m →Statement by Abecedare: fx |
CapnJackSp (talk | contribs) →Statement by (username): my 2c |
||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
My recommendation would be that the editor's involved in the [[Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Misinformation_on_lead|original, largely health though frustrating, discussion]] use [[WP:DRN]] to resolve that dispute since its very length is likely to make an RFC unworkable and dissuade fresh participants. And as RP advised, tone it down, AGF, focus on content and avoid escalatory reverts and rhetoric. Yes there are trolls and POV pusher aplenty in this and the larger IPA area as my recap above shows, but the core group involved here are "just" having a good-faith content dispute. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) |
My recommendation would be that the editor's involved in the [[Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Misinformation_on_lead|original, largely health though frustrating, discussion]] use [[WP:DRN]] to resolve that dispute since its very length is likely to make an RFC unworkable and dissuade fresh participants. And as RP advised, tone it down, AGF, focus on content and avoid escalatory reverts and rhetoric. Yes there are trolls and POV pusher aplenty in this and the larger IPA area as my recap above shows, but the core group involved here are "just" having a good-faith content dispute. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow==== |
||
There are a few persistent issues with Fowler&Fowler, which they have repeatedly refused to address. I had added a note to this effect on their talk page (this has been referenced above). |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
Fowler uses AGF as a suggestion, not policy - Casually accusing editors (including longtime editors) of "Hindu Nationalist" agendas, for no purpose other than to try and invalidate their arguments. |
|||
Fowler also engages in weaponisation of previous on-wiki achievements - Frequently using their previous achievements (like FA articles and time on the site) to strike at other editors, rather than discussing on merits. |
|||
This is quite egregious IMO, and directly against the spirit of a collaborative project. |
|||
:{{tq|1=Please don't attempt to faciley argue with an editor whose version of the lead has stood in this article for upward of ten years... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1143412839]}} |
|||
:{{tq|1=And are you going to disrespect a 17-year veteran of Wikipedia's South Asia-related articles, including the chief author of the FA India and the Mahatma Gandhi page by not responding @Ingenuity?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIngenuity&diff=1166831823&oldid=1166766644]}} |
|||
:{{tq|1=...You are wasting my time, You are wasting community time. You are wasting the time of the chief author of this page, of the India FA, and many related pages...[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166587845]}} (this was during their attempt to add 30,000 bytes to the article after being reverted) |
|||
And all of these are just from a very recent dispute they had at [[Mahatma Gandhi]]. This behaviour is not one off - It has been used so quite repeatedly in the past as well. |
|||
An example of condescending incivility from an older discussion supplied by OP, which had very much the same pattern, is an illustrative tool here. |
|||
:{{tq|1=You know nothing about the topic. You have written nothing of consequence on Wikipedia. You are blustering away about titbits that I have quoted to give the reader a general idea about the topic. As such I see you as nothing but a disruptive presence. I will continue to write the article. Enough is enough}} was their response to an editor with some 20,000 edits and years on wiki. |
|||
The issues go beyond this, to a general condescending tone, edit warring when they feel they are right -[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166111162][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166112019][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166112342][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166261616], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166263174][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166263712] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166587845][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=1166586060] and hostility towards any disagreements; but these alone show that at this point, just ignoring the issue is no longer an option. When F&F has been brought to noticeboards previously, a few editors have cited some of their previous work in improving articles to shield them; Others have questioned their opponents behavior, and F&F has walked away mostly unscathed. |
|||
When misbehaviour is long term, it cannot be brushed off as a result of a content dispute. I think continuing to allow this with just a warning, despite the last logged warning for incivility, is just affirming in F&F's mind that their behaviour is acceptable. At what point do we finally decide to tell an editor, longtime as they may be, that their behaviour is unacceptable? |
|||
===Result concerning Fowler&fowler=== |
===Result concerning Fowler&fowler=== |
Revision as of 19:27, 24 July 2023
Appeal request by GoodDay
Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)
Sanction, that appeal is being requested for
Administrator imposing the sanction
Notification of that administrator
Statement by GoodDay
Well, it' been a full year now, since my t-ban was imposed. I might've been able (not sure) to request having it lifted six-months ago, but chose to wait longer. I understand the mistakes I made & certainly recognise that the topic-in-general is indeed contentious. Should administrators chose to lift my t-ban from GenSex? I can easily promise, it's a topic area I would very much rather avoid. If any questions, please feel free to ping me. PS - I will also avoid the editor, whom I wrongly described with an offensive pronoun & not use such offensive pronouns on any other editors. Heated exchanges do not excuse, such utterances. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been asked why appeal, if I'm going to avoid the topic anyway. Because, it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Good catch @Courcelles:, I did appeal, six months ago. My apologies for the over sight. Since then, I've successfully had my t-ban modified. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th:, I've no plans to make any Gensex related edits or get involved in Gensex content disputes/discussions. If my appeal is successful? I would certainly walk away or stay away, from such disputes & undo any edits to main space, if seen as problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@Swarm:, We've got links to both the July 2022 case & Jan 2023 appeal, I believe now. I would appreciate it, if you would point out, any other. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal:, I'm fully aware, one must tread carefully around the GenSex topic & interaction with editors, when content disputes arise. Can I do better? There's only one way to prove if I can. That would be lifting the t-ban & giving me that chance. In the GenSex topic, I can prove I can do better, if I'm given the chance to 'walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
To administrators - I will not be argumentative around the GenSex topic, since I won't be giving input in GenSex topic disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis Brown
Statement by Sideswipe9th
Just to note on the timeline, this is GoodDay's third appeal, having made and withdrawn an appeal in January 2023, and having made a successful amendment request in February 2023.
I'm honestly not sure what it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban
will mean in practice. After the amendment in February, GoodDay can already make his typical Wikignome style edits to GENSEX articles without fear of breaching the TBAN. I have to ask, what sort of edits and contributions are you planning on making if this appeal is successful, and that you can't make now? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay
Statement by FormalDude
Why are you appealing the t-ban if you "would very much rather avoid" the topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Miesianiacal
Can GoodDay demonstrate he's learned from the mistakes he's made? Simply recognizing the topic is contentious isn't enough; an inability to recognize contentiousness wasn't even the problem that led to the t/ban in the first place. Given my own recent experience with GoodDay a couple of months ago, I'm highly skeptical of any claim that he's learned from his mistakes and "I'll just keep myself away from the topic" isn't very reassuring. My impression is GoodDay should elaborate on what he believes he did wrong and then on how he proposes to do things better going forward. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Result of the appeal request by GoodDay
- I find myself unimpressed this appeal is filed without a link to the withdrawn appeal in the archive. Looks like it was withdrawn when it was apparent it was going nowhere. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ironically, that appeal itself apparently didn’t go anywhere because GoodDay did not address or link to the previous discussion there either. It looks like he’s immediately jammed up his appeal again with the exact same issue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think I’m formally an oppose here. But we need opinions either way… Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ironically, that appeal itself apparently didn’t go anywhere because GoodDay did not address or link to the previous discussion there either. It looks like he’s immediately jammed up his appeal again with the exact same issue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- If I had to sum up this appeal in a single word it would be "unconvincing". The amendment in February was intended to remove the stress of accidentally stumbling across a GEN/SEX issue while gnoming and no evidence has been presented by anybody to say that it isn't working as intended. Given that, I don't understand the stressful comment given the stated desire to avoid contributing to the topic area in substantive ways and the replies to other people also fail to enlighten. Combined with the lack of evidence that the other issues that led to the topic ban being place, and which led to the appeal in January being unsuccessful, have been resolved I find myself opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Thryduulf. It's very easy to work out if a topic falls under GENSEX and to be honest I'm pretty sure that if GoodDay made an uncontentious gnoming edit on one article by mistake an admin wouldn't slam them with a long block; that's how it works. Otherwise I don't see a reason to lift this. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Appeal request by Товболатов
Appeal request by Товболатов (talk)
Sanction, that appeal is being requested for
- indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed
Administrator imposing the sanction
Notification of that administrator
Statement by Товболатов
Hello, respected arbitral tribunal. I have a topic restriction indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. My violation 17 February 2023 tendentious editing across multiple articles, particularly this editing spree on February 16 (Special:Diff/1139722862, Special:Diff/1139722968, Special:Diff/1139723019, Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723110, Special:Diff/1139723167, Special:Diff/1139723254, Special:Diff/1139723211). I admit it's my fault. Half a year has passed, I did not participate in disputes, I did not violate the rules. Request to the community to remove the restrictions from me. I won't break the rules. User talk:Товболатов, User talk:Товболатов, Special:Contributions/Товболатов.
Sincerely, Tovbolatov. Товболатов (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles this i made this edit by mistake, confused the project with the Russian one. Any person makes mistakes, no one is immune from this. If I violate the rules, any administrator can immediately block me. There were no edits after that, I didn’t want to make a mistake, I thought if I made a small mistake, they could immediately block me. Sanctions were applied to me for the first time, I had not come across this before in 7 years (in the beginning I wrote from anonymous).--Товболатов (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I forgot in the Russian project for 7 years I was blocked for one hour. I'm sorry.--Товболатов (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand why I have such a long block, I didn’t have any gross violations, only spamming once. During this, there is usually a day or two of blocking. I did not offend anyone, I did not have a doll. I didn’t create fakes, but there were disputes at the beginning due to three articles by one person, but their community (administrators) was deleted due to unreliable information. Like I'm some kind of villain. Everyone makes a mistake once, according to the rules, I can apply to three instances. This is the third time I've been rejected. --Товболатов (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- In the Russian project, I wrote two articles during this time, made many edits. I have been thanked several times for this. There were discussions with participants and I made positive contributions. I want to translate several articles into an English project, three so far. Two about the personality and one about the group of origin. I wrote 12 articles here, they are in the main space with three pages, the administrators helped me. Pages Created Diff- Эпизод сражения при Валерике 11 июля 1840 года, Товболат Курчалоевский, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Служебная:Вклад/Товболатов,
- I finalized this article, protected it from deletion Хамзат Нашхоевский, edited this page Верхний Наур, Штурм аула Гуниб 25 августа 1859 года. Created pages My three pages got on the main page in Russian Wikipedia. In total, I wrote 177 articles on Wikipedia. --Товболатов (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Courcelles ok, i'll fix it, thanks for the trust!--Товболатов (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Rosguill
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by Товболатов
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)
Result of the appeal request by Товболатов
- Absolutely not. Essentially no editing since sanctioned. Should have been blocked for this. Likely we need to broaden this to the former USSR, including modern successor republics, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, withdraw my idea of expanding the ban, but still oppose appeal. We want to see good editing on the English Wikipedia, not merely the passage of time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I see that Товболатов has barely edited since the topic ban. Perhaps edit other areas for a while and then ask for the topic ban to be lifted. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'll accept the explanation for that single questionable edit (God only knows I've typed things in the wrong window more than once), but even so the complete lack of activity doesn't really give us anything else to go on. We need to see evidence of actual improvement, not just the clock ticking. That's the exact reason that we don't very often do time-limited topic bans any more; before they get lifted, we want to see someone doing better, not just running out the clock. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Unless at least one uninvolved admin shows up in support, I plan to close this as appeal declined. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
SMcCandlish
Withdrawn by filer as out of AE scope. Comment objected to was withdrawn, as well. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SMcCandlish
I asked SMcCandlish to strike this remark after seeing that it had clearly upset TheMainLogan [3] [4] [5] [6]. Saying that someone must be smoking crack to disagree with you isn't a joke; it's a personal attack, even if you aren't literally accusing them of cocaine abuse. Doing so after putting oneself forward as an authority on the topic at hand just comes off as bullying. This is coupled with a violation of the AGF sanction. Accusing someone of willfully misinterpreting guidelines, without any evidence for that willfulness, is a prima facie assumption of bad faith. Given the age of this sanction, I was hoping it could be cleared up with a polite request to retract, but as he has, in his own words, rolled his eyes at the idea that he's done anything wrong, I am bringing it here for review. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SMcCandlishStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SMcCandlishObserving that someone seems to be going out of their way to misterpret material is not an "assumption of bad faith". Indeed, I think that participants in disputes like that one have entirely good faith; they believe that they are "correcting" the English of others. Making what is obviously a silly-phrased joke is not a "personal attack". I'd be entirely willing to strike that phrase if the editor in question said they felt attacked by it, but they have so far remained silent, and probably have a sense of humor. Tamzin needs to find something better to do than thought-police other editors. I'll remind the commitee of previous decisions that even telling other editors to "fuck off" isn't necessarily actionable as an attack, and I've come nowhere close to such hostile behavior. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 22:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Given that theMainLogan, to whom the comment was directed, objected to the phrase, I've struck it. [7] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning SMcCandlish
|
Fowler&fowler
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Fowler&fowler
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Made 3 reverts on the main article of Mahatma Gandhi even after knowing that he got no support for his edits on the talk page concerning a 5 months-old content dispute. He resumed discussion on the talk page (by starting a new section instead of continuing on the existing one) only after reaching too close to making 4 reverts in 24 hours.[8][9][10] His talk page discussions have been toxic due to his personal attacks and he continues to show his failure to drop the stick.
- 22 July 2023: WP:NPA against his opponents by terming them as "revamped Hindu nationalist nosy parkers".
- 22 July: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CANVASSING.
- Demeaning editors as having "
Hindu nationalist-viewpoint
" and violating WP:CANVASSING by pinging at least a dozen of editors (with most having never edited the article). Though he made no pings to any of the editors who have been involved in this months-old dispute.
- Demeaning editors as having "
- 22 July: Simply refuses to understand WP:ASPERSIONS and doubles down by saying "
It seems to be the latest arsenal in the revamped, slightly more sophisticated, Hindu nationalist attack on Wikipedia
". - 22 July: Believes I don't have enough credibility because I have "
a record of two edits
" on the main article. This is very contrary to his own canvassing of editors as mentioned above who have never edited the article before. - 23 July: Violation of WP:AGF;
both you, Randy Kryn, and CapnJackSp are being less than generous when you respond to my reliably sourced edits with what are personal musings.
- 23 July: Once he failed to receive any support on the talk page, he went to misrepresent the content dispute on the page-protecting admin's page to convince him to restore his preferred version. He made no mention of the talk page discussions where consensus has been held against his edits.
- 24 July: Almost the same as above but this time more emotive and least objective.
His responses to editors who have raised issues on his talk page include "please do not post on my user talk page again. I have a limited amount of patience for arguments with people who have given no evidence for knowledge of the mode of historical argumentation
".[11] "I'm sick and tired of bogus editors such as you
".[12] And "you have no compunction leaving a superciliously preachy message on my talk page about my behavior
".[13]
This is a long-term behavioral issue with Fowler, to impose his views and exhaust the patience of others. Experienced editors of this area have frequently condemned the behavior of Fowler,[14][15][16][17] with some deeming his actions as a "clever strategy to remove editorial opponents
"[18] or "my way or the highway
".[19] Even after various ANI reports,[20][21] Fowler has evidently refused to mend his behavior. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Warned in October 2022 for "personal attacks and incivility" over infobox dispute involving WP:ARBIND area.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- [22]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [23]
Discussion concerning Fowler&fowler
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Fowler&fowler
I shall not be responding to these allegations in any great detail. I suspect that Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), who appears to be more of a talk page editor—for they have made but two edits in Mahatma Gandhi, both over the weekend—have begun this request because their sources, which I am about to take to RS/N, (see here) will not pass muster there and the rug of their revisionist effort at Mahatma Gandhi will be pulled from under their feet. What better way to stop a content dispute from progressing than to sink it in the mire of behavior.
The only other thing I'd like to note is that the exchange on my user talk page about "meatpuppetry" was in the nature of humor.
I am being baited relentlessly by Wikipedia's Hindu nationalists, all in polite language, all in the best traditions of Wikilawyering. One such editor Fayninja (talk · contribs) has just been banned for sockpuppetry; another Meowkiti (talk · contribs) who made a meat-puppetry allegation on my user talk page has also been banned for sockpuppetry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @RegentsPark:. Very helpful advice which has been heard loud and clear. Again, many thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- As I am in ArbCom, I might as well get some advice from the arbitrators. Increasingly, I find myself dealing with editors, who are either unwilling or unable to spot the difference between high-quality scholarly sources, and low-quality non-scholarly sources.
- You can see the situation, for example, in the collapsed list I have lined up in Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Fowler&fowler's_sources,_lead_last_para and sources such as those the nominator of this Request for Arbitration has here.
- Three of their five sources are abysmally poor quality. In my nearly 17 years and 60K edits on WP, I have never used any source even remotely descending to that level.
- Increasingly, I find myself dealing with editors who counter my painstakingly found and rigorously summarized sources with what seems like a Keystone Kops collection of pseudo-sources. If I try to argue, I face pious reference to WP:THIS AND THAT. It seems people who have written nothing, who can't paraphrase at a bare minimum level, who can't
- (or don't) comprehend common distinctions, can nonetheless quote chapter and verse of the WP rule book. So, what does one do with an army of talk-page mavens who have never written anything in article space, or written very little? I can take their sources to RS/N, but that is a time sink. ... I'm frustrated, and very depressed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark
(Involved because I have a long respected Fowler&fowler for their contributions.) Let me start by stating that, yes, we do have a Hindu nationalist sock problem (see this) on Wikipedia (though I don't see Abhishek0831996 as belonging to this group). And, as we can see by the blocking of editors like Fayninja, many of they are socks and they do target and bait Fowler. They do this because Fowler brings many good sources to the table and it is easier to bait him than it is to argue against those sources. What we end up with is endless discussions, a lot of needling, and, yes, a Fowler going off the rails. In defense of Fowler, they repeatedly ping various admins for help but, because the needling is subtle (you'd have to be a veritable Seneca if you're getting many comments like this one) there isn't much we can do (though Abecedare does try). I'd suggest closing this with the advice (to Fowler) to tone it down, try not to see Hindu nationalists everywhere, and ask admins for help directly (rather than using pings) with appropriate diffs. RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Abecedare
My overall opinion matches Regent Parks'. So instead of repeating what they said, I'll only add my read of the events that led to this report.
The casus belli is this content dispute from March 2023, where despite the length, editors appear to be discussing sources and content in good faith. However, suddenly on July 20 Randy Kryn, who hadn't participated in that March discussion but had other editing disputes with F&f, decided to "removed incorrect information in lead and edited for brevity" based on that discussion while conceding in their full edit-summary that the discussion was still ongoing. This then led to:
- A cycle of edits with F&f and Johnbod restoring the previous lede text (and 28,000 bytes (!) of supporting citations and quotes) and @Capitals00, Abhishek0831996, and Aman.kumar.goel: blindly reverting to Kryn's version. I say "blindly" because all the editors involved are competent enough to know that the text they were fighting to add to the lede section of a high-profile and well-developed article (
...and led to the belief on some Indian Hindus that Gandhi had been...
) was atrocious non-English. - At the same time, CapnJackSp left some good-faith but extremely condescending warnings/advice on F&f's talkpage, which only raised the temperature further.
- To makes matters even worse, simultaneously, Fayninja who has been following and baiting F&f for quite some time, created a sock account, Meowkiti (talk · contribs), to add trollish content to the talkpage in an apparent attempt to rile F&f and others
- And, likely unconnected to all the above content disputes and ego clashes, another sockmaster created an account জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk · contribs) to add a stubby "Criticism" section to the article, ostensibly supporting the Fayninja sock. The জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা sock then went to make blatantly POV edits to Subhash Chandra Bose, an article chiefly authored by F&f and constantly targeted by nationalist/regional POV pushers. Inevitably contributing to the siege mentality.
To their credit Aman.kumar.goel, even while involved in a content dispute with F&f as mentioned in (1), reverted and reported the socks mentioned in (3) and (4).
My recommendation would be that the editor's involved in the original, largely health though frustrating, discussion use WP:DRN to resolve that dispute since its very length is likely to make an RFC unworkable and dissuade fresh participants. And as RP advised, tone it down, AGF, focus on content and avoid escalatory reverts and rhetoric. Yes there are trolls and POV pusher aplenty in this and the larger IPA area as my recap above shows, but the core group involved here are "just" having a good-faith content dispute. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow
There are a few persistent issues with Fowler&Fowler, which they have repeatedly refused to address. I had added a note to this effect on their talk page (this has been referenced above). Fowler uses AGF as a suggestion, not policy - Casually accusing editors (including longtime editors) of "Hindu Nationalist" agendas, for no purpose other than to try and invalidate their arguments. Fowler also engages in weaponisation of previous on-wiki achievements - Frequently using their previous achievements (like FA articles and time on the site) to strike at other editors, rather than discussing on merits. This is quite egregious IMO, and directly against the spirit of a collaborative project.
Please don't attempt to faciley argue with an editor whose version of the lead has stood in this article for upward of ten years... [24]
And are you going to disrespect a 17-year veteran of Wikipedia's South Asia-related articles, including the chief author of the FA India and the Mahatma Gandhi page by not responding @Ingenuity?[25]
...You are wasting my time, You are wasting community time. You are wasting the time of the chief author of this page, of the India FA, and many related pages...[26]
(this was during their attempt to add 30,000 bytes to the article after being reverted)
And all of these are just from a very recent dispute they had at Mahatma Gandhi. This behaviour is not one off - It has been used so quite repeatedly in the past as well. An example of condescending incivility from an older discussion supplied by OP, which had very much the same pattern, is an illustrative tool here.
You know nothing about the topic. You have written nothing of consequence on Wikipedia. You are blustering away about titbits that I have quoted to give the reader a general idea about the topic. As such I see you as nothing but a disruptive presence. I will continue to write the article. Enough is enough
was their response to an editor with some 20,000 edits and years on wiki.
The issues go beyond this, to a general condescending tone, edit warring when they feel they are right -[27][28][29][30], [31][32] & [33][34] and hostility towards any disagreements; but these alone show that at this point, just ignoring the issue is no longer an option. When F&F has been brought to noticeboards previously, a few editors have cited some of their previous work in improving articles to shield them; Others have questioned their opponents behavior, and F&F has walked away mostly unscathed.
When misbehaviour is long term, it cannot be brushed off as a result of a content dispute. I think continuing to allow this with just a warning, despite the last logged warning for incivility, is just affirming in F&F's mind that their behaviour is acceptable. At what point do we finally decide to tell an editor, longtime as they may be, that their behaviour is unacceptable?
Result concerning Fowler&fowler
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I haven’t looked into the substance of the complaint yet, but please comment only in your own sections, using pings as necessary. Courcelles (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler, per above, forgot my own ping. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any action required here and what RegentsPark says is very sensible. It is always a difficult issue dealing with multiple POV warriors. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)