she's not an SPA as far as I can tell. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced a partial block would be enough given that the offending content actually occurred on a talk page. Best, Darren-M talk 17:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- On a user talk page, I should have said. Darren-M talk 17:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The actual threat was on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, not a user talk page. It's based on that, her very recent block, and her flippant non-apology apology responce to being called out on it, that has me seeking a partial block from the topic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jéské Couriano, yeah, it was the non-apology/wiki-lawyering that had me wondering whether a partial was sufficient. Darren-M talk 18:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The actual threat was on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, not a user talk page. It's based on that, her very recent block, and her flippant non-apology apology responce to being called out on it, that has me seeking a partial block from the topic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- On a user talk page, I should have said. Darren-M talk 17:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked from that article and its talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say up front I'm involved, as I issued the 24h block earlier, however their editing history is a bit curious. Except for 3 edits earlier this March, the user hadn't edited in 3 years. All of their mainspace edits were on two articles: Linguistics and Psychoanalysis. All of a sudden there's this interest in the SSR article? Something seems a bit off. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- We've had a lot of retired/semiretired Indian editors getting involved with the Sushant Singh Rajput article. From what I understand, he had a large and dedicated fanbase. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say up front I'm involved, as I issued the 24h block earlier, however their editing history is a bit curious. Except for 3 edits earlier this March, the user hadn't edited in 3 years. All of their mainspace edits were on two articles: Linguistics and Psychoanalysis. All of a sudden there's this interest in the SSR article? Something seems a bit off. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, an Indian sleeper writing threats of the "you are being watched" sort are WP:EMERGENCY-level threats, given the coordinated off-wiki harassment that's been happening to people who edit in those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. I've been dealing with it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was not aware that such was a thing, as this is the only India-related article I've been involved on for any serious length of time as of late. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rinse it out and squeeze it dry, looks like they need a WP:NOTHERE indef for taking part in some sort of off-Wiki coordinated campaign. @MrsCaptcha:, would you care to explain your recruitment and discuss any off-Wiki solicitation to edit this encyclopedia? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Too late, looks like GorillaWarfare blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, that kind of threat says to me they have no business editing the encyclopedia at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Too late, looks like GorillaWarfare blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Food fighter
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the past few weeks, an IP editor from Marseille (2A01:E34:EC2E:5270::/64) has been making the rounds of Middle Eastern food articles, making unsourced claims about national origins of dishes. Their edits consist almost entirely of adding "Lebanon", and deleting the names of other countries or regions, generally in contradiction to existing sources. They don't use edit summaries or talk pages. I've left four warnings (could have been "unsourced" but I went with "NPOV"), and reverted almost all of their edits, but they continue. For example:
- Adding Lebanon as country of origin for basbousa, despite there being no evidence for this, and removing mentions of Armenia, Greece, and Turkey: [170].
- Unexplained deletion of mention of Ottoman and other countries' influence on Lebanese cuisine: [171]
- Deletion of sourced content about non-Arab variations: [172]
- Other unsourced changes to national origins: [173], [174], [175], [176], etc.
- Also, falsely inflating the number of Muslims in Lebanon, contradicting the existing source: [177]
--IamNotU (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with these points, this seems like tendentious nationalistic editing. A rangeblock may be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rangeblocked for a month. This looks to be one of those IPv6 /64 ranges that's exclusively used by one customer - it's only even really a rangeblock on a technicality, it's one user. They've been doing the same unhelpful thing intermittently for some time, and it seems time they stopped. ~ mazca talk 22:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by 23.120.104.213
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was patrolling the recent changes feed, and I encountered an unconstructive edit by this IP editor on Frank Luntz. I initially thought it was vandalism, but after looking at all of their prior contributions, I have concluded that this is a classic case of tendentious editing. As a matter of fact, I'm unsure if they've ever made a good edit. After I reverted one of their edits and warned them (admittedly incorrectly though), they personally attacked me on my talk page. I thought that this would be the best place to post about the incident. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked three months. Obvious troll is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by 51.175.129.190
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP user's contributions all state that he has "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links", but is doing no such thing, just inserting "[[]]" in front of a "short description" template. No idea what this is supposed to be accomplishing. Fabrickator (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
User TemplatePeterBaldwin
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TemplatePeterBaldwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I noticed this user today making List of SubGenii (members of the Church of the SubGenius), which suggests that several notable people are members of the organization, without any sourcing. Those claims fail verification. Looking at their userpage, I see a wide array of warnings and other editing issues - copyright violations, inappropriate categories, inappropriately source BLP articles, removing AFD tags, etc. Their talk page edits have, well, been like this. I think that some form of block is necessary at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- They seem to have reacted to this thread by making high-speed edits with "Replaced content with 'Fuck you!'". So they'll get blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked the account indefinitely. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Should the f-u edit summaries from the children's articles [178][179] be revdel'd? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Being a children's article should have nothing to do with it, but it appears they've already be revdeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That was me. I viewed it as
Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project
, but Marchjuly is correct that I have no policy-based rationale for allowing the nature of the articles to influence my decision. Any admin should feel free to undo my revdel if they feel I've overstepped. GirthSummit (blether) 07:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- Good RD3 imo, purely disruptive. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That was me. I viewed it as
- (Non-administrator comment) Being a children's article should have nothing to do with it, but it appears they've already be revdeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Should the f-u edit summaries from the children's articles [178][179] be revdel'd? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked the account indefinitely. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've seen edits by this user pop up on my watchlist from time-to-time, and they were often quite odd new categories, but didn't think much more of it at the time. But seeing their talkpage shows a bigger issue of WP:CIR, but they've gone down the suicide by cop route instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit Wars
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Greyjoy has been fighting with me reverting the changes I've made without consulting anyone in the Free Rider Community (Free Rider HD Wiki). I have been reverting his changes in hopes he would take a hint. I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculus-dev (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like a pretty obvious WP:BOOMERANG. I've issued a 72-hour block to User:Calculus-dev for edit warring. --Kinu t/c 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that Calculus-dev (talk · contribs) is a sock account that took part in the same edit war over the same issue in parallel with Kanvo2 (talk · contribs). 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks (threats)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On October 10 of this year, after I reverted vandal's edits on The Meaning of Love (album), I received a message from this anonymous users, then I found disruptive messages on my talk page. It became war following then first one. One of the messages that they did, said they will kill/hunt me. I placed some rules on my talk page before it happened. It has been reverted, and the revisions are removed from the public archives by Oshwah.
Also, they made some disruptive messages to the talk pages of Minorax and Nick Moyes, and the user, 86.187.172.249, vandalized the article Isko Moreno, claimed that I masturbated on him daily, but in real life, it did not happen because its illegal.---Rdp060707 (Talk/My fight against the devil/contributions) 12:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This user's IP range (86.187.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) is full of abuse, and is already parblocked from several articles. I've blocked sitewide for six months. As you mentioned, the offensive revisions have already been deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Persistent disruption at WP:BLP Jacqueline Jossa
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Crystal3003 (talk · contribs) appears to have a long term issue with the subject's marriage, and removes sourced content because they don't like it; [180]; [181]; [182]; [183]; [184]; [185]; [186]; [187]; [188]; [189]; [190]; [191]; [192]; [193]; [194]. Account was temporarily blocked for this [195]. Sources for name change include [196]; [197]; [198]; [199]. For the record, I'm not terribly invested in the name change, but it was dutifully covered by the tabloids, and the determination to remove it looks disruptive. I'm also wondering if there's a connection to blocked account 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), whose edits are only accessible to administrators. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've indeffed Crystal3003 from editing that page. Was minded to add a 1 week block for edit warring but it seems that doing so will override that block. Need to sort this out at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mjroots. This is further block evasion. Please add 86.4.62.141 (talk · contribs) to the block list, check the connection to blocked IP 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), rev/delete WP:BLP violations and protect the article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Annoying Generation Z Page Edit War
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agrso has continuously deleted "date rage" information on the Generation Z page for the last few days with the narrative that they want the generation's starting date to be 1995. They keep deleting information that was originally put on the page months ago, and has accused Me of adding it (history of the page shows this is untrue) and "starting an edit war" when in reality this person is the one who keeps vandalizing their page with biased views. They then keep saying a reputable source is "an American think tank and is unreliable" then continuously acts like the victim in this situation.--Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Zillennial: By policy and the notice that appears when editing here, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Have you gone to the edit warring noticeboard beforehand? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- Thank you ---- Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)).
- Zillennial, you need to supply "diffs" (that is, links to edits) to support your claim or it's unlikely to get much attention. Don't force other editors search for evidence to back up your argument because few will. Look at other cases on this page to see how things are done. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you ---- Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)).
Sematz
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sematz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has made a number of disruptive edits ([200] [201] [202] [203] [204]) with regard to WP:NPOV and removed content without sufficient explanation. User has been warned numerous times by me and another user about this on his talk page [205] without response or change in behavior. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Distruptive editing of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and its talk page
I see that there a lot edit requests that unnecessary need in Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory because i see there are more a lot of repetitive arguments being posted, and edit warring over applications of WP:NOTFORUM. And also i see there are more edit warring at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory that is a evidence that 1RR needs to be imposed. Can admins have arguments of this, because there are becoming more edit warring in that main article and its talk page, therefore, the main article doesn't even have 1RR due to controversial issues. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you've copy-pasted part of my rationale for semi-protecting the talk page at WP:RFPP. I think the main article is fine at the moment, and it certainly has enough eyes on it that we can up the protection or page restrictions if need be. ST47 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've been active at that page and talk page over the past few days and I agree with ST47 that additional restrictions on the page itself don't seem necessary. It's already under ECP and that seems to be working a treat. I don't even know if there are any reverts since ECP was applied that would've been prevented by 1RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- But I believe it is not enough to suppress the distruptive behavior because this article is not under 1RR. I agree that ECP is needed but for me 1RR seems to be necessary to this article because how controversial that the content is, and I also invoking WP:ARBEE because I see the topic was related to an Eastern Europe country. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why is 1RR needed when there hasn't been an issue with reverts? Or are you saying 1RR should be applied to the article talk page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What disruptive behavior? Can you be more specific and/or present some diffs? Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- But I believe it is not enough to suppress the distruptive behavior because this article is not under 1RR. I agree that ECP is needed but for me 1RR seems to be necessary to this article because how controversial that the content is, and I also invoking WP:ARBEE because I see the topic was related to an Eastern Europe country. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've been active at that page and talk page over the past few days and I agree with ST47 that additional restrictions on the page itself don't seem necessary. It's already under ECP and that seems to be working a treat. I don't even know if there are any reverts since ECP was applied that would've been prevented by 1RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under ECP and its talk page is semiprotected. Hunter Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under full protection and its talk page is semiprotected. All pages are subject to repeat requests that indicate failure to read the posted FAQs or any prior discussions, and there are filter hits and posts that indicate serious issues (e.g. one filter hit promoting the "fact" that an anonymous "parents' group" somehow validates Pizzagate and that this is now established fact, unlike the "Russia hoax"). It wouldn't hurt at all for more admins to watch those pages and potentially curate the talk pages to focus more tightly on the content questions rather than endless discussions of why mainstream reports are considered more credible than the New York Post. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, In my opinion, these protections needs to become indefinitely for main article, at least it becoming semi-protected for both because how controversial topic are this despite there not even under 1RR. But for me, invoking additional Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions for Biden-Ukraine article is more necessary for me because a topic about Biden is a conspiracy theory with a Eastern European country like Ukraine. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
IP problems...
Especially concerning pre-1999 PBS-related articles. They inexplicably change PBS to PBS Kids, Children's Television Workshop to Sesame Workshop, etc. Here are some examples of articles these IPs hit:
- 1968 in television
- 1969 in television
- 1983 in television
- 1992 in American television
- 1995 in American television
- Joan Ganz Cooney
- Sheryl Leach
- Christmas Eve on Sesame Street
- Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird
And the list goes on. All of these articles need to be protected for a long period of time against these IP vandals.
Oh, and here are some of the vandals in question:
- 98.186.217.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 98.186.219.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
DawgDeputy (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked 98.186.219.166 for three days. The other IP has not been active recently. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully that will be enough, but DawgDeputy, if they turn up after their block expires, or they show up at yet another IP address, please file a new report reporting all known IP addresses so we can calculate a rangeblock. The current range is 98.186.216.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but if it needs to be larger any additional IP addresses you come across will allow us to determine that. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The same abuse has come from at least three additional IPs, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f8f7:8227:f581:51e4, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f079:8bb9:6c0d:be1c, and 98.186.218.243, with only the last one possibly covered by the range block. Page protection would be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- And, in the hour since I posted that, 2600:8800:3100:d33:41d0:c16a:6cc5:b7cd has popped up to do the same stuff. I find the refusal at RPP to protect these pages unfathomable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could it be a good candidate for the edit filter? -- Luk talk 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Personal attack by Tisquesusa, round 3
Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made another personal attack on me for my edits cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. The latest attack[206] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.
Tisquesusa has been blocked on two previous occasions for personal attacks on me over similar issues:
- Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
- Nov 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#More_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks_by_User:Tisquesusa – blocked for 7 days by Black Kite, with a warning[207]
I have not attempted to discuss this with Tisquesusa, because my previous attempts to start a dialogue have just been deleted, sometimes with a hostile edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cullen328, for the prompt response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- This was commendably quick, but I would note that, in theory, the last incident was a final warning. This PA was, compared to a previous particularly unpleasant one, less egregious, so that may be why it was only a doubling of sanction, but if it reoccurs anything less than an indef would appear inappropriate. I know that BHG has the standard admin thick skin, but PAs are one of things we're supposed to handle most severely. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, you identified the reason why I didn't indef. "Less egregious" is exactly what I was thinking. The last incident was almost a year ago as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I've undone the closing of this thread as there is still discussion. We seem to have edged back in to the too-quick closes that have been an issue in the past.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean I'm willing enough to accept Cullen's reasoning (both facets) - I distinctly don't hold a permanent "parole" status over individuals, but if we get a similar action in another 10 months, I'd probably interpret that as deliberate gaming of the system (that, by the way, I do not believe occurred here) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this was obnoxious, but nowhere near as bad as the vicious rant before. However, the pattern is consistent: refusal of dialogue, and prompt escalation to PAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean I'm willing enough to accept Cullen's reasoning (both facets) - I distinctly don't hold a permanent "parole" status over individuals, but if we get a similar action in another 10 months, I'd probably interpret that as deliberate gaming of the system (that, by the way, I do not believe occurred here) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Abusive language and personal attack. [208] AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- In which way did your comment help anyone ?, You pinged me and proceeded to poke me, Go do something useful that doesn't involve pissing me off. –Davey2010Talk 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know trains are a passionate subject, but maybe...chillax? Davey, dunno why you had to remove Algae's comment, it didn't meet any criteria or reason for removal in the WP:TPG. And you were unnecessarily acrid about it. I think Algae was responding in good faith, although Algae: you could have clarified your statement instead of making just a passive aggressive "you're wrong", you could have clarified "heres my interpretation". @Davey2010: Please stop removing AG's comment tho, if you keep it up I'll have to block you and that would not be fun for either of us. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Little late for this now as the claimee has participated, but AlgaeGraphix, in the future you must notify the user whom you are bringing to ANI on their talk page as dictated by policy and the editnotices that popped up when making a new thread here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, when the person reported replies to the report a minute after the report was posted, the notification is moot. There is literally no reason to burden the servers with a notification edit if the person to be notified is already participating. Policy doesn't "dictate" notifications in such circumstances, nor does policy dictate anything, because of the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Lev!vich 20:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 48 hours. Any admin can unblock once they're assured of Davey2010's willingness to work collaboratively. – bradv🍁 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu and Levivich: I fully intended to notify Davey2010 and do a proper ANI complaint (especially as it appeared as if he was about to launch into a full-blown edit war), but real life interrupted. And FWIW, I've been editing train articles (albeit with more emphasis on diagrams) probably just as long as Davey2010. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Self-trout. AlgaeGraphix, no worries. It was just me jumping the gun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu and Levivich: I fully intended to notify Davey2010 and do a proper ANI complaint (especially as it appeared as if he was about to launch into a full-blown edit war), but real life interrupted. And FWIW, I've been editing train articles (albeit with more emphasis on diagrams) probably just as long as Davey2010. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
Seriously, I am watching nasty trash talk on my watchlist go on and on. Can an admin intervene there and sort it out. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- See the above. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv has beat me to the block. I agree, time for a cool down, this is absurd. Continuing to spew personal attacks, at multiple editors, after being dragged to ANI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers, hopefully he will cool down. Go for a walk through the tree's in a nice peaceful environment. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be absolutely clear, the purpose of this block is to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, not to convince someone to go for a walk. Cool-down blocks are discouraged by policy. – bradv🍁 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers, hopefully he will cool down. Go for a walk through the tree's in a nice peaceful environment. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv has beat me to the block. I agree, time for a cool down, this is absurd. Continuing to spew personal attacks, at multiple editors, after being dragged to ANI. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am NOT defending Davey's reaction or personal attacks, and am NOT criticizing the block, and am NOT criticizing AG for coming here. But, just as food for thought, when Davey removed the comment the first time (and subsequent times), he'd obviously read it. Whatever benefit AG intended it to have, it obviously wasn't having the desired effect. Was it necessary for everyone to re-add it? To be honest, if I were in AG's shoes, I'd have probably re-added it too, as my reptilian brain would instinctively react to being insulted and reverted. But just a thought that, as an outside observer who was not the target of the unacceptable attacks, there is a tremendous benefit to the encyclopedia in people treating others more graciously than the others are treating them, even when not really deserved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, as I think about it, is was kind of an unhelpful message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Incivility and battleground behavior from Wikieditor19920
I'm not asking for any serious action here, just for an uninvolved editor to give Wikieditor19920 a reminder about civility and not engaging in battleground behavior.
At this contentious article's talk page Wikieditor19920 has been seriously WP:bludgeoning the process at an RfC:
And their comments throughout the talkpage are uncivil. Accusations of edit warring where none has occurred, repeatedly accusing a number of editors of WP:STONEWALLING, frequently accusing other editors of bias, declaring editors votes at RfC as "irrelevant vote"'s a brief look over the page even just recent discussion will demonstrate their lack of civility, making collaboration very tense and difficult. They've been asked to tone it down repeatedly, to no avail. I'm hoping a word about civility form an uninvolved and experienced editor might help calm the incivility of this discourse down some.
As you can see at their talk page, they've been having issues with other editors at this article:
Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a needless escalation of an editorial disagreement. I've been completely civil with @Bacondrum:, who has been itching to come to ANI[209][210][211] following a few content disputes. I think that certain content disagreements at this page have become heated on all sides. The page is about a political controversial figure, and BLP and WP:FORUM remarks (frankly, including from Bacondrum) have been a concern. Bacondrum suggests, among other things taken out of context, that I accused them of bias. Their first comment at the talk page was basically a diatribe calling the subject
the very definition of a hack writer.
- It's unfortunate that Bacondrum has sought to escalate these disagreements with ANI threats (and now an actual ANI thread) and taking select remarks out of context. I actually agreed with some of Bacon's recent proposals to the page, and was disappointed when they went further than what was suggested and introduced factual inaccuracies and language of questionable neutrality. These can be hashed out, but Bacondrum should consider responding to valid critiques at the talk page rather than taking it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a needless escalation of an editorial disagreement. I've been completely civil with @Bacondrum:, who has been itching to come to ANI[209][210][211] following a few content disputes. I think that certain content disagreements at this page have become heated on all sides. The page is about a political controversial figure, and BLP and WP:FORUM remarks (frankly, including from Bacondrum) have been a concern. Bacondrum suggests, among other things taken out of context, that I accused them of bias. Their first comment at the talk page was basically a diatribe calling the subject
- Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors (including me and anyone else they disagree with) of bludgeoning [212][213][214][215][216] and suggested another editor was whinging at an unrelated page. No one, including me or anyone else, has made similar accusations against Bacondrum in response. Maybe a reminder to Bacondrum is in order as to why these kinds of accusations are not conducive to civil content discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into WP:FORUM-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his
he is the very definition of a hack writer
is a great example of what I'm referring to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into WP:FORUM-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his
- Wikieditor19920 has a bit more than 7,000 edits, and a quarter of them are to three topics: two Muslim women and an Islamophobic activist. His edits abnd comments on Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and talk are often problematic and fail to gain consensus, and his edits and comments on neo-fascist apologist Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are always supportive. This is not a good look. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123
User:John B123 is a regular new page patroller, a largely-unthanked but important task in which most of his edits are constructive. However, in this he has two bad habits that combine badly: he likes to patrol from the new end of the queue, and he likes to draftify articles. Wikipedia:Drafts clearly requires that new articles only be draftified when there is "no evidence of active improvement". I asked for clarification about this a couple weeks ago on Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draftification: How active is active? and the consensus of responses there was that "substantive edits in the last couple of days" would be enough to disqualify draftification. John B123 regularly draftifies articles for which the most recent edit was much more recent, less than an hour before draftification.
This behavior first came to my attention when John moved a new article Danzer's configuration to Draft:Danzer's configuration; if I remember correctly, I was automatically alerted to this because it happened to link to another article I had created. As draftified, the new article was not obviously promotional, had one published reliable source, and had two edits (including its creation) within the hour previous to its draftification, with an edit summary promising more activity (references plural, and figures, promised to come). Many more edits followed soon after draftification. Investigating I found an even more egregious example, Ramón Mellado Parsons, which John had draftified after a pattern of 14 edits over 1.5 hours previous to draftification, the most recent one of which was three minutes prior to draftification. Since then, the pattern has continued, and I was alerted to it again today when I was pinged to User talk:Gumshoe2 over the draftification of Draft:C. Robin Graham (obviously notable per WP:PROF#C3 with one reliable source for that claim included in the article as of its draftification). As I write this, there are 73 draftifications just in October listed in User:John B123/Draftify log, among which I looked more carefully at the history of the first 20. ALL were draftified less than 24 hours after article creation, and 70% of them were draftified within an hour of their most recent edit. (One was later deleted as a copyvio, not noticed by John.)
When I asked John politely on his user talk to justify the speedy draftification of Danzer's configuration, he was unapologetic and defiant, and the discussion soon became testy, and laden with bad-faith assumptions on John's part and (I admit) some intemperate language on my own. Eventually it reached the point where John asked me to stay away from his talk page and find other admins if I ever thought administrative action would be warranted. So, I am taking this here to ANI, where other admins may be found and may take action. My own opinion on what action to take is that it would probably suffice to topic-ban John from draftifying articles within 24 hours of their creation. I don't think removal of his (recently granted) page-move privileges or other stronger sanctions are warranted at this time, but I do think something needs to be done to put this WP:BITEy behavior in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)