Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Acupuncture: not sure what to do here

• Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have two questions about this edit/revert[1][2]
and about these two talk page discussions:[3][4]

Question #1: Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? Is there something that needs to be done about Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture, or should I advise Roxy and JzG to stop questioning Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture?

Question#2: If something needs to be done here, is this something that should be discussed at ANI, or should I go to WP:AE?

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Possibly related:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard discretionary sanctions.
• User:Middle 8/COI
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's actually fairly straightforward - the RfC said "Do practitioners of alternative medicine ... have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? - in other words, do they automatically have a COI - this was opposed. It did not say "Can practitioners of alternative medicine ...", because clearly, yes they still can, depending on what and how they're editing. Indeed the RfC close specifically said this - "Editors are reminded that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Should Middle 8 be requested to not make the claims he makes on User:Middle 8/COI and on the two talk pages I cited above? Should I withdraw this ANI report and bring up the question of whether Middle 8 has a COI at WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• An editor's on-wiki conduct bears on problems like TE and ADVOCACY, not COI. Per EXTERNALREL and the recent RfC clarifying same, COI arises from an editor's external relationships "within their field of expertise" (e.g. The Who's manager has a COI for The Who but not band manager). Otherwise we'd be seeing COI tags and COI/N cases with lots of professional fields. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC); edit for clearer example, 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to re-litigate something that has been the topic of one Arbcom case, at least two RfCs and a boatload of talk page discussions (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content), but I would like to address Middle 8's "it isn't a COI at all and thus I am not guilty of any COI violation" argument. The counterargument (which may be something Arbcom needs to rule on -- I still would like advice on that) is that our band manager article doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" claim that is currently in our accupunture article. If our band manager article said that bands that only pretend to have a band manager work just as well and make just as much money as bands that have them then the band manager for The Who shouldn't edit that article. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• You already made those exact same reasonable arguments at the RFC (right down to the band manager example), where they were duly considered alongside other reasonable arguments. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That RfC was about whether alternative medicine practitioners in general have a conflict of interest. This ANI report is about whether you personally have a conflict of interest, and was triggered by you repeatedly claiming that the RfC in question had a result of "It is impossible for Middle 8 to have a COI regarding acupuncture". And you were the one who brought up the band manager argument. Did you really expect such an argument to stand unchallenged? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if you're having difficulty extrapolating from the general case to a specific one. Please see my comment here. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good, give a pointer to a place where you tried to explain basic logic to a PhD mathematician after they corrected you. Brilliant. The RfC as decided cannot possibly settle the question of whether any particular individual has a COI. (Although probably at this point you should be blocked for tendentiousness and wikilawyering.) --JBL (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong about negation, you just picked the wrong statement to negate. Take the heat down a notch, please, and see my reply below ("If A, then B"). addendum: No, the RfC can't say that a given editor has no COI of any kind, but it can and does say that the principle that profession doesn't cause COI generalizes to CAM professions. This, as far as I can tell, is what Guy Macon disputes: he thinks I might have a COI because acupuncture (.... repeat arguments from RfC). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC); fixed 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, this isn't the right venue to (re)litigate my putative COI -- COI/N is. The "is it impossible" issue is really a red herring (the article tag being minor) -- the main question IMO is whether am I being accused of COI, and why, and whether in light of the RfC result it's even proper to do so. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what JBL said, in slightly different wording: It is not possible for the RfC you are trying to rely upon to make it "improper" to raise CoI concerns about your or anyone else's editing. This is a WP:IDHT act you can drop now. At best, the RfC indicates nothing beyond the fact that for WP purposes, you don't automatically have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist. You may well still have one (or may not; it depends on the evidence). This thread seems mostly to be about where to present it, and it probably would have just been more productive to present it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure I or anyone could have a COI for lots of reasons,^[5] but not simply because of their profession -- even for alt-meders. That's what the RfC said. Remarkably Guy Macon, while arguing that this result was merely "general",^[6] has come here offering no specifics about me -- did you catch that part? The main drafter of the RfC close did.^[7] As for whether it's proper for Guy to start^[8] an RfC because of me,^[9] then after not getting the result he wanted^[10] go to different forum repeating the same old arguments, I leave that up to you. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your response. I said that you don't automatically have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist, and that evidence behind why someone thinks you have a CoS should be presented [i.e., rather than further argument about where to present it]. You've simply reiterated the same two things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's because we agree on those two things. :-) Which is good, because they're central (where we're at, where to go). --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• As it applies to this instance, would it be fair to state the RfC question as, "Do acupuncturists have a conflict of interest with regard to Acupuncture?" (Acupuncture being "content describing their field of practice".) Leviv ich 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Simply having a profession (doctor, engineer, needle poker) doesn't create a COI for that profession, including CAM's -- that's how I read the RfC. And remember, COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits. So I can't imagine any other way one could have a COI for their (or any) broad professional area, can you? If I'm wrong, then I retract my assertion that it's impossible. But I maintain that that COI tag doesn't belong on any article about a profession, and that being an acupuncturist doesn't give me a COI for acupuncture. I really thought that RfC laid such issues to rest, and that we could refocus on content, not contributors. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Just get an admin or two to tell me that your interpretation of the RfC is correct, and I will gladly switch to telling Roxy and JzG to stop complaining when you make edits like these[11][12],[13][14] Clearly neither of them agrees that you don't have a COI. I am fine with telling them to stop accusing you of having a COI and I am fine with telling you not to edit pages where you have a COI, but please don't expect me to decide which to do simply because an acupuncturist tells me which he thinks to be correct. You are hardly unbiased. There is nothing wrong with me asking what to do in this situation, so please stop implying that there is.[15] I will get an authoritative answer, either here or from Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This seems like IDHT. You already have a clear and authoritative answer from the RfC (which was closed by three uninvolved, experienced admins). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • ...and doesn't say what you have repeatedly claimed that it says. Don't forget that part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
        • If it doesn't mean that simply being an acu'ist doesn't confer a COI, then Aristotle was wrong. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 06:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • As I've already pointed out to you elsewhere, the negation of "X is always true" is "X is sometimes not true", not "X is never true". This is, literally, a basic failure of logic, and the fact that you repeat the error after being corrected reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Actually, JBL, it's "If A, then B" ("If I practice a CAM profession, then that causes a COI for that CAM profession"), the negation of which is "A and not B" ("I practice a CAM profession and that does not cause a COI for that CAM profession"). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC); improved wording 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • P.S. More than happy to reword my comments to clarify [16], fwiw. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy)
  • Middle 8 seems to be interpreting "COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits" (which is Middle 8's own wording, not any RfC's) to mean something more like "CoI cannot be demonstrated by one's on-wiki edits, only by WP:OUTING-style connection of the editor to real-life role at particular organizations". This isn't a correct position (wasn't before or after the RfC we've been talking about). Maybe I'm misreading Middle 8, but everything I'm seeing here amounts to "it's impossible for me to have a CoI, because some RfC said so", yet it's not what the RfC said, and it's not how it works. Cf Black Kite's comment below: "the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • SMcCandlish: see WP:COINOTBIAS, that's what I mean, also ACTUALCOI underneath. If it says elsewhere in PAG (or an RfC) that COI is also demonstrated by edits, I stand corrected. Also read our article Conflict of interest, esp the lede, 2nd para. And no, it's not about outing (straw man), it's about disclosure. Again: yes, it's perfectly possible for me to have a COI, just not because I'm an acupuncturist. But I have no other off-wiki connections that might apply, so.... --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Eh, who cares. We are talking about two edits about an edit notice that no one has probably even read. If it stays or goes who cares really? Other than drama what is the point of this and why did you ping JzG? If you have an issue then take in to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I pinged JzG because, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI, JzG and Roxy are the ones who I will be telling to stop saying that he does. Likewise, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 does have a COI, I will be telling him not to edit pages where he has a COI. So far no admin has advised me to close this and go to AE, but I am perfectly willing to do that. I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• What makes you think any of the people involved need your input? You already opened an ill advised RFC that wasted countless hours and ended in the obvious conclusion. If you want to do something then do it but this is just a drama magnet, and you don't need permission to go to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, don’t bother to tell me that M8 has no COI. I won’t believe you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't completely decided, but I am leaning towards Middle 8 having a COI. Clearly you, I, and JzG all think Middle 8 has a COI, and the existence of an RfC that essentially says that alt med practitioners don't automatically have COIs has not convinced any of the three of us that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI. Of course Middle 8 thinks that it should convince us, but he would say that, wouldn't he?

That being said, if I were to see several admins (or Arbcom) tell us to stop saying that Middle 8 has a COI then we need to abide by that decision whether we agree or not. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here, so if the admins continue to be silent on the question I intend to take it to AE as something that ANI is unable to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits. If he's making neutral sourced edits then it doesn't matter anyway. If he's making disruptive or anti-consensus edits that show a clear POV then he may well be said to have a COI. But more importantly in this case, he should not be removing the edit notice because COI editors - whoever they are - should not be editing any article that they have a COI on; this one is no different. Not only that, but (as I quoted above) the RfC that Middle8 is using to justify removing the notice actually backed up this fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow: could you specify which fact you say the RfC backed up, and why? And again, you're mistaken re how COI arises. It doesn't come from biased edits. It comes from one's off-wiki roles. See WP:COINOTBIAS. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. What behavior of Middle 8 is being contested here? Which edits were problematic? What has been done in response to those edits? Has Middle 8 showed a continued pattern of bad editing after being warned about such? Your focus on the conflict of interest is a distraction. The focus should be on good or bad editing behavior, and that's it. The minutiae of the COI policies are a distraction, so focus instead on the behavior. --Jayron32 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love it if we could refocus on content; then bad reverts like this would be avoided (cf. WP:PRESERVE). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise and abridge 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, if Middle 8 was defending his particular practice, then yes - absolutely a COI. But the sidebar tactic of declaring someone has a COI because they practice a certain whatever, then you'd be preventing every declared liberal from editing Dem political articles and the same as it would apply to conservative who support Repubs. The same would apply to every dentist, dermatologist, massage therapist, etc. I think you see my point. Worse yet, we can't even get a majority to agree that paid editors should be prevented from editing articles they were paid to edit. Major time sink here. Provide the diffs you oppose or just start an RfC at the article, and get ready for the "come what may". Just my 5¢ worth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, agreed re other professions, and the thing is, this was all discussed in the RfC and the "No COI" arguments (like yours) were found to outweigh the "Yes" ones. Yet Guy Macon is now suggesting I have a COI using -- wait for it -- those exact same arguments from the RfC (i.e. alt-meds like acupuncture are pseudoscience-y etc.). [17] How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC? And why isn't this at COI/N? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice obfuscation. First you tell a blatant lie about what is in an RfC ("it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC")[18] then when someone calls you on it, you write "this was all discussed in the RfC" and "How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?". I predict that if this ANI report closes without a consensus that you do have a COI and without a consensus that you do not have a COI, you will start claiming that "Per ANI I have no COI" and if anyone disagrees you will say that ANI settled the question and ask "why did we have a discussion on ANI?". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a lie at all, a reasonable inference from the RfC result^[19] as I've explained before you even posted here,^[20] in this thread,^[21] and later on your user talk page,^[22] which at the moment you're still ignoring^[23] in favor of this war/drama forum. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nowhere in the RfC that someone can claim that acupuncturists cannot have a COI at least. The RfC can mostly be summarized as while having a numerically higher oppose count, the arguments for the supports have stronger arguments, but a specific proposal wasn't needed since current guidelines already cover those viewpoints.

Comments like simply having a profession isn't COI tend to come up here a lot which is true, but that doesn't exclude that specific professions can have one. The key determinant is if that profession runs counter to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Being a university professor, etc. doesn't have very much COI aside from an editor promoting their own research, etc. since their job is essentially presenting encyclopedic knowledge. Someone engaged in alternative medicine or pseudoscience though has a conflict since furthering encyclopedic knowledge runs counter to their profession as outlined in the first paragraph of WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You read the RfC closing wrong, Kingofaces43. Consensus was on the 60%-ish majority "oppose" side. It said "We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger. ... Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."

I agree that the financial connection is tighter for the average alt-meder than the average professor, but you can read (or may recall) counterarguments from the RfC (that the slope is slippier than that, and that financial connections for any broad area are much more tenuous than the classic COI example of one's own business, et cetera). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'll pile on here as well, the RfC very obviously decided against singling out alt-med practitioners as having an inherent COI relative to any other area of interest or specialty. It refused to make a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners have a COI by default. That does not make it a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners cannot have a COI, and that is what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here. Mid 8's supposedly-amicable demeanor is severely betrayed by his inability and/or unwillingness to accept that his unrealistic interpretation of the RfC is not correct. This alone is grounds for serious consideration of sanctions. That said, if accusations of COI are being made, the underlying evidence should be examined. There is no pre-emptive default stance either way as a result of that RfC, beyond the default stance that accusations of any kind need supporting evidence. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As an authority on my own views, I object to being soundbited and misconstrued. I agree 100% with how one of the RfC closers paraphrased the RfC result:

• "The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."^[24]

Compare that to "what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here":

• "P.S. In a nutshell, simply having a profession (broadly, like "electrical engineer") does not create a COI when editing in that topic area. The RfC clarified that this indeed applies to CAM professions."^[25]

Of course an alt-med professional can have still COI's for aspects of their topic area, e.g. for their own writings/inventions, but not for their alt-med area broadly, and not simply because of their being a alt-meder.

A brief talk-page exchange would've sufficed to clarify all this. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

And I do regret removing the COI tag from the talk page. It was put there several years as part of a "singling out" campaign, and AFAIK hasn't been used on the article talk page of any other alt-med profession (let alone any other profession). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Specific edits

As requested,[26] and without receiving a definitive answer regarding whether Middle 8 has a COI, I am posting a summary of Middle 8's edits that may or may not be COI violations, depending on whether or not he has a COI.

If you are looking for a smoking gun edit where Middle 8 has made blatantly biased or incorrect edits that would be sanctionable whether or not he has a COI, you can stop reading now. That did not happen. If you are looking for edits that paint acupuncture in a favorable light -- the kind of edit that would be OK if he has no COI but not OK if he does have a COI, read on.

(If you are sensing an undercurrent of me disagreeing with the basic plan of examining his edits without a determination of whether he has a COI, you are correct. I am not looking forward to the inevitable criticism that will follow me posting the following edits, but I realize that I will also be criticized if I don't post them.)

Middle 8 has spent the last ten years editing on and off in the area of Acupuncture. Middle 8 also has a direct financial interest in the Wikipedia acupuncture page and related pages painting acupuncture in a favorable light. I do not believe that Middle 8 is editing in bad faith. I believe that he wants Wikipedia to lean towards portraying acupuncture in a favorable light because he honestly believes that the existing content is too unfavorable.

In my opinion, the COI question is the key. If he doesn't have a COI, then making edits favorable to acupuncture would not be a problem. If he does have a COI they are a problem. That being said, here are some diffs:

His very first edit after registering was to change

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials."

to

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials (RCT's). A review of 26 RCT's studying acupuncture for nausea and vomiting showed some effect, but those effects were equivocal for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting."

Diff: 10:56, 28 January 2009 [27]

The next day he changed

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. "

to

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. (Hypotheses exist, however; e.g. Langevin and Yandow (2002) postulate a relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes.) "

Diff: 05:46, 29 January 2009[28]

I am not going to list a bunch of edits from years ago unless specifically asked to do that, but here are a couple of samples.

"Unlike established "woo", acupuncture's efficacy and mechanisms are unclear. The jury is out..."

Diff: 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) [29]

"A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see here and here, as does the fact that it's used at numerous academic centers] including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane. All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study". In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012) -- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option."

Diff: 10:25, 8 January 2015[30]

This brings us up to recent edits:

"Harrison's states that acupuncture is of some benefit in dysmennorhea, and lists it as a non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain in ADPKD and an adjunctive treatment in knee osteoarthritis, for which it "produces modest pain relief compared to placebo needles" According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing."

Diff: 05:47, 5 January 2019[31]

Removed "Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Diff: 07:48, 7 April 2019[32]

Again, I posted the above edits because I was asked to, not because I believe that they answer the question I asked. And I really am asking whether Middle 8 has a COI, not trying to prove that he does have a COI, so please put your flamethrowers down. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Middle 8 here. The advice from Jayron32 above is superb, but that's not (at all) what Guy Macon is doing. The diffs are selectively quoted (hence the wall of text and not just links), omitting material critical of acu, sources used, how I responded to any reverts, et cetera.

COI arises from one's off-wiki activities and not one's edits (a too-common misconception). Of course some of a non-COI editors' edits could be improper if they had a COI, but it's illogical (and unfair) to insinuate that such non-COI edits imply a COI. That's putting the are-my-edits-conflicted cart before the do-I-indeed-have-a-conflict horse. It's not how you handle either COI or editing concerns. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another view

It seems to me that proponents of pseudoscience, in which category accupuncture clearly belongs, must be held to the highest standard when making claims about their particular brand of woo. For a start WP:MEDS ^{edit +}WP:MEDRS^{end edit} seems like a bare minimum when making claims about possible health treatments. Whether of not an editor is a practicing accupuncturist or whether or not they have a COI, all edits about such subjects need impeccible citing to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia correctly subscribes to the mainline scientific view of such subjects and it is always going to be problematice when proponents edit in the areas of their particular interest. It is not akin to an engineer editing an article on engineering practice because there are going to be multiple RS to back up the engineer's claims. The same cannot be said for accupuncture. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC) edit to correct link - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, and will add that it is important for us to exercise a level of caution in order to avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia; i.e., all relevant views presented with proper weight and balance per NPOV. We provide the whole picture, not a Photoshopped version of it in an effort to pursuade readers to accept a particular POV - we simply present the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view. If material is poorly sourced, UNDUE, etc. it is subject to removal. If the editor in question has created disruption (such as 3RR or is repeatedly citing unreliable sources) or has acted uncivil (PAs, threats, etc.) in an effort to prevent removal of poorly sourced/UNDUE material, then you have an actionable behavioral issue, but I have not seen any evidence to support such a claim. Circumstantial evidence may establish patterned behavior but is the behavior actionable if there is no evidence to support an actionable claim? What I'm seeing is an editor with a professional perspective. What professional doesn't have a noticeable POV involving their chosen profession? NPOV tells us to include all relevant views published by/cited to RS so our readers can make their own determinations. Just curious...in comparison, do you consider Britannica's accupuncture article to be overly promotional or possibly authored by proponents of pseudoscience, or well-presented? Perhaps such a comparison will help answer your question about COI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points that apply all around. When acupuncture has mainstream acceptance such as use in academic medical centers^[33] and the National Academy of Medicine calls it a "powerful tool" in pain management,^[34] perhaps the pseudoscience and quackery aspects shouldn't overwhelm our treatment of the subject and its practitioners and their possible COI's. One might wonder based on this thread, and the lede of acupuncture, how well we're doing that. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that Brittanica are parroting the chinagov deception that the Chinese use acu to anaesthetise patients for surgery. How accurate is the rest of that article? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What Britannica does is irrelevant to this issue, because they do not claim to follow anything like our WP:NPOV policy. Many of their articles are written by a single person and reflect that person's point of view. That is a feature, not a bug. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Re Atsme's insightful comment above about avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia and simply presenting the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view, in the cases of acupuncture, the proponents really do believe that the scientific mainstream view is far more favorable towards acupuncture than the Wiipedia article is.

As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it".

So, how do we reach a balance between avoiding the exclusion of well-sourced material and the natural tendency of someone like Middle 8 to not understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it? We simply require him to read and obey Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Right now the problem is that he honestly believes that an RfC was closed with a conclusion that Best practices doesn't apply to him. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do take COIADVICE seriously, and am careful, but I'm not 100% all-the-time bound by its mainspace-avoding-advice without a COI finding -- and it's disingenous to suggest I should have one in all but name. You may recall that you opened an RfC with me in mind that concluded (paraphrase, from one of the closing admins): The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."^[35] Instead of forum-shopping and repeating old arguments from that RfC, please offer a reason why its result doesn't cover me -- IOW why my case is somehow more financially-connected than the default alt-med practitioner. Which per Ernst is small -- he thinks the idealogical "COI", almost evangelical fanaticism, is the much bigger problem. Which we call bad editing. If that's your concern about me, handle it the proper way, not underhandedly like this. Like an actual conversation on user talk, which you have been avoiding. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC), 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC), clarify to avoid another soundbite 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel like you need to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, you have a good-faith belief that you don't have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one. And likewise JzG and Roxy shouldn't feel like they need to stop telling you to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, they have a good-faith belief that you do have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one.

It is clear from your disparaging comments about my filing this ANI case and about the second RfC that you do not want any definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom. You clearly want us to simply agree with your arguments. It is equally clear that Roxy (and I presume JzG) will never stop telling you that you have a COI and that you should follow COIADVICE unless they receive a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom telling them to stop doing that. So what do we do when editors are unable to agree about how to apply Wikipedia policy and ANI is unable to resolve this disagreement? We take it to arbcom, which I intend to do once this thread is auto-archived without a definitive answer.

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop IDHT-ing and address the crux of the matter: exactly why I should be an exception to the RFC that you brought because of me. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll weigh in as the main drafter of the RfC close. Acupuncturists don't have an inherent COI when editing Acupuncture. That means that acupuncturists are not forbidden (or even strongly discouraged) from editing Acupuncture simply because they are acupuncturists. That doesn't mean that their edits don't deserve scrutiny. Discretionary sanctions apply to this topic and misuse of sources, POV-pushing, edit-warring, combative talk-page participation, wikilawyering, uncollegial or battleground editing, or just about any other sort of tendentious or disruptive editing should be reported to AE where admins willing to take arbitration enforcement action can do so.

IMO, editors on both sides of this dispute are much too fixated on the question of COI. On the one hand, some editors are still pushing the theory that because acupuncturists depend on the reliability of acupuncture for their income, they have an inherent COI with regard to acupuncture, despite the RfC clearly rejecting this line of reasoning. Some seem to be arguing that acupuncturists as a class don't have an inherent COI per the RfC, but that any particular practitioner necessarily depends on the efficacy of acupuncture to make a living and so does have an inherent COI. It is a bit hard to understand the internal consistency of this position. While I can see the advantage to these editors in classing those they disagree with as COI editors, the community has disagreed with them and it's time for them to drop it. If the editing itself is problematic, there is easy admin action available via AE. On the other hand, Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly: no, being an acupuncturist doesn't inherently give you a COI that rises to the level of WP:COI; but yes, it is still perfectly possible for you to misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia. I haven't had a deep dig through their contributions, but if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what in my userspace could be construed as my not grokking medrs or rs; I've asked at GoldenRing's usertalk. That said, grateful for this clarification. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded at my usertalk; see there for details. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful, glad we clarified that.^[36][37][38] For the record: I have no idea, though, what "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly" means. Taking my "not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture"^[39] soundbite in context, it's clear that I mean "...simply by virtue of being an acu'ist". See e.g. my talk-page follow-up to said soundbite^[40] (posted six hours before this ANI post) and my initial response in this thread.^[41] Where then is the evidence that I stated or implied that the RfC somehow made it OK to "misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia"? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC); fmt 10:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) strike text -- I can see how it'd sound like bludgeoning. It's not, I just don't do well at war/drama venues, sometimes losing sight of "less is more" and "forest for the trees". Remember the human. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: This needs to go to AE if and when you wish to pursue it. Middle 8's hardheadedness and bludgeoning make it impossible to move forward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. I figured that it would come to this. :( I am on a hot project for the next week or two, so I won't be able to get to it immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm and Guy Macon: Huh? I responded to both your latest comments above,^[42][43][44] on point, citing the RfC, and neither of you has replied. Now you're talking AE? Over what exactly? --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 22:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC); clarify latest 22:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC); diffs 22:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC) ; struck per strike above. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree this should go to AE (to get back to the original question: what is the right venue?). The posting-length limits there will prevent the WP:BLUDGEON problem. That said, I would advise reading a bunch of AEs to see what sorts of evidence are expected in what format, and what tone, and so on. It's a rather legalistic and persnickety venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

AEscalation?

It can be hard to deal with soundbites once they've caught on, cf. "You didn't build that".

When I said it's "not possible to have a COI for acu" remark, I meant that it's "not possible to have a COI for acu simply by virtue of being an acu'ist". I think that's a fair paraphrase of the RfC.^[45] I don't mean it's impossible to have a COI in any other way, which would be silly. In my case, apart from profession (which I haven't practiced in years and likely won't again, due to unfortunate factors beyond my control), I have no other off-wiki connections that could cause a COI. The only plausible MEDRS I've written is too old, and I don't edit other possible COI-invoking articles, mostly because they don't exist.

I realize it looked horrible for me to remove the COI tag^[46] at Talk:Acu, but FWIW it's used on very few, if any, of the talk pages of other articles on professions, including alt-meds.

That tag-removal, and my single "not possible" remark,^[47] caused Guy Macon to start this thread in less than a day. Two talkspace edits, after three months of no activity (by me) in the area. Guy could've noticed my subsequent partial clarification^[48] and said "Hey, Middle 8, before I put you in an invidious position on WP's most notorious war/drama forum with an odd-sounding comment, what did you mean?" Instead, he escalated, and made the curious argument that I should be an exception^[49] to the RfC he brought because of me,^[50] yet offering no specific reason. One could be forgiven for getting exasperated at this.

Under wikistress, I've expressed the above points sometimes awkwardly and forgetting to omit needless words.

The reader can decide if this amounts to an AE case. If this does go to AE and I'm not around, someone please repost this as my comment. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [51] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[52][53][54] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

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

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

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

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

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [55] [56][57][58][59]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

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

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

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

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

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

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[60][61][62] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [63], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[64][65][66] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: an it should not be in the lead per se, but it does mean it cannot be highlighted in preference to other more common terms. To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for LavScam are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits

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

---

This morning, I noticed that a new account, User:Renmap0o, was reverting lots of edits by Britishfinance with identical edit summaries - see for example this diff, but there are numerous others with identical edit summaries. I reverted, and left a note on their talk page saying that the username alone wasn't a valid reason to revert their edits - see the discussion at User talk:Renmap0o.

Renmap0o responded by noting that there was an article in the Irish Times accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits - there is a link in the user page discussion linked to above, and on investigation I found several other such article - see this, this and this.

I want to be clear that I have no view about whether Britishfinance has indeed been engaging in paid editing - British and Irish financial matters are not areas I have much expertise in, and I don't feel qualified to judge whether their edits are indeed biased or suggest paid editing. I do note that Britishfinance has been around a while, has a clean block log, and seems to have been involved in editing in lots of areas aside from finance. Nevertheless, given the accusations that Renmap0o has been making, the mass reverting (which I have got myself involved in by unreverting), and the Irish Times articles, I thought I should bring the matter here for consideration. I will notify both users now. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. ∯WBG^converse 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sensing a recommendation that WP:COIN might be the most appropriate board. EEng 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I will make my main comment below, per normal conversation flow practice, but want to intervene here to correct an inaccuracy - neither the Irish Times ("IDA Ireland has paid for changes to Wikipedia pages about itself and its chief executive") nor the Times are, as stated to have been stated, "accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits" - this simply is not in the articles, with the Times simply noting the editor's level of activity and topics (but the subtitle of the article, without much grounding, does suggest the editor was "attacking Ireland's probity"). So the whole question of paid editing / COIN is poorly based - what the Times touches on is potential negative bias.SeoR (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I feel this is unfair to me. A new user has entered WP today and been blanking large sections of tax-related articles and PROD'ing other articles. The newspaper article he is quoting I have discussed on my talk page with Smallbones. The article is not about my bias per se, but about the Irish IDA Ireland paying other editors to make their CEO, Martin Shanahan look good. I had the unfortunate experience to come across these paid editors a few months ago (see the Martin Shanahan talk page), and they accused me of bias and bath faith. I left that page and never returned to it.

I am not a paid editor and nor am I on WP for conflict/warring. I am fully happy to have any WP:COIN review on my work. While many of my WP articles I wrote in my first 6 months were not WP proper standard, I believe that I am writing good WP articles now, and I re-written almost every earlier article I wrote (still a few to finish; just did Tax inversion last night). My tax-related editing uses the highest quality tax academic sources (you can see on Double Irish arrangement, which the Council on Foreign Relations noted as being the "best source" on these tax schemes, noted on its talk page). Just a few days ago, Nobel prize-winning Paul Krugman cited my re-write of Leprechaun economics on this twitter feed (see its talk page).

I am not an FA/GA ranked WP editor (yet), but I think I am doing very good work on bringing WP's tax-related articles to good academic quality. The editor above is a vandal with an agenda that has nothing to do with building good tax articles on WP. Also note, I am not a tax-SPA, per my user page, I have lots of other non-tax articles. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance I'm sorry that you feel this report was unfair. To be clear, I am not saying that I agree with the accusation - I did note, in my initial post above, your clean block log and your extensive work in areas outside finance. I'm happy to reiterate that, aside from the newspaper articles (which themselves offer no evidence about you), I have no reason to doubt your good faith or to suspect you of being a paid editor. I just thought that, given the aspersions that had been cast, the new user's reverts and my own unreverts, a review of the situation by third parties may be in order.

Thanks for the suggestion WBG - if I was confident that there was actually a COI problem here, I would have raised a report at COIN. As it is, I am not certain whether the problem is with Britishfinance's work, or whether there is a behavioural problem with User:Renmap0o's casting aspersions and hounding Britishfinance. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and QuiteUnusual, since they have also been involved in undoing some of Renmap0s's reverts and PRODs and may wish to comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the articles created and vast edits by BritishFinance. I don't contest that the user has other articles, nor that they don't have citations for the information. It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally. For example, the user might edit the Wikipedia entry/article on tax havens, filling it with information referring to Ireland, pictures of Ireland and slip in examples which also refer to Ireland. Many articles seem to have been corrupted by the user in this way. This user has made 40k+ edits with a big focus being discrediting Ireland in Wikipedia entries. The user has created many pages/articles labeling Ireland as a tax haven and describing the so-called schemes. Then, linking their articles to the other main pages referring to Ireland. It's a vast system and complex web of misinformation. Ireland is primarily referred to as tax haven by eccentric journalists. It's not on the standard lists. It doesn't even have the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. Nine countries have lower, two have the same and seven are within 5% of the Irish rate. There is obviously some controversy over tax schemes, in not just Ireland, but in many countries worldwide. The user's posts and edits are designed to portray Ireland as not just a tax haven, but the worlds worst offender in the eyes of the international community. Hopefully, the journalists (or authorities) blow open the story of who is really behind this account. It's clearly politically motivated, with a high conflict of interest. If you have any doubt about this, just look at the pages created by the user, links they added and the edits they did. Renmap0o 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The above sounds like the same bad faith and conspiracy-theory type arguments that the IDA Ireland COI marketing team made to me on the Martin Shanahan talk page. No other tax haven-type jurisdiction has ever made a bad edit to the main WP tax haven-type articles in my time, not one; however, we have had several aggressive edits on the Irish-related content. The irony is that the newspaper articles quoted above, if you read them properly, really concern the fact that IDA Ireland pays editors to make Ireland look good tax-wise on WP. And judging by the PROMO/POV state of the articles when I got to them, they got value for money. The issue exploded when Paddy Cosgrave tweeted on this COI-UDP on his twitter feed: here here.

Google "Ireland tax haven" and you get thousands of Tier 1 RS newspapers on the subject (i.e. it is WP:GNG notable). However, my edits try and avoid even that kind of RS where possible as it leads to WP:SYN; I instead focus on the most cited academic papers on tax-issues from the most cited authors. I can see from WP tax articles that I have edited on that such academic references used to exist, but the articles became so broken from POV editors fighting both sides of the debate. My goal is to restore the encyclopedic integrity of these articles and present the facts as they are. Unfortunately, these facts, as they pertain to Ireland, attract some very inappropriate editing and allegations. Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned awhile back, I'll add some background. I just saw the article in The Times and in it the IDA effectively accused Britishfinance of being a paid editor. NOt the usual stuff you see in the papers about Wikipedia. Following my usual practice when paid editing is suspected I just asked Britishfinance whether he was paid or not (Note, I don't accuse anybody when I ask these questions. It does amaze me how often - one way or another - that paid editors will expose themselves when asked. Britishfinance's answer pretty much satisfied me that he wasn't. There was none of the usual paid editor song and dance that usually accompanies a denial. I'd said that I'd likely put a notice at WP:COIN if I found anything further, so I looked for the usual indications of paid editing (they are usually pretty obvious, but not 100% proof of course) I didn't find anything, so I didn't post anything to WP:COIN. Of course I did notice that User:Corecontent and User:IDAComms had each declared, after some prodding and poking, that they were being paid by IDA Ireland, and I'm still amazed they weren't dealt with more harshly. It looks like sockpuppetting to me. I suppose IDAComms was only blocked for a Username violation because of his total ignorance of our rules.

I did send a note to one of the journalists involved saying that I though the accusations against Britishfinance looked to be completely out of line. He responded with a question, so I went back and checked more carefully on the public pages where this type of thing can be investigated. There's nothing that I can see that suggests User:Britishfinance is a paid editor. If @Britishfinance: would like, I'll give any reporter from any respectable paper the basic public data and my reading of it and I do think that would clear his username. Please note that my investigations into this type of thing have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and the Times of Israel. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I would be comfortable with you sending on public information and your comments to the reporter. appreciate that. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see no evidence at all that Britishfinance is a paid editor, but plenty of evidence that there has been paid editing on behalf of some Irish government organisations. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so, as far as anyone else is concerned, there is just as much chance that Britishfinance is paid as that I am, but what is needed is evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• I see nothing in Britishfinance's edits that make me think paid editor. When I hear another editor claiming that Britishfinance's edits are part of a "vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally," that makes me wonder about that editor's agenda, though. I'm thinking WP:Boomerang here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the user, Britishfinance is paid or not, it appears to be highly politically motivated with questionable links. It is not about presenting information in an unbiased way, but a concerted effort to push a political view and present things in a deeply negative light, based on their agenda. The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave, asserting he is manipulating Wikipedia entries for a political campaign against tax systems. I don't know if that is true, but I can see clearly the true purpose of the account, the pages/links created and edits are primarily political purposes and misinformation. His ad campaign and page has just been banned on facebook for these reasons. Even if it is not this person, its clearly a user that is not acting in an honest way, but trying to manipulate perceptions and the reputation of a country based on their own agenda. Renmap0o 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not attempt to OUT other editors by associating an account with a real life name. Attepmts to out others warrant something rather more severe than Boomerangs.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's all in the public domain anyway. The name associated and that users attempts at manipulating Wikipedia articles for their political purposes is all over the media User:Renmap0o, 20:42, 16th April (UTC)

I don't think Renmap0o is claiming that Britishfinance is Paddy Cosgrave, but that these two individuals may be connected in some way. The media has already been speculating about this in the public domain. These allegations have been made without any hard evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously by the community. Unless Renmap0o can produce clear evidence that establishes a pattern of POVpushing and biased editing, there is nothing more we can do here. Continuous badgering over the same issue without production of evidence will not be taken seriously or looked at kindly either. It's entirely possible that there may be some NPOV issues with articles whose latest versions Britishfinance has primarily authored (mainly because there were no other editors to challenge their edits), but based on my limited review of Base erosion and profit shifting and Double Irish arrangement, I have not seen any egregious instances of POVpushing. On the contrary, I have benefited from perusing at least these two articles in my professional capacity. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I find some of the above, and the attempted interference with several articles, disturbing. First, on the paid editing, I cannot find any actual direct accusation against Britishfinance, rather there is renewed coverage of editing by IDA staff and an agency employed by IDA Ireland. But even if there were such an accusation, I would find it wildly improbable. I noticed Britishfinance's editing in their first few weeks on the encyclopedia, and even then their professional knowledge of finance, and their approach to editing, with a large number of small incremental edits (hence the large totals - this is one editing pattern in Wikipedia, with others dropping one massive edit changing many kb), were clear. The editor in question, as it happens, semi-retired in late March, a pity, but during their 13 months of Wikipedia activity, they made a decent contribution to a whole range of areas. We need editors like this, and I hope the community takes a seriously dim view of unfounded allegations thrown about by new single-purpose accounts against people with solid track records. I see no evidence for statements like "The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave" - as far as I can see, Cosgrave just referenced some articles in recent days, but they were edited months ago, or more. To me the edits themselves had and have the look of "insider" - not politically motivated, but the knowledge of someone in the legal, tax management or accounting professions. We don't need to know, but we can note that the user, I think in an early discussion about their chosen username, disclosed "finance professional" and lately mentioned that they had been able to be so active as they had had some time off mainstream work (great that Wikipedia got a good chunk of said time - many of us could use more time to work on the project not taken from after-bedtime evenings, lunch, etc.). I also see no evidence of special anti-Irish bias - the use of Ireland's tax regime by various corporate entities is well-known for decades, is the topic of much writing and debate, and these tactics are important to many large entities (the 13+ billion Apple episode is not a random thing). And Britishfinance has also edited general "tax management" articles, which, if read, make clear that many other countries accommodate some "tax tactics" - see deals done by Luxembourg, the Netherlands, etc. As the new user today notes, Ireland is far from the bottom of the corporate tax league on the base rate - but I see no evidence that Britishfinance ever said any such thing anyway. What they and other editors did explain was how one might, and many do, achieve effective near-zero tax liabilities. All in all, this seems a clear case of unjustified attack, and, ironically, attempted biased editing.SeoR (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The attacks against Britishfinance by a newly created, potentially paid SPA and the rumors spun by some Irish media outlets don't exactly strike me as significant. In fact, the articles doesn't accuse him of paid or COI editing at all, its just an Irish government spokesman fuming about his writings on Ireland's unorthodox tax structures and the use of these structures by large multinationals to avoid paying loads of European taxes. Parroting these accusations is embarrassing, and this should not have been brought up without better evidence. Additionally, even attempting to connect a user to an identity is a violation of WP:OUT and redacting the name from this noticeboard is something admins with more experience on the outing policy should consider. Finally, given the fact that the Irish government (IDA) has paid for editing to wikipedia, and its statement about that editing mentions BF's editing specifically, I think its entirely possible Renmap0o is carrying out dirty work for his employer by casting aspersions and mass reverting and this report plays right into his hands. SWL36 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Renmap0o: there are 2 or 3 not-so-subtle hints above that you have a WP:COI or are a WP:Paid editor. I really do think that it is better to ask clearly - without accusing anybody - if somebody is a paid editor. So, Renmap0o, are you a paid editor and/or do you have any connection to IDA Ireland?

Similarly, are you accusing Britishfinance of being a paid editor? Do you have any evidence of this? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, allegations of editorializing were first made in August 2018 on the talk page of the article. The discussion was archived by Britishfinance and can be found here — Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias.. It took me a couple of hours to analyze a section of the article "Ireland as a tax haven", where I found some serious issues. You are welcome to take a look and comment: Talk:Ireland as a tax haven#"Captured state". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I use two of these articles, and I’d say they’re a good summary. And pretty fair. But anyway, the original point of this notice seems invalid, no Paid Editing or CoI. What’s left might be some work in balancing of tone. For example, Nearly Headless Nick cites two blocks of content. In the first, BritushFinance seems to have been scrupulous in a debate. In the second, Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement. But this is not Article Improvement space, is it? 91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thus, from Renmap0o, is just embarrassing Conspiracy Theorist rubbish: “It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally.“ Seriously? Propaganda, destroying Ireland’s reputation? All Europe knows about the tax games.91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"[...] Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement." — No, that's a mischaracterization. The entire section on "Captured state" in Ireland as a tax haven is full of misrepresentations, original research and original synthesis; and I haven't even started looking at the remainder of the article. In any case, I believe there may be a need for a thorough review of these articles, just to be sure. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think if you read the discussion referred to at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, the author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias., you will see that (1) almost all the refs the editor quoted were actually already in the article, and (2) in almost all cases, the refs they quoted proved the editor was wrong in their interpretation. I think reading Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, the author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias., which I protected and archived as help for future discussions, will hopefully show the good-faith lengths I have gone to in responding to this specific article. I am not a perfect WP editor, but I am not a "conspiracy theory" or PAID editor, and I do think my tax-related articles materially improve WP in an area that it is really weak on (the WP Tax Project is largely dead). Per my earlier statements above, Paul Krugman and the Council on Foreign Relations have publically referenced two of them? I will do the same reply to Sir Nicholas comments on the "Captured State" sub-section, which I believe I can resolve (but I appreciate that tighter wording can be used in place), however, I am in a new job and just can't get the time to do just now. Again, I think I deserve some fairness and balance here. Britishfinance (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am an agreement that this is Renmap0o with the problem. I see no specific issues with Britishfinance's work (far from it, it appears to be high quality and well cited). Suggesting a single editor or small group of editors is some how under orders to demolish Ireland's reputation is a huge leap and in any case vastly overrates the power of Wikipedia. No case to answer. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that Renmap0o has exactly zero contribution to the article space (all of their contributions were reverted), and that all their contribution to other namespaces consists in casting aspersions, it looks to me that this is an appropriate case for a NOTHERE indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual and Ymblanter: No doubt Renmap0o's approach to the whole situation was ill-advised, and it's probably because they are not well-acquainted with our project. However, I think there are enough reasons to go ahead with a thorough review of the articles (see Talk:Ireland as a tax haven#"Captured state"). In the meantime, we should AGF with Britishfinance. There is no evidence of WP:COI/WP:PAID, although the possibility of NPOV issues with their edits cannot be completely discounted (see link above). This is a wiki after all and the community has the power to evaluate the edits of its users, including yours and mine. As the Russians would say: doveryai, no proveryai. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am never imposed opposed to an investigation but the arguments presented are incredibly weak. E.g, Britishfinance has edited a lot: Lots of people have lots of edits because they have lots of time - it is not an indication that they are paid to edit. Britishfinance only edits on one subject: I see plenty of work that is not even tangentially related to Irish tax system. E.g., this article expansion. Journalists claiming something is biased is hardly a clinching argument given how biased the media is. Etc. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual: I agree Renmap0o's arguments are weak specially when their allegations of bias are not backed by diffs and links. They should stop with the allegations of paid editing immediately and instead focus on backing their assertions with evidence. Or else, it won't be long before an administrator blocks them. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nearly Headless Nick: I didn't open this discussion of paid editing and am not pursuing it per ce, as its almost impossible to prove anyway. I was discussing the bias in the user's articles/editing which is now well known and commented on in the newspapers, media, radio, several Reddit threads and I believe, even the Irish finance minister commented in recent days. You are correct that the approach was ill-advised and I wasn't familiar enough to go through the correct process. Would you suggest the best approach is gathering clear evidence and starting a discussion in the COI section? Easy to prove given the scale of it, but just time-consuming. @QuiteUnusual: I can see some other work too, but the main focus is “link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, taxation and Brexit”. Everything I went through personally just confirmed that, but your correct. Needs to be cataloged and evidenced clearly. Renmap0o 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I’m not paid and don’t have any connection to IDA. I just had a look and was shocked by what I saw. I don’t know if they are a paid, but I’d be confident they are receiving funding from somewhere given the large amount of time spent maintaining and pushing this political view on Wikipedia over the past year. I don't know how you can produce evidence of this, but hopefully, the journalists uncover something. The user is responsible for 40k+ edits on Wikipedia since last March, with the prime purpose of labelling Ireland as a tax haven. Sure there are controversy and issues there. I don't think anyone is denying that, but one-sided tone/information presentation is an understatement. It's incredibly biased and reads more like the input of a political group/campaigning. The user created many pages, edited many and linked most information on Wikipedia regarding Ireland to this label, by either selectively inserting examples and/or linking back to the pages they created themselves for this purpose. The more I read, the more I realised how brilliant it was (in terms of manipulation). I'll give them that and it would make a great case study for a student. Even things like slipping in pics/examples of Ireland on Wikipedia articles broadly discussing offshore, offshoring, tax or tax havens. This user and their vendetta/crusade against the Irish tax system has been a discussion on Reddit threads as far back as 6 months ago Here and it looks like a previous history of controversy on Wikipedia too. They are obviously savvy about the system, rules and how to manipulate it. Probably someone from a tech background, which fits the profile of who the media is associating this account with and its not just the Irish media, but also international. It's likely not the end, but just the beginning of the scandal, as new articles are popping up. In recent days, it's heated up when the user has been linked to a political campaign against the Irish tax system, which makes sense based on the key theme of most of their editing. That group/person was banned from Facebook for running a fraudulent and deceitful ad campaign. Highly biased and manipulative Wikipedia articles are created by User Britishfinace here, and then this campaign/group links to those articles for credibility. Is it acceptable for a user, that at the very minimum, is clearly representing a political vendetta, to manipulate Wikipedia articles on such a massive scale, as to serve their own personal political purposes and agenda? Does the platform accept editors who are this biased, running misinformation and political campaigns? Renmap0o 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Renmap0o: When you make claims of "political campaigning", "selectively inserting examples", "linking back to pages" etc, it would be really helpful if you could link us to such instances, or produce diffs to back up those claims. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nearly Headless Nick:If you look up anything related to Ireland and it's tax system and check the history of it you can see britishfinance has got his mitts on most of it. It's like a full-time job. Here is an example of a page the user created and edited personally this year. Its one of many. They usually link this page they created to most other Wikipedia pages regarding Ireland, tax havens or its tax system in the "See Also" section, along with editing those pages/articles with sections, pictures and examples pushing the "Ireland is a tax haven" line. The "See Also" section is a great way to scan through pages created and edited by the user. I found heaps but was only scratching the surface. I was very impressed by the scale of this. It's a lot of work. As has been mentioned, 40k+ edits since March last year mainly focusing on this political crusade against the Irish tax system. Renmap0o 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I call rubbish (to be polite). After discussions 2016-2018, even the European Parliament voted that the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg, among others, are tax havens. Look at the billions being processed. Who is it you work for? See: “The Netherlands is a tax haven alongside Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, say MEPs” at dutchnews.nl and many similar records of recent days. 195.239.200.134 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to political controversies, of which plenty of hay can (and has) been made, likewise newspaper journalists are frequently prone to simplistic analyses and comparisons. The WP articles in question read like the diatribes of a particularly determined crank (however polite and courteous he may act to avoid drawing the ire of the moderators), it's frankly incredible they've survived in their present form for so long, and this user has been able to blatantly POV patrol his pages with impunity.

Let's have a little actual data, because context is sorely needed in this discussion, and frankly, the tone and volume of this user's commentary (and it is commentary we're talking about) are quite blatantly unbalanced. Firstly, let's remember the definition of a tax haven, this from investopedia (many similar definitions exist).

"A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses little or no tax liability in a politically and economically static environment. **Tax havens also share limited or no financial information with foreign tax authorities.** Tax havens do not require residency or business presence for individuals and businesses to benefit from their tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes."

The OECD's global forum on tax transparency published it's report on tax transparency in November 2018 . Ireland is one of only a handful of countries listed as compliant, so already it fails the most basic definition - far from being shrouded and opaque, Ireland is extremely transparent in it's corporate tax disclosures (higher than Germany, Belgium, the UK or the US). Is there any authority on tax transparency superior to the OECD? Has there been any similar effort to quantify this metric which produced a contrary result?

Secondly, since 2014, Ireland has participated in the OECD's BEPS resolution programme, and there is no reason to assume they wouldn't continue to follow the second round of recommendations (which involve changes to treaties to resolve the Malta situation, which our erstwhile author has eagerly leapt upon with gusto. The schemes these articles are concerned with (which resulted from the complex interaction of the residency rules in *multiple jurisdictions* - not simply the 'cheating Irish' as implied in these articles) have largely been closed. This is not the end of the story, as it's a global whack-a-mole game, but the implication that Ireland has been a bad actor in this regard frankly cannot be substantiated. As recently as February, the Irish finance minister, in conjunction with his French counterpart signalled support for a Global model for tech taxation, and endorsed the efforts of the OECD to define best practices in that regard.

Is there any other jurisdiction which has made such wide reaching changes specifically to combat corporate tax evasion? It is also worth stating that the Irish rules merely allowed the transfer of funds to a company's headquartered parent jurisdiction if the funds were originated outside of Ireland (predominately British overseas territories and crown dependencies). These rules were intended to allow US firms to tax their revenues in the US, and these schemes could only exist because the US permitted large scale offshoring on an indefinite timespan for many decades (ultimately, most of those taxes are still owed to the US, as seen by their attempt to join the appeal against the Apple tax case ruling). Obviously, this is beyond the ability of the Irish government to regulate or anticipate.

It is necessary to mention this, because the entire context here is either deeply hidden or totally absent from the articles in question, and the user Britishfinance has fought fiercely to ensure that remains the case, conceding only where absolutely forced to. I cannot fathom how the egregious and blatant POV pushing on these pages, and the clear examples of bias within them haven't been addressed (despite having been flagged several times and warned once by a former mod). I'm sure there'll be plenty of "polite" rebuttals from the man himself citing the "thousands" of newspaper articles on the subject, which of course will be twisted to fit the exact fringe narrative being pushed here. Of course he knows quite well that it would take months to go through the many thousands of barely substantiated references in his commentary (pretty clear gish galloping), and so it has reached the point where the Irish government and media have had to get involved. I hope this results in a more balanced representation, because what has existed up until now is, to say the least, problematic and out of touch with the facts. I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it - I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks. 37.228.243.242 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it" So, to be clear, you have no involvement with the Irish government, the Irish tax system, or the Irish economy? In other words, your only interest in making this post is a desire that Wikipedia be the best encyclopedia it can be? Frankly, given this post, I find that hard to believe. "I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks." What makes you sure of this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You're editorialising. This is not the place. Just edit the articles, if you have well-founded and referenced points to add. On the face of it for now, the articles (I've reviewed 5 related items, and I'm a chartered accountant and familiar with the terminology at least) are well-researched and in line with widely-held views. And for crying out loud, Ireland has facilitated tax "management" so big it had to revise its national economic measurements! Even the US authorities believe that Ireland is at least a major "conduit" if not an outright "haven," and both national and EU parliaments have issues with the obscure and over-flexible Irish tax regime. But this is not a forum for article content so again, please take this to the pages in question. Stop attacking an individual editor's work and bona fides. And by the way, are you accusing the user of misusing "patrol" rights, which they only gained early this year? That would be a serious, and as far as can be seen, utterly unfounded, accusation. Now, go contribute!185.68.145.229 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I spent some time checking your points over breakfast. They are mostly addressed in the articles, some, like the definition of "tax haven," in painful detail. So I think Britishfinance and others have been very fair on this. I don't see where the anti-Ireland point comes from, there are a lot of references, and the companies who use these mechanisms have bet a major part of their global revenue strategy on them. And multiple other countries are mentined, notably the UK and its vestigial empire, and good old Holland. And of course it's all legal, but not at all transparent, a point again discussed in much detail. Could it be an agenda? Yes, if you think the user is a French deputy or a Nordic social warrior. But why someone does editing is not the question, only whether their edits are well-made, and that the balance of article content is, well, balanced. But please don't ask Wikipedia to say black = white. I think we all get that big money is involved, literally trillions of dollars, and so I am sure there will be attacks, but Wikipedia is able to handle this kind of thing.185.68.145.229 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

People have tried to add balance to these articles. They have been edit warred relentlessly by this user until they gave up. It seems ridiculous to even need to have this discussion. This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy. My point above is that there is at least room for balance in these articles, but the way they're written (quite deliberately), the tone and content is nigh unassailable, and presents an extreme view, as if Ireland is some global lynchpin of tax evasion - it isn't, it is at most a link in a chain. Even a cursory look at the actual numbers involved will show it's clearly dwarfed by the likes of London. As for the "leprechaun economics", it's a perfect example. The anomalous GDP growth statistic mainly stemmed from the relocation of an aircraft leasing company to Ireland (17 percentage points out of 26% growth were this one company). It's a high revenue, low profit margin business, so there's very little taxable income, but it inflates the GDP. Does the leprechaun economics article give appropriate focus to this? Of course not, it's just another loop back into the rest of this individual's meandering diatribes. These headline high percentage growth rate controversies also ignore the simple fact that large capital movements will show a disproportionate impact on a smaller starting figure. Similar movements wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in the UK, Germany, or the US (and indeed - they happen all the time), because the starting base figures are higher in the first place. This user has played a cynical game quite professionally, and gamed wikipedia to hell and back, putting essays of his own opinions up, and guarding them with prejudice. Wikipedia is not the platform for this - he should write a book if he wants to put his opinions out there to this degree. It is a disgrace that it's possible for one person to completely control the narrative on an entire country's economic affairs - a country which, it has to be said, the author's home country has been hostile to in both the past and recent years, and was a former colonizer of - and yes, that is a relevant bit of context. If he were blanketing the narrative about Indian topics with anti-Indian commentary, we would not be having this discussion. 37.228.244.72 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To answer the above, which answered me earlier, this presents a vision of some master manipulator, which is just not very likely. And what's all this colonial stuff?185.68.145.229 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is very unfair to me. I have not been "edit warring" on any WP articles (tax or otherwise; and I have done BLPs on controversial characters such as Catherine Blaiklock, Daniel Ivandjiiski and Seán Gallagher). I have never hit the WP:3RR rule in WP, and have only rarely even gotten to 2RR. This a hobby, not something that I want conflict on. The main edits I encounter on articles that are Irish tax-related are blanking of sections or PROD for deletion. They come in waves. I have shown above the time I have taken to respond fully, even where an IP-editor started their discussion with "anti-Irish bias" (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias.). That is very unfair to me.

In addition, if you actually read the newspaper articles above, and has been pointed out by other editors, the national media controversy is twofold:

Firstly, it involves the act that I accidentally discovered the IDA Ireland were paying editors to make the WP BLP of their CEO look good (per Martin Shanahan). It was so WP:PROMO, that one of the most experienced editors on WP, Kudpung, tagged it as being COI [67]. When I tried to fix it, I met an aggressive and nasty group of editors who were later revealed to be the marketing department of IDA Ireland. They made unfair comments about my edits on Irish tax-related articles. I cannot prove this, but given how bad these articles had become before I got to them, I feel that this group were also active in manipulating them to meet an IDA agenda.

Secondly, a public figure called Paddy Cosgrave not only tweeted the above IDA Ireland counter, but he also ran a Facebook campaign that linked to two articles that I have worked on: QIAIFs and Double Irish arrangement. I did not create Double Irish, it was a large article before I got to it, but was not of good quality. I have re-written it with mostly academic references or Tier 1 RS. As I said above, the economist from the US Council of Foreign Relations noted the article as the "best source" on the topic. I did create the QIAIF article. You will notice that the Irish Times asked a tax partner in Dublin to comment on it and he seemed to have no issue with it. Ironically, he then listed two other major tax havens (Luxembourg and the UK) as having similar structures (which they do). Again, this is about trying to write good quality fact-based articles that would be of interest to readers.

Again, I did not create the Leprechaun economics article, however, when I got to it, it was junk. The IP-editor above claims that it misrepresents the event and that it was the effect of aircraft leasing (which was the IDA Ireland's official response). However, if you read the article, you will see that a detailed Massachusetts Institute of Technology report even shortly after the affair cast doubt on this. You will also see that in 2018, Seamus Coffey, the person that the Irish State employed to review its entire corporate tax code in 2016, stated, unequivocally, that the source was Apple. Other economists later did the same analysis. This is the point of the re-writes, to chronicle the actual facts, and the highest quality facts versus opinions (although I am sure my editing is not perfect). Again, per above, Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman just recently referenced the Leprechaun economics article. It can't be that bad.

There is also an allegation above that "linking articles" or adding "See also" is in some way a devious act. The tax topics of Double Irish, BEPS, Tax haven, Tax inversion, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland (and others) ARE RELATED. For example: The Double Irish is a BEPS tool that Apple used in Tax haven type activities in Ireland from 2004–2014 that ended up in a 13bn EU fine (who disclosed in large public documents the scale of 100bn, the Irish tax rate of 0.005%, and the mechanism of the BEPS tool); that caused Ireland to be blacklisted as a Tax haven by Brazil, and caused Apple to scrap its Double Irish and adopt another BEPS tool which it used in 2015 to execute a Tax inversion to Ireland which caused Leprechaun economics. I can't put it any simpler, and I have taken honest efforts to ensure these related articles are coherent and consistent (my OCD side), which is important given their complexity, to help readers.

If anything does come out of this ANI, it will hopefully show the community issues regarding Irish tax-related material. Unlike other tax jurisdictions who don't seem to edit their WP articles and/or try to remove material they don't like; it does happen with Irish ones. It feels as if I am writing on WP:ACDS type-articles (which I avoid). I have just completed Tax inversion, but I fully expect it to be blanked/PROD'ed in the next few months (even though it is really a "historical" tax article, as the US and UK have effectively stopped inversions for good). However, that is the reality. I face aggressive fact-free allegations like the ones above. In every major academic study since 1994 (per Ireland as a tax haven), Ireland has featured as one of the biggest tax havens. However, the IDA Ireland line is that the OECD doesn't consider Ireland to be a tax haven (which is true, and I note this), yet they forget to mention that the OECD only consider Trinidad and Tobago to be a tax haven (they must be truly awful). The Tax haven article, before I came to it, had a whole section on the OECD definition of a tax haven (which I am guessing, but cannot prove) that the IDA Ireland paid for. We even had an editor on the Tax haven article try to blank all reference to James R. Hines Jr., the "father" of tax haven research, and yet another 2013 IDA Ireland paper, written by two Irish State employees, and published in the Irish-state funded economic journal, tried to dismiss Hines as an insignificant figure in tax (no real economic journal would have published this article) (covered here) The Irish State and IDA heavily quote the OECD and the 2013 piece as "independent academic research" even though they wrote it in their own sponsored journal. see here here

I am not a perfect editor and I am sure I have written my share of poor content; however, I think my work improves WP, and should be interesting to readers (including Irish readers). I appreciate and am thankful for the kind sentiments expressed by many editors above, and hope the community will help me with these articles when the pitchforks and torches arrive again.

Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made my comments already, and would like to leave ANI to the administrators, as I've managed to do for more than a decade, but one comment above needs to be addressed, as it is an unjustifiable piece of exaggeration. There is a claim "This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy." This is total nonsense. There was a report in a good but minority paper, the Sunday Business Post, followed up by a few lines in the paper of record, the Irish Times, and a modest report in the Times of London, and all of these were at least as much about the IDA-related paid editing as Britishfinance. I can assure you that this matter is not the subject of national debate, not a word of it around the dinner tables of Dublin. By all means let's work to make the articles on important economic topics even better, and ensure balance, but let's stop what looks suspiciously like targeted harassment by outsiders. The volunteer community, as someone said above, is well able to review the work of any editor. And bodies like IDA Ireland have real and important work to do.SeoR (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I started this thread because I thought that the community should look into these allegations in more detail. Over the last couple of days, it seems to me that that has happened - Britishfinance's contributions have been reviewed by various experienced editors, and nobody aside from Renmap0o and the 37.228 IPs seem to think that there is are any PAID or COI issues surrounding Britishfinance's work - that seems to have been dealt with. Nearly Headless Nick thinks that the articles could be reviewed for NPOV issues - that's fine, it can happen in the background, we don't need an ANI thread for it. The only outstanding problem, then, is the continued allegations of bias, edit warring and gaming the system being levelled against Britishfinance. I propose that this thread be closed, with a warning to these editors that unless they have any new evidence to bring to light, they should stop this immediately. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I’m happy for it to be closed too. I no longer think its paid and didn't open the discussion here. There may or may not be COI, but I don’t know how that can be proved. I am certain of bias and gaming the system, but I realise this is the wrong approach. @SeoR: and @Nearly Headless Nick:, I agree that the allegations need to be backed by evidence and have nothing further to say on the matter for now. I have been going through it systematically to establish a clear pattern along with evidence and examples of the process that's was used. Its a lot of work (hence why I didn't do this in the beginning) and will take a few days at least. If it's being reviewed, in the interests of fairness, could someone look at the evidence/examples I’ve gathered showing how it's been done/gamed, even if its in a private setting? Renmap0o 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to ping - thanks for the calm approach. Certainly we can all study, and more heads at least sometimes provides more wisdom, and always more context, so by all means, let us look. To be transparent, I do not believe that there has been any CoI, or any great conspiracy going on, and as an ordinary Irish citizen who tries to follow business and current affairs, I am well aware of these matters at a superficial level over more than 20 years, and have seen the good and bad of national promotion, and hope I can use these all to provide perspective. I look forward to "seeing" all involved on the relevant pages, beavering away.SeoR (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this had been a very unfair process. An editor with just a handful of edits (despite their skills) walks into WP, blanks sections of articles with nothing other than an allegation that User:"Britishfinance", most likely a political organisation attempting to manipulate the information by targeting a certain country and presenting one-sided information, and then tries to delete other articles. They make wild allegations and completely false statements (both about me, and about subject matter, per above), and other "IP-editors" appear with the same allegations. One administrator raised past POV issues, however, they never explained that I had gone to great lengths to answer these past POV allegations (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias.) showing that there was no POV (as I said above, not only where their refs in the article, but their refs actually disproved the IP-editor making the POV allegation). In addition, they then raised "serious issues" at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven#"Captured state". I have responded to all 15 of these "serious issues" raised. I would love other experienced editors to look at the 15 issues and my response and tell me if they are "serious" and that I have major POV issues. What is the incentive for a volunteer to keep doing this? Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance I sympathise with your feelings of unfairness - I think it's very disappointing that Renmap0o is still making allegations in their last post despite everything that has been said. Renmap0o, I don't know whether anyone has pointed you towards WP:AGF yet, but if you haven't read it, now would be a good time. I'm going to formally propose that this be closed with a warning to Renmap0o and the IPs about these ongoing aspersions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread be closed with no findings of any PAID, COI or bad faith editing by Britishfinance based on any evidence presented. Renmap0o and anonymous editors from 37.228 IP addresses are warned to stop casting aspersions about Britishfinance's editing. They may work on the articles in question and discuss them on the articles' talk pages, but any discussion must focus on improvements to the content, not on Britishfinance or their motives.

• Support as nom GirthSummit _(blether) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: with thanks to Britishfinance for patience with all this, and all that good editing and time given to the project.SeoR (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I'm left with the opinion some people are conspiring to play games here on this ANI. Peoples will undoubtably have been checking the geolocates of the anon. IP's and one resolving to a VPN IP in Russia might just be a co-incidental or might be deliberate but at a simplistic level its just adding to the fog or complex conspiracy theories. With Britishfinance we seem to have sustained openly auditable contributions over a longish period giving good provenance. I'll confess I feel a bit for Britishfinance as they got a bit a bit of a rough ride at a recent AfD trying to to a WP:HEY and I'm inclined to think a few too many lesser quality references were used and content a little over-egged but that was a bio rather than the articles we have here. Not a great argument and I like SeoR's reasoning better.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope there is no more sustained work by any outside "force." I don't put too much weight on IP checks, with so many people using VPNs for various reasons, often no more than accessing more or cheaper content than available locally - my daughter's tablet, for example, which I used recently, routes via various strange places, depending on what she wants to watch - but there is a little too much editing of the Irish tax-related articles from a series of Irish IP addresses, and I would be disappointed if these turned out to be those of an Irish State agency or its' communications contractors.SeoR (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a common sense end to what looked like an externally-triggered witch-hunt. I think I must address a point here also. Both Djm-leighpark and SeoR have raised points about "IP editors". There is also a little bias about edits from Ireland and Russia. I'm sure there are issues, including some dirty tricks by tax-deal promoters. But guys, unless I misremember, the majority of Wikipedia edits are made by anonymous editors weighing in on their areas of interest. One of you is around since 2009, the other 2017, I seem to see. But I, for example, have been editing since maybe 2005. On and off, from dozens of countries. Mostly, I like to think, helping. So don't knock those of us who don't choose to have an account which someone, somewhere might track. Our hotel, café or mall IPs could be anyone, and that has value too.185.68.145.229 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@185.68.145.229 I yield to your comments noting how you have made assumptions (actually but not necessarily correct) about the length of my contribution history based on publicly visible held information on my account which you have used. I however at am the disadvantage as I have to good faith rely on your comments of the length of contribution history (which seems credible) and the quality of an individual set of edits. If in attempting to indicate the increased difficulties because of lack of provenance with anon IP's I appeared to scummer anon IPs them then I apologise. Both anon IP's and short life accounts appear to be often used by the little people. But at one point I too had an account with short life and would use an anon IP if on for example a public library computer ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@185.68.145.229 And while this may be off-topic, I answer too, as the last thing I want to do, especially in the context of this business, is to put off any contributor. I believe in an inclusive and expansive Wikipedia, and I know there are many reasons people edit without an account. As it happens, as with djm-leighpark above, I registered pretty much from the start, but to each their own. In this case, I hope it was clear that I was only disturbed by certain specific bad editing actors (even then, I accept that they may have thought they were acting in some "national interest" - I would disagree - but we disallow such behaviour because of the need for consistent and fair policy, not ideology). Wikipedia is not going to be the source of solutions for corporate tax games, or personal ones, executive pay disparity, wealth distribution, or any such topics, to be valuable it must remain a neutral source for all. So please, whoever and wherever you are, do keep contributing!SeoR (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on what may be a first for this page. The Times has quoted this section:

By the end of the week, Wikipedia administrators proposed that a discussion thread about Britishfinance be closed with “no findings” of any paid, conflict-of-interest or bad-faith editing by Britishfinance.

— The Times

Perhaps this page could get its own logo As seen in The Times.

(Sorry for the joke) This is actually a serious matter - suggestions that a Wikipedia editor is paid and acting improperly - made by a government agency which itself has done clearly improper paid editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can modify the conclusion here to report that the accuser, IDA, has engaged in "paid, conflict-of-interest and/or bad-faith editing". See User talk:IDAComms and User:Corecontent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a little bit serious, yes. And, while respecting all IP edit contributions, it would be good to clarify if the two 37.228 addresses above (243.242, etc.) are "one voice" as they seem to be. Meantime, another address, perhaps someone quite different (there must be many addresses in the set), 37.228.255.113, made some surprising edits to the article on Ireland's Taoiseach (Prime Minister), dragging in the "Tax Haven issue" at a time when other topics would be far more acute and obvious. I really hope we can resume normal editing on this important area of topics, and on all the other topics Ireland offers for editing.178.176.23.66 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to the point, as I was going to mention here that in the course of normal article watching, I bumped into the "tax haven question" on the Leo Varadkar page, and it turned out it had some history. Which could be someone "setting up a controversy" - or an entirely innocent coincidence. A 37.228 address, as referenced by Girth Summit, but I have no way of telling if it was connected to any other such address. But no need for repetition then. Good observation, I had not noticed that the 37.228's in this discussion were not consistent, and had just assumed they were a single person. I must be more attentive. But for now I am going to continue my regular project work. albeit I'll keep my eyes peeled for 37.228 for a while.SeoR (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If I understand the quote above from The Times referring to wikipedia administrators to be accurate (I haven't registered to read it) I would note that that none of the current participants in the proposal (to close) subsection actually appear to be wikipedia administrators ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, I am not an administrator - I'm an ordinary user, who started this thread because of I was concerned about the allegations, but felt ill-equipped to look into them myself. They have now been investigated by users experienced in these matters, and no issues have been brought to light - hence my proposal to close. I'm available for interviews, but lunch is on you. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support – what a waste of Times. With thanks to GS for bringing this to the community's attention and to BF for their contributions to the encyclopedia. Leviv ich 19:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• The above affair even reached The Washington Post today, and I think again reflects on the quality of the articles in question (it is written by an Irish professor): Ireland is a tax haven — and that’s becoming controversial at home. Is it too late to include this into the above ANI record as a final comment? Britishfinance (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Graywalls

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

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

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

Hounding

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

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

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

List of articles demonstrating efforts to remove content

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

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

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

Behavior

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Graywalls responding to Another Believer's allegations

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

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

When disputes arise, he has a tendency to "ping" specific editors he's already familiar and after seeing those users interaction on matters that relate to us, I've come to an opinion that these people are likely to side with him. He's not heeded advise from 3rd opinion here that Wikiprojects are not the best forum for editorial disputes. The interaction here referencing another editor's voice expressing concerns about his article points that there has been issues concerning his edits long before I was even on the map. arguing with every opponent on clearly questionable notability entries. [68] this one AB cited in his complaining statement involves a self-promo/puppets. My use of 3rdOnion has been a way of trying to obtain fair consensus. perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainspace interactions by date of first interaction

22 Feb Portland Loo [69] 3 March Right 2 Dream Too [70] 3 March Portland, Oregon [71] 6 March Homelessness in Oregon [72] 6 March Homelessness in the United States by state [73] 6 March Overlook, Portland, Oregon [74] 6 March Outside In (organization) [75] 9 March AfD nom Turf War (Banksy) [76] 9 March AfD nom Dante's [77] 9 March Portland Mercury [78] 10 March Pioneer Courthouse Square [79] 11 March AfD nom World Famous Kenton Club (AfD) 11 March AfD nom Hawks PDX [80] 11 March Bit House Saloon [81] 11 March White Owl Social Club [82] 11 March Sunderland, Portland, Oregon [83] 11 March National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws [84] 11 March Oregon NORML [85] 11 March Dignity Village [86] 21 March Voodoo Doughnut [87] 31 March AfD nom Second Foundation (Oregon) [88] 28 March Cascade AIDS Project [89] 28 March Prism Health [90] 28 March Pride Northwest [91] 28 March Alberta Arts District [92] 30 March AfD nom Oregon Bears [93] 31 March Terry Bean [94] 1 April Ground Kontrol [95] 1 April Club Portland [96] 2 April CC Slaughters [97] 2 April LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon [98] 4 April Old Town Chinatown [99] 5 April Bradley Angle [100] 6 April AfD nom No Vacancy Lounge [101] 9 April First Unitarian Church of Portland [102] 9 April Nostrana (restaurant) [103] 11 April Escape Nightclub [104] 11 April Embers Avenue [105] 11 April O'Bryant Square [106] 13 April AfD nom Holocene (Portland, Oregon) [107] 14 April Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon [108] 14 April La Femme Magnifique International Pageant [109] 14 April Darcelle XV [110] 14 April Lake Oswego, Oregon [111] 15 April Willamette Week [112] 16 April Multnomah County Courthouse [113] 16 April You Are Here (sculpture) [114] 16 April Street Roots [115] 17 April Bud Clark [116]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary Break

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to end this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for future problem avoidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral quotes and diffs

Graywalls' first edits [117] are a few days in September, a day in November, and a few days in January and February, almost exclusively to Mook (graffiti artist). Then in March they bump into AB at homelessness-in-Portland-related articles. They start removing content, merging articles, applying CSD tags, and nominating articles for deletion. On March 11, they're not yet extended confirmed, but make this comment on AB's talk page: When many of your articles have the same fundamental issue (lack of basic notability and obvious promotional intent hinted by tone, and participation by the businesses by the means of direct editing), I'd be wasting other editors' time to list them for deletion consensus building. So if you aren't ignorant of notability guidelines, you're gaming the system by trying to increase the work load as a deterrent to deletion. Again on March 13, they refer to AB as an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. How does a non-EC editor know about AB's "track record" after essentially editing in this area for a couple of weeks, when AB has 300,000 edits and almost 5,000 articles created? The other comments there, An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. and With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles., suggest a battleground mentality against an editor they just met. On March 30, GW suggests AB uses A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. (The whole talk page is worth reading.) And in this AfD: Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern. On April 1: At the request of the creator, who has been serially spawning articles of this nature... and again: You've been editing long enough and know better than that. April 2: You're plastering on things that are of anything remotely LGBT, including clearly non-notable organization. and again: Then stop creating poor quality articles in the first place and work on fewer and higher quality ones. Accusation of canvassing on April 4. On April 4, Tedder posted a note on GW's talk page cataloguing behavioral issues, which are different from (and worse than) those I just posted above. It's worth reading. GW wrote in this ANI I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. and I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. However, after Tedder's April 4 post... On April 9, another COI suggestion: @Another Believer:, you presented yourself as something along the line of editing expert. I'm looking through the edit history in this article and I see highly obvious self-editing flew right past you. With your level of experience, I would like to ask why you let it fly without saying a thing. On April 11: What a coincidence that those "better ones" you're referencing are taken by you, thus repeating my concern about your grandiose attitude towards others.The article doesn't exist to appease to aesthetics senses of Another Believer. First and foremost is the encyclopedic value. Secondary is the subjective quality. Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of your composition. Graywalls nominated No Vacancy Lounge for deletion. It was unanimously kept. During the AfD, AB expanded the article and added sources–basically a standard rescue. GW took exception to this. The AfD closed on April 13. The same day, Graywalls posts a 3PO request, in which he complained that additional sources were added and suggested rolling it back to the point prior to AfD nomination and working from there. That is, after nominating an article for deletion, and having it rescued, he suggested rolling it back to pre-rescue form–the state it was in when they nominated it for deletion. (To their credit, this part of the request was removed by GW in a subsequent edit.) On April 14, in response to AB saying they've expanded the article to add more sources, Those are things that should have been done prior to the article even being created, are they not? which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the article creation process (and suggests no WP:BEFORE searches are being done, and nominations are being made based on the state of the article rather than the state of available sourcing) On April 17, refers to AB's comments ...as manipulative, coercive and threatening that is trying to intimidate me into succumb to his way.... In addition to the above, see these entire threads: Talk:Hawks PDX#Business registration/business establishment month and year, WT:WikiProject Oregon#Calling other Portland city center experts, and Talk:Street Roots#Tag. The last one is from a few days ago. Finally, in this ANI, GW has continued to accuse AB of wrongdoing and called for AB to be punished in a number of ways: perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements. Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area;... Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue...This too is possible UDPE. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and another back and forth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In principle, what I wrote, still applies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no doubt Another Believer and I massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. I don't disagree that there has been mutual poking and jabbing here and there. After seeing how quickly AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. Things he sees as a major deal aren't necessarily a big deal to me and on the flip side, he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence. I don't believe my allegation of canvassing was evidence less, because Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Bit_House_Saloon. [[118]] and pinging others in this manner on the page itself is not a neutral way of involving others into editorial dispute. I don't think those discussions that clearly infer to me was presented in a neutral manner. Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth, again

Last year, I expressed disappointment and criticism at the conduct of RHaworth (talk · contribs) over deletions, not so much over whether the deletion was justified but proper adherence to WP:ADMINACCT and by extension WP:CIVIL. In the past month I have spotted several issues, and I feel like I'm spending far too much time cleaning up after him and performing the necessary level of "customer service" to keep editors on board and active in the project.

• Jeff Oster was deleted per WP:G4 despite being rewritten from scratch. The creator, Meta in MA (talk · contribs) asked for restoration and got given a canned message "I continue to be annoyed when somebody leaves a message to me about an article and provides no wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?" My answer would be "Which of the two of you has more experience in the technical side of Wikipedia and should therefore be expected to provide support to the one who doesn't?" The response, "I'm getting really disappointed with trying to submit work to Wikipedia. I'm trying to follow the rules and better document New Age artists, and once I get an article edited to the point where it is approved, it gets deleted. Does Wikipedia what to suppress new authors?" was somewhat predictable.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk was closed as "delete" with just the nomination and no other !votes, to which I would normally expect a soft delete or a redirect. The subsequent creation of a redirect seems a bit odd (nobody asked for it at the AfD).
• Draft:Víctor Manzanilla (now moved to Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer) was deleted by RHaworth, and restoration requested by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) See here. For some reason, RHaworth dug his heels in and refused to give a straight answer to GiantSnowman, so I restored it for him and added a few sources.
• MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) complained about the deletion of Threatin. See here. RHaworth's reply was "I should have ignored you both because neither of you is capable of providing a link." which got the response "You've been kind of unfriendly so excuse my lack of enthusiasm for replying". Elsewhere on this talk page archive I see comments from RHaworth such as "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" (see WP:IPHUMAN) and "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here" which he was specifically told not to say at the last ANI thread.
• Paul W (talk · contribs) took exception to RHaworth deleting Vivian Li, saying, "Disappointed that you feel my efforts were deficient. As a Wikimedia UK volunteer, I was trying to encourage and support new editors (acknowledged in the article Talk page). I was racing against a speedy deletion (apologies for the typos - I had other things going on....), and now you tell me I am undeserving". See here. After I intervened, RHaworth did apologise.

I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't, but I'm just completely unhappy that somebody can seemingly think that certain policies don't apply to them, when they would certainly cause an RfA to fail in today's climate. I admit my temper is fraying in this area, and I should probably just back out completely, but I don't really want to sit by and see new editors have a bad experience and quit. So somebody needs to look to see if there's anything we can do, and what a typical level of WP:ADMINACCT should be set at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated).Smeat75 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Just on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk AfD - another user tagged it for CSD while I was filling in the AfD proposal. The CSD tag was placed by the time I submitted the nomination, so the conflict was my bad, not theirs. I was pondering what to do for the best when RHaworth deleted the page; I didn't request the redirect, but in fairness it was probably appropriate (the website belonged to the company that it was redirected to). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It sounds a reasonable compromise, sure; the issue is more the reply from RHaworth, which is the somewhat unhelpful "The discussion says "the result was delete" so why do you ask the question?". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We all know that IPs are subhuman. Frequently, ANI is protected and we can not even post here. We all have IPs, you know. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to say here other than my disappointment on RHaworth's comments on IPs. Like I understand that some editors are against allowing IPs to be able to edit and I respect that opinion, but calling IPs as "very low life forms" seems too much. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I will add another issue to this thread: While Ephixa was still in draftspace, and a deletion review closed as "Accept draft", RHaworth declined a G6 request and salted the redirect as "trying to circumvent DRV". Seems like an obvious rush in not reading the full story before declining. Luckily, after discussion, we were able to accept the draft, but I still had the feeling the decline was rushed. I'm not saying he was wrong in declining the G6, though, I'm just disappointed in how it was handled. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sure if he's told to restrain himself from vocalising his views on IPs—shared, of course, by so many of his colleagues—then both he and us can get back to what we're here for...to paraphrase the OP :D ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yup, I've questioned RHaworth's deletions several times over the past couple years, usually to no avail. I'd love to see an WP:ADMINACCT Arb Com case opened for RHaworth's conduct. I certainly don't have the time to present evidence here, but I would in a case request. This is an ongoing problem that doesn't look like it's ever going to be resolved otherwise, as the conduct since the "acknowledgment" in the previous thread has demonstrated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• I've certainly on many occasions gone to remove the deletion tags from pages which appear to have been tagged in error, to find that RHaworth has deleted the page in question in the meantime. AGF and all that, but he's clearly just opening CAT:EX and CAT:CSD and hitting the "batch delete" button since there's no possible way he could actually be checking the articles and their histories in the time taken. (If you've ever wanted to see what 100 deletions in one minute looks like, here you go.) There are also some distinctly goofy log entries. I'm not sure if Arbcom is necessary—hopefully an "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" is all that's necessary—but just a skim over his talk page isn't promising. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  The last ANI thread was archived as RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues and no futher action is required. Unfortunately, acknowledging is not the same as actually improving. I explicitly did not comment last year because he and I have distinctively different views on speedy deletion and I didn't want that to be the focus after Ritchie had mentioned it but I think Ritchie has demonstrated now that RHaworth is not willing to follow ADMINACCT regardless of his mistaken applications of the speedy deletion policy and thus I would welcome an ArbCom case to analyze his behavior if this (again) fails to sanction him. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  And even if this did go to Arbcom, it would waste everyone's time, with the Arbs (eventually) coming back with the standard "RHaworth is admonished" line. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Ritchie333, I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities. Please provide your own replies to messages on my user talk page which you consider are unsuitable and reply on my behalf to all the new messages there. I will study your responses and try and learn from your example.

  Everybody else, is it sufficient for me to say that I accept my admonishment? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  And why do you think that that's in any way sufficient? You have been disrupting Wikipedia for well over a decade by speedily deleting articles that don't remotely qualify for speedy deletion and by salting the titles when editors have tried to question your actions. I, for one, won't let this thread go until your obvious incompetency leads to your admin rights being removed. I'm about to go to bed now, so won't look up the diffs until tomorrow, but I would have thought that it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at your record that what I say is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: - hi, firstly just an indication of interest specifically in diffs of retributive saltings tomorrow. Secondly, I feel that if it's just bad speedies, then I'd advocate a TBAN without a loss of general sysops rights. If there are true retributive saltings, then that's definitely cause for de-sysopping. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• RHaworth is an absolute gentleman compared to several other Admins I deal with regularly. I watch his talkpage and respond to requests from time to time. He is fast to delete when we are doing bulk CSDs like G13s and willing to restore based on any reasonable and sometimes unreasonable request. Not the Admin that needs ro be dragged here for a beating. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've got to say that I'm of the opposite opinion. RHaworth has been, IMO, the single most difficult admin I've dealt with (though I'll acknowledge there are one or two others who come from time to time). I'll fully admit that's over many years, not just since the last time this came to ANI. But honestly I can tell when it's one of his deletions at DRV just from the deletion request. My sense is that he gets overturned for really poor deletions pretty often. And I've commonly seen him be really terse when dealing with others, especially new users and IPs. It's not like I follow him, just go look at discussions related to DRVs he's involved in. Is there a good/easy way to see how admins have faired at DRV? I'd be willing to put together a list of the issues I've had if there is. But I've no idea how to search for them. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Let me also acknowledge that he does a lot of good work around here. No doubt. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Just a minor comment: according to WP:NOQUORUM it is acceptable for the admin to close the discussion according to the nominator's suggestion. That is a hard, rather than soft, delete. That should generally be less common though. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• RH does excellent work, and is correct in his judgments as often as I am, or as anyone who does as much work as he does. But since there is always the possibility of error (indeed, the certainty of making a few errors), it's unfair to new users to assume their objections do not need to be considered. It's also unfair to the rest of us who feel obliged to rescue rescuable articles and who have to deal with the new editors subsequently. In past years, there were quite a few other admins acting similarly, and it seemed unreasonable to single him out among them, but the others have in general either changed or left. I know it's hard to break a pattern, and I suggest we need patience while waiting for improvement. But I hope we really do actually see improvement. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I broadly concur with DGG's comments. I note RHaworth has accepted his admonishment ... and I [AGF that means an attempt to improve communications towards current sysop/admin norms ... and I guess we will be back here if not. Thread closure may be more productive than a Good Friday crucifixion of RAHaworth. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Me too. Those of us who dare to carry out deletions - almost always at the request of other contributors - expect and get considerable criticism. I don't see any reason for him to do more than apologise if he gets it wrong once in a while. Deb (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

      As I said at the top, "I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't". That is not the purpose of this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

      Just to clarify, when I said "gets it wrong", I did not mean to refer only to deletions but to general conduct. Deb (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) +1 I'm not, obviously, a clearer of backlogs—indeed, I'm more likely to cause them  :) but, notwithstanding that no-one's irreplaceable, I do wonder who exactly would do the work that RH does; not, it would seem, the admins currently calling for arbitration (103 G11s/U5s over their last 1500 collated deletions; [119], [120], [121]). Happy days!  :)

    Of course, no-one has to do anything they don't want to do, but a few pro rata errors are a small price, I think, to pay for the heavy lifting to be done while allowing the rest of us to wander the halls of enlighten/ment. I grant you that RH can be brusque; but he's never told anyone to fuck off, people—and there are a fair few admins who that can't be said of! They, I suggest, would justify an occasional outburst on the grounds that they are permanently dealing with vandals/socks/LTAs and other such unsavoury characters, and after all, if you sleep with dogs you rise with fleas. I expect RH's occasional terseness stems from much the same thing: permanently hearing the same thing over and over, most of the time from blatant spammers and Garage Bandists.

    Poor for the soul I'd imagine; rather RH than me. And, I suspect, rather RH than most/of/us/here right now... ——SerialNumber54129 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    The examples I gave above do not fit this pattern - do you really think Phil Bridger, Paul W and GiantSnowman are vandals, socks or LTAs? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    Supercilious disingenuity. I was referring to mindsets, not individuals, as you well understand. And I was replying above to Deb, not you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    Then you're arguing a Straw man. This thread is not about people who do a lot of CSD deletions, and it is certainly not meant to be a campaign against their excellent work. It's about a particular pattern of behaviour in which one admin has refused to engage with veteran editors on reasonable queries about deletions, and also exhibited WP:BITE behaviour towards other good faith newbies. You can't wave that one away just by saying there are lots of vandals and trolls out there. It's something that needs to be examined, and RHaworth needs to acknowledge that the examples presented above do not constitute satisfactory conduct and that they will do better in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

    That being the case it would have been closed at the point where RH explicitly acknowledged so—over twelve hours ago. It wasn't. However, I note this discussion is relevant; I'd be personally tempted to suggest a moratorium on all but the most egregious (but how to define, naturally) incivility being brought her while a consensus is being established. If it is of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated)." I don't see why. I go through my watchlist several times every week, and check what such editors are up to. Several of them are reverting vandalism, correcting typos, or using the talk page to mention errors and omissions. On the other hand several editors with signed names are vandalizing pages, trolling, and leaving misleading messages such as "fixed typo". Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Try editing as an IP for a few days. I tried, making the same kinds of edits I normally do, and I was reverted without explanation and threatened with a block. IPs are treated that way, so it's reasonable to conclude that a lot of editors think of them that way. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding IP editors, I would encourage RHaworth, and everyone else to read WP:HUMAN. Paul August ☎ 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Quick comment on the Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer debacle seeing as I've being pinged here - this was a clearly notable article which was moved to draftspace for no reason and then he refused to answer questions about it. Very concerning conduct. GiantSnowman 12:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment RHaworth seems to have resumed activities although the last comment here is he was on limited capability device which I totally understand especially can understand especially given the Easter holiday period. Gets a WP:TROUT doing a CSD in a batch with a rate of about 10+/min on a page with a contest in progress from a person giving him support earlier in the thread. To be fair there may be timing issues here and posting this here may influence matters. This may of course be a godd faith attempt to help out while resources are light which I can totally appreciate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  I also need to WP:TROUT myself here for not simply removing the CSD notice first rather than writing on the take page which was the incorrect procedure for contesting the deletion by a not page owner (In haste hit the big button in lieu of carefully reading small print).Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  I will observe quickly RHaworth has just restored the page in question and has been thanked by me for doing so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Did he pull a userfied page from Meta in MA and then tag it for speedy deletion? Muthian (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am reasonably sure this was the incident mentioned at the top of the thread and which was probably the key triggering incident for the thread and to an extent has been implicitly acknowledged already by RHaworth.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• So, as the thread draws to a close, do we have any conclusion? A couple of people have suggested Arbcom, a couple have said that RHaworth has got the message, others are "meh". RHaworth has reached out to me, but I can't see the response is particularly conciliatory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have been avoiding this issue for the last few days, because I believed that RHaworths incompetence was so obvious to anyone looking at his record that this would be settled without my having to offer any more evidence. It's very difficult for a non-admin to come up with diffs because nearly all of them would be to deleted articles, which I can't see.

Firstly I would note that this is not the first time that this admin has been brought to WP:ANI on these grounds, and he has previously promised to do better in the future but those promises have not been kept, so we should not just lie back and accept similar promises this time. I would also say that this thread should not just be concerned with incivility towards anyone who this admin seems to consider to be inferior to him, who are basically any non-admins and especially people who choose not to log in to edit or who are not experts in the technicalities of Wikimedia mark-up, but also about gross incompetence with speedy deletion, which I can't substantiate because of my inability to see deleted articles, but I have experienced many times over the years. He seems to just delete almost anything that's nominated (which, of course, would result in many correct decisions, because most nominations are correct) rather than check whether the articles actually meet speedy deletion criteria.

I have been editing for over a decade, mostly logging in but for a time without. On many occasions I have contested a speedy deletion, explaining in my edit summary why the speedy deletion tagging was incorrect, but found that an hour or two later the article was speedily deleted anyway without explanation. On nearly every such occasion the deleting admin was RHaworth. To address DGG's comment above making the claim that there is any equivalence between their approaches, on the one occasion when DGG was the deleting admin the deletion was immediately reverted with an apology, something that I have never seen from RHaworth.

The most recent occasion when RHaworth has disrupted my editing by inappropriately salting a title was at Manoj Paras. The subject of this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I provided a source to confirm this, so I tried to revert RHaworth's move to user space per WP:BRD, but after I messed this up by forgetting to change the namespace in my move RHawarth salted the mainspace title. Going back many years, showing that this problem has been here for many years, I had a similar experience with Cheveley Park Stud. These are not just two isolated occurrences, but just the latest and earliest that I can remember where there is still some undeleted evidence available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• For another recent example of inappropriate involved protection see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: The most recent CSD you contested that involved RHaworth was Great Dane Airlines on 15 April. The article as you saw it was tagged CSD A7 and the prose in its entirety was "Great Dane Airlines is a startup airline that is based in Aalborg, Denmark. It is due to launch its inaugural flight on 21 June 2019 to Dublin, Ireland." You declined the A7 and added a citation to the Irish Times. It was then deleted by RHaworth per CSD G11, with no further edits or tags. Houston, we have a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. @RHaworth:'s complete lack of silence here is also very concerning per WP:ADMINACCT... GiantSnowman 10:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per a comment I've made elsewhere, I initially counselled against taking this to Arbcom. However, despite his claim that he's unable to respond at the ANI thread because "I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities" he's continuing to perform mass deletions (while he's not yet back to his 100-deletion-per-minute rate, he made 14 deletions in one minute just a couple of hours ago). He's also still batch-deleting without actually checking the articles he's deleting, unless he's going to try to justify deleting a page that has existed since 2009 and is unquestionably accurate (albeit of questionable appropriateness) as a "blatant hoax". I now consider his non-response to concerns a blatant case of ANI flu in an attempt to evade scrutiny (the alternative—that he doesn't have the technical ability to read the pages at present but is still running deletion scripts anyway—is even worse). ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• RHaworth's attitude towards editors who come to his talk page is not acceptable. I can't think of a more inappropriate analogy to a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit than the petty point scoring and infantile back-and-froth that is the House of Commons, but apparently RHaworth thinks it is ok to state on his user page, I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it. Similarly his edit notice (which I see has just been nominated for deletion) says that he reserves the right to ignore messages from those to fail to correctly format a wikilink, even if they provide the link as a URL instead! This is incompatible with WP:ADMINACCT.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• RHaworth replies at last - and still away from base. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. But collaborators may have differing views. If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it! Chances are that I will never notice or, if I do notice, I will accept it. If you don't have the relevant rights, ask Ritchie333, or any other admin to do it for you or request the change on my talk page.

I will make the following specific changes to my behaviour:

• Insisting on wikilinks: I feel that in an, admittedly somewhat perverted way, I am helping the person to become a better Wikipedian. But I will change: as long as I can identify what the person is talking about, I will respond. (I had two cases recently of an IP address that had made no other edits making a complaint where it was totally impossible to work out what they were talking about!)
• I will treat IP addresses as being just as human as logged-in users.
• Regaring my mantra; "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks you are notable and writes about you here". I really do not see what Ritchie333 is objectiong to but I will switch to the following. "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone with no CoI will be interested enough to come here and write your biography". (Based on a suggestion by DGG.)

Are there any other changes needed? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's one of "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" covered, but what about the other two? We wouldn't be having a discussion about your replies to people questioning your mistakes if you didn't keep abusing the batch-delete function to speedy delete everything that has been nominated for deletion without bothering to check for yourself if it had been tagged correctly. Per my comments elsewhere, my allegation would be trivially easy to refute were I wrong, as even if we very generously assume that only one in 50 taggings are wrong (the real number is much higher than that, and for some of the more widely misunderstood deletion categories like WP:A7 is probably nearer 50%), then for someone deleting at this kind of volume it should be simple to point me towards numerous diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD". Seeing as I've repeatedly made this accusation against you at Wikipedia's highest-profile drama board (and one where false accusations invariably attract boomerangs) and nobody has provided any such evidence—and that even after all these concerns have been raised you're still carrying out obviously incorrect speedy deletions—I'm assuming you've not taken on board any of what anyone above is telling you. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I will try and explain a few things, but first I need to reiterate that you're a nice guy and you deserve to have a hug (but I'm probably not the best person for that) and I'm not doing this because I like having a pop at other admins; on the contrary, I find it tiring and draining, and saps my mental energy which would be better spent on other things. Rather, it's because I get a semi-regular stream of off-wiki complaints about you, and I'm fed up of having to defend you, as that saps my mental energy even more. So this comes from just a total state of exhaustion over the issue. Now onto the individual points:

• "If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it!" I don't intrinsically have a problem with that, I have that prominently displayed on my user page and generally don't need anyone to ask permission. The key problems are: 1) it's not immediately obvious that you're okay with this 2) the default position, as stated by the policy on tool misuse is "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.", so it would be reasonable to assume that people don't know this. 3) It's not reasonable to expect new users (such as the editor who created Great Dane Airlines that you unilaterally deleted on a questionable pretext that you haven't justified yet) to know that administrator actions can be reversed if you ask the right ones. Particularly if they get brushed off with excuses like "I don't talk to IP addresses" or "For heaven's sake! Do you not know what a wikilink is?"
• The problem with "kindly have the decency....." is (as linked to at the top of the thread), you were asked to do this at the previous ANI thread from April 2018, and didn't - or possibly more likely, you adhered to it for a bit, then slipped into your old habits. That's really what I was getting at.
• You really need to address Iridescent's points above. If you're systematically going through CAT:CSD and deleting everything, expecting other admins to revert anything that people disagree with, then that's not really a working method that's compatible with adminship. Actions such as deletion should be a last resort - as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". I appreciate admins go on holiday and can't respond; indeed, if you look at my contributions you'll discover I was away at Easter and only managed to grab brief periods online; but if that's the case, I wouldn't expect any admin actions, or any edits at all bar holding replies.

I fully admit I'm frustrated by this, and I'm sure you are as well, and it's not nice to basically tell an admin ten years my senior effectively how to suck eggs. But I think everyone on the thread is optimistic that there can be improvements in this area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I would give you a hug, RH... :-) Deb (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would have thought that anyone whose competence has been called into question, and who is in a place where they don't have the ability to reply properly to concerns that have been raised, would have the self-awareness to refrain from performing speedy deletions until this thread has been resolved. I see that you have restored one article that has been mentioned in this thread, but what about the very many others that you have deleted in error, and the very many editors that you have been responsible for scaring away from Wikipedia? No hugs from me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good timing, I was about to comment about you, Phil. I feel I am being subjected at the moment to a zero-tolerance policy. Am I not allowed to make any mistakes? My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake. I had the 2019-04-15 11:58:35 state of the page open in a browser tab. So when I deleted it at 2019-04-15 12:44:46 I never saw that you had removed the speedy tag. If you had contacted me, I would have restored the page promptly. Why did you not do so? Now see if I have excuses for some of the other pages that I have "deleted in error". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I did not do so for the simple reason that I did not even know you had speedily deleted the article until it was pointed out in this thread. I cannot be expected to spend my editing time checking up on your mistakes, and neither can any other editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• "My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake." That brings to mind the old proverb, "a bad workman always blames his tools". I think what Phil was asking is why you thought Great Dane Airlines (a stub containing one sentence and a table) met the criteria for G11 ("unambiguous advertising or promotion") and deleted it. According to the deletion policy, "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it.". This is why people are annoyed at you, because you're doing things that seem to be contradicted by core policies, and hoping things will just blow over of their own accord. I've been dragged off to ANI and asked to justify myself to a bunch of angry users, and it's not nice - but it comes with the territory of being an admin, so you've got to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would add to my previous comment that it's blindingly obvious common sense that articles should be checked just before speedily deleting them, not 45 minutes previously, and I know that I pointed this out to you many years ago, and that others have done so since then. Even if I had noticed that you had speedily deleted this I probably wouldn't have gone to your talk page, because my long experience has been that pointing out your mistakes there only leads to your use of admin tools to salt article titles, so furthering your disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I'm still waiting (1) an explanation as to why despite being able to edit and delete numerous articles you were unable to post here to acknowledge the discussion and concerns and (2) a full explanation of the Víctor Manzanilla saga. Why did you move it into draft, and why did you not respond to the concerns of me and another editor on your talk page? GiantSnowman 07:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for the diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD" that would demonstrate that you're not just opening CAT:CSD and bulk deleting the entire contents each day without bothering to actually review whether the articles are correctly tagged. In the absence of such diffs, I'm going to consider working on the assumption that your inability to provide them is implicit evidence that you're abusing your sysop bit to apply a delete everything and see who appeals policy. Assuming you're not still continuing to abuse the batch-delete function, you can no doubt give me a good explanation as to why this page you incorrectly deleted a couple of hours ago constituted "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". ‑ Iridescent 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dask library. This was (in retrospect probably incorrectly) deleted as A7 by me (as web content without claim of importance, but it probably should be considered software instead, which isn't A7 deletable). Page creator came to my talk page, I replied and undeleted. 30 minutes later, Rhaworth deletes again as A3 (incorrect) and G11 (also incorrect). We all make poor deletions (like I said, mine was probably not correct either), but to do this during a discussion about such deletions, on a page which had just been deleted and undeleted already, and with two incorrect rationales at once, is a bit too much. Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• @RHaworth: I am becoming increasingly concerned that you can find time to make poor deletions but you cannot find the time to respond to concerns here. GiantSnowman 13:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks at talk:Patrick Moore

I have attempted to discuss this edit at User talk:Hob Gadling#Personal attack. As I said there I find the phrase Even if it were allowed, you are bad at it particularly unhelpful, but there are other problems with the post IMO.

You are moving further and further away from reality was part of a subsequent post. [122]

I don't want the user (or myself!) banned from the discussion. But I think it would be good to avoid these personal attacks. Is this unreasonable? Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• That looks pretty mild and nowhere near a personal attack. Is there some backstory I'm missing? What do you think someone should say if they believe persistent errors of logic are being presented on a talk page? The discussion seems to concern whether someone with a forestry PhD can be regarded as an expert in ecology and Hob Gadling's response (essentially, "no") seems fine. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, so if I reply that (in my opinion) he is the one out of touch with reality, that would be OK? I recognise that while WP:NPA leaves no wiggle room, in practice it seems there's no longer any consensus to enforce it strictly.
  • The question under discussion is, does the PhD in any way make ecologist a better disambiguator than environmentalist? The RM is to move away from (environmentalist), and my proposal is (ecologist) as the new name, and I find the suggestion that the PhD is irrelevant bizarre... many reliable secondary sources (as well as primary ones such as Moore himself) call it in Ecology, and there's no such evidence to support the existing name. But that the PhD is irrelevant seems to me to be exactly what Hob Gadling and others are suggesting.
  • So it seems to me that they are the ones denying reality on this specific issue. Whether that's true or not, it's my honest opinion, so is it OK for me to express it there? (Not sure whether I will but if it's disapproved here I won't.) Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry but the no personal attacks policy addresses stronger abuse than the two examples provided above. There is a strong disagreement and people will decorate their comments with insults but the ratio of comment-on-content to low-level-insults was good. I'm not saying the comments are desirable and I'm not saying their logic is sound. They just don't rise to a level where ANI action is required IMHO. It would be different if their every comment included a snide remark. This is not the place to discuss the issue but you might like to take a different approach and suggest that if the title Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would be appropriate when he was president of Greenpeace Canada, then it should be appropriate now, even if his opponents claim otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations

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

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

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

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

• On 30 December 2018, they misattributed copyrighted text written by Harry McGrath to Elizabeth Teague ([123]) and reacted aggressively when I corrected their mistake.

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

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

• On 21 April 2019 they removed my attempt at getting them to reflect on their repeated violations of copyright law, calling this request that they follow WP policy "unhinged rambling" ([124]). A look at the history of their TP edit summaries show that they routinely engage in name-calling against editors who attempt to rein in their abusive behaviour. Snooganssnoogans will need to provide evidence that they've asked me to stay off their talk page, I have no such recollection of them doing so, but will do so now that they have asked (I believe) for the first time.

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

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

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

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

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

As for the purported copyvios: the first example (one sentence sourced to BBC – with the BBC as a cited ref) is just a case of close paraphrasing in one sentence, which can happen when one reads a source and seeks to summarize its contents. The second example (one sentence sourced to the Daily Beast - with the DB as a cited ref) is a clear copyvio, and I do not exactly remember the circumstances behind that 2.5 yr old edit - the text should of course be fixed and has been fixed. The third example is just an accident where one link was copied into the cite-ref generator rather than another (something I’m sure every prolific editor has done). After almost three years of stalking my edits (note that I’ve added a lot of content during that time[125]), this is the sum of what SashiRolls comes up with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Context for what's going on here: In September 2016, SashiRolls (SR) got topic-banned from the Jill Stein article for trying to add a bunch of fringe nonsense to the article and for being abrasive on the talk page.[126][127] At that point, SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article,[128] an admin, Neutrality, explicitly stated in Nov 2016 that SashiRolls's "edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project."[129] Another admin, Tryptofish, called SR out for vandalizing my talk page during this harassment episode.[130] During this harassment, I told SR to “stop following me around and leaving crazed comments on my talk page. Leave me alone, you sociopath.” [131] At that point, half of my talk page was full of SR’s rambling commentary and threats, and SR was stalking me across Wikipedia articles. However, because I personally insulted SR over his stalking, I was blocked for 48 hrs by EdJohnston. This is not an excuse for the civility violation (which I’ve already served my punishment for), but I was clearly provoked at the time (I was also very green as a Wikipedia editor and unaware of appropriate procedures to resolve that kind of situation). A month later, SR was banned for something unrelated.[132] However, the creepy harassment did not end there. SR continued following my edits, obsessively analyzing them and complaining about them on off-Wiki forums. On Wikipediocracy alone, Google shows 84 results for “snoog”[133] and 46 results for “snooganssnoogans”[134]. The overwhelming majority of these references are made by SR, and this does not count references on other off-wiki forums and other iterations of my username by SR. At some point, admins decided to allow SR to edit Wikipedia again. Of course, the tendentious editing resumed when SR came back. On the Tulsi Gabbard article, SR decided to block any and all changes made by me, and refused to explain why.[135] (Note that the Tulsi Gabbard is another page that SR stalked me to in 2016 only to indiscriminately revert me - this is his first edit there[136]) SR was informed by the admin Awilley that this was not an appropriate way to edit. When SR could not simply block things without explanations, SR instead filibustered changes to the article by filling the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior was erratic, as SR accused me and MrX of tag-teaming,[137] posted weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[138][139] and requested that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[140]. When SR was allowed to edit again[141], multiple admins and editors expressed the sentiment that this editor would be up to trouble again in no time, and that he’d be kept on a short leash. I think I’ve documented a long-standing harassment campaign that has culminated in this spurious request to have me banned over a copyvio of one sentence in 2016 and for telling SR to stay off my talk page (SR inaccurately suggests that I've never instructed him to stay off my talk page before). Would it be possible for an admin to please tell this editor to leave me alone and refrain from mentioning me again? It's been almost three years of this creepy harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It is 100% indisputable that SR stalked me here[142] (never mind all the other instances I cited). It was so brazen and blatant that an admin chastised him for it and explicitly characterized it as harassment.[143] That SR is lying about something so blatant and easily disprovable should put everything else in context (and is also a good illustration of what I put up with). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I've been trying to stay away from wiki-conflict lately, but having been pinged, I feel that I should comment briefly. Please note that I am not an admin (nor do I play one on TV). I'm unfamiliar with what's going on at the pages in question. I've had positive interactions with Snooganssnoogans in the past, although I also realize that recent US politics (a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions) is a contentious editing area. As for civility, when I said this a few weeks ago: [144] (in the GMO DS topic area), SashiRolls responded with this: [145]. Maybe I should have come here complaining that "civility has been a chronic problem" for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Further on boomerang: It's worth keeping in mind that SashiRolls was previously indeffed as an AE sanction: [146], and was given the opportunity, about six months ago, to return to the community under what is essentially WP:ROPE: [147]. We may indeed be deep into boomerang territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang. This reads and feels like a bad-faith revenge attempt and is laughable on its merits. Even the comments about "We'll see if these are core policies or not" are a dare to do something. --Jorm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang - This report seems clearly filed in bad faith, especially considering how SashiRolls has persistently gotten into conflict (and possibly harassed) with Snoog. The civility issues may be of some merit, but ideally not on this bad-faith thread. Nanophosis (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's important to take a look at Talk:WikiLeaks to see the context of the claim of copyright violation. It seems like it might be an excuse to remove text in order to push a POV. I don't think it's fair for SashiRolls to complain about civility issues when they have themselves been uncivil:

  ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories".[148]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary."[149]  
• "A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed."[150]
• "Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon."[151]
• "By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style"[152]
• "More to the point, it's always good to ask who is doing the stirring. I think I'll unwatchlist this page for a few days and !watch other people play. Go, SnooX!"[153]

This is a continuation of the same type of behavior that resulted in SashiRolls being indeffed in 2017.[154] - MrX 🖋 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More diffs

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

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

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

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

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

  Furthermore, it's important context here to clarify how Levivich and I know each other: Levivich sought to remove long-standing content out of the 2018 United States elections by falsely claiming to have a consensus[155][156] and then by brazenly removing content that was closed as a consensus via a RfC.[157][158] That's how I know this editor and how this editor knows me: I sought to keep long-standing content in the article that adhered to RS coverage whereas the other helped to edit-war the content out and replace it with poorly sourced rubbish. My version was of course approved in a RfC, and even then, the other editor sought to remove it. Again, what I'm I supposed to do when someone (in this case, Levivich) literally removes "consensus" text: let someone force out this consensus text? Start another RfC whose result this editor will ignore? Or should I revert it and thus be guilty of "edit-warring"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

  Should I have started a second RfC after you removed text that had just been declared "consensus" in a closed RfC?[159][160] Is this seriously the burden that I need to shoulder? It is not feasible in the slightest that I start a talk page discussion every single time that I revert someone (certainly not when it's consensus text) and it's certainly not something that other editors do. If you disagree with the consensus reached in a RfC, I'm pretty sure the burden falls on you to start a talk page discussion or start a new RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

  @Levivich: I'm looking at your diffs. In this MS-13 nonsense, looking at your first diff [161], I see Snoogans reverting a user called BreakingZews. It should probably be noted that BreakingZews was soon after Topic Banned from AP2 in this thread [162]. The next diff in your list is this one, [163], in which an editor tries to insinuate that the Democratic Party might be supporting MS-13. Do we need to talk about that, or do you already understand how ridiculous that is? Seriously, is that your argument against Snooganssnoogans? If that's the best you can do, then you deserve that boomerang. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of Levivich's examples is edit-warring on the WSJ page to remove climate change-related content. Every editor who removed the content was an IP number[164] (as soon as regular editors removed the content, I started a talk page discussion[165] and a RfC)[166]. Three days after the start of the RfC, there are seven votes in support of my version, with one vote against my version. Despite this consensus, the IP numbers are back removing the text.[167] If I now restore this long-standing content which obviously has consensus support, should I expect Levivich to count that as an example of edit-warring? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• This set of diffs is more convincing the the first one.The extensive POV edit-warring and incivility is a huge problem. He editwars without even attempting to provide sources. A claim such as "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." needs a source [168] and I can't believe after being told that by other editors he continues to add it back in without a source. That Republicans cited Joe Biden's past support of delaying judicial nominations until after an election as justification for their opposition to Merrick Garland as reported by the new york times is "fringe" [169] does not even make sense. You can't just label things "fringe" because you disagree with them and only present half the story. Just take a look at the page user:Snooganssnoogans and you can see he's WP:NOTHERE. What kind of legit editor keeps a list of 50 or so mostly off-wiki criticisms of his editing? He is here to improve content or just to make more outrageous edits to draw attention to himself? That a single editor could have received that much negative attention really makes Wikipedia look bad. Why would anyone be proud of this?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (1) The text "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." is sourced to the Associated Press, FactCheck.Org and ProPublica (in the body of the article)[170]. Furthermore, the text is entirely consistent with the state of the academic literature, and consistent with language used on Sanctuary city and Immigration and crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• (2) There are a number of peer-reviewed studies that characterize the Republican move as unprecedented (cited in the body of the article). The so-called "Biden precedent" that Republicans cobbled together was both misleading[171] and ultimately something that one Senator at one time remarked rather than acted on. So it is indeed fringe to rebut peer-reviewed assessments of the move as unprecedented with political rhetoric from partisans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You're now just flat-out telling falsehoods about the sources (this is an extremely good example of the kind of time-consuming veto tactics that one frequently encounters on American politics pages that relate to conspiracy theories, fringe rhetoric and falsehoods). (1) AP: "It’s inaccurate for Trump and his administration to assert that weak immigration enforcement is leading to “unchecked” crime, including from the “vile gang MS-13.”"[172], FactCheck.Org describes Trump's claim that "The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Admin. allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S." as "distorts the facts" and cites as an MS-13 expert literally saying "Gangs do not flourish because of weak immigration policies."[173], ProPublica likewise rejects the assertion,[174], NBC News: "there's no evidence that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, foster crime or gangs, and authorities have said sanctuary policies actually help them fight crime."[175] (2) "Fringe" as in contradiction to mainstream academic scholarship (which is all cited in the article in question). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule" (why would they? it's a faux rationale). They describe the blocking of Garland as "unprecedented", a "culmination of this confrontational style," a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms," and a "classic example of constitutional hardball." The addition of the "Biden rule" is to rebut these assessments by making it seem as if the move was not unprecedented and just normal everyday politics (that's the "fringe" part). This chapter is not cited in the Wikipedia article but it specifically addresses the "Biden rule", effectively calling it BS.[176] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

Fact checking Snoogans' initial statement

Pants sycamore

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

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

Anyone clicking next on the link Snoog gave above would see that first he reverted me without correcting his two subject-verb agreement errors, and then I corrected the errors in the subsequent edit and walked away from the page and never edited it again [177]. I did not "revert [him] nilly-willy", but precisely once after politely trying to get them to correct their own error by leaving a message on their talk page. Verdict: pants on fire

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

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

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

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

(1) You stalked me to a page which you never edited before and which you had zero reason to ever encounter only to remove my edit in its entirety (which was a summary of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal).[[178]] That you're still BSing about this and can't cop to stalking me to this page is beyond belief. Do you seriously think anyone is buying it? An admin literally described it as part of an intentional campaign to harass me and drive me of the project.[179] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) You're asking us to believe that you happened to make your first edit to the Tulsi Gabbard page shortly after I edited the page, and where you coincidentally happened to revert my edit in its entirety, because you watchlisted the article in anticipation that some bad people would start editing the article? And you did all of this at basically same time that you stalked me to other articles and filled my talk page with incoherent and threatening commentary in what an admin described as a harassment campaign?[180] Hard to believe. In particular, given that you can't even admit to the most brazen and blatant stalking. This is beyond the point (your creepy harassment) but I removed poorly sourced content and added RS content to the Tulsi Gabbard page. This[181] is the edit in question (so readers can judge). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

(4) That's an extremely misleading and deceptive recounting events. You're completely misrepresenting my interaction with Awilley. After describing how you indiscriminately reverted all my edits on the Tulsi Gabbard page and refused to explain why (holding the page hostage), I asked him/her "whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this", to which Awilley answered, "Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work."[182] Then later, after you were informed by Awilley that you couldn't block things without explanation, and after I spent ten days trying to converse with you on the Tulsi Gabbard page (during which time you filled the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM rambling and casting of aspersions), I asked Awilley "is there seriously no way out of this?", to which Awilley gave the response that you just quoted.[183] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, one does wonder how you found that edit so quickly without having the page watchlisted. Second, this ES also deserves a Pinocchio/pants on fire fact-check rating: the first of several articles added as a source was a Politico article by Jonathan Katz which Politico had (and has) tagged as "Clinton Foundation," and which includes a picture captioned "At left, workers walk through the $300 million Caracol Industrial Park campus in the north of Haiti last month. The three-year-old park—a key project of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state—was intended to have thousands more jobs by now but is far behind initial projections" [184] Four hours later you still hadn't opened discussion on the Talk Page, so I did so at 18:25 on 22 September 2016. WP:BRD?

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

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

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

Since we seem to be creating subsections

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

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

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

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

Fact checking SashiRolls

SashiRolls claimed above: "I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying...". Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the DNC on February 28, 2016[185], while SashiRolls' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard was not until November 11, 2016[186], the day after Snooganssnoogans' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard[187]. On Novermber 11, Snoogans said on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard "you're just here to revert my edits whatever they happen to be.", to which SashiRolls responded: Look, I'm watching your edits for bias, you know that, especially concerning politicians like Tulsi Gabbard."[188].

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

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

Snoogans' edit was restored by User:Volunteer Marek, which SashiRolls reverted[189], and by JBL, which SashiRolls reverted[190].

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

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

SashiRolls later deleted the last clause, which they had found to be negative[191], because the source was "no longer active", when they could have instead just added the archived source. Notice that they did not actually remove the citation or the other text using that citation. Search for "Expression" magazine:[192]. But they didn't just delete the text sourced to the "no longer active" link, they also removed the preceding reference without explanation in their edit summary.[193] The sentence, which was then without any citations, was later removed.[194]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General comments

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

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

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

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

  Just to be clear: this editor is referring to my response to him. "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study rather than add your own OR description of its contents and then threaten to edit-war your false original research back into the article?"[195] does not seem like a horrifically inappropriate response when someone inaccurately summarizes a study (which was freely available through a google search), admits not to reading it and then threatens to edit-war that inaccurate description of the study back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that everything has been settled...

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

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

Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian

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

Arianewiki1 is being subjected to continued personal attacks and ignoring policy (even when pointed out to them) by Lithiopsian, whose current post here[196] is problematic.

These current issues stem from these two reverts on the star Rigel here[197], which I reverted again here[198] and discussed why on the talkpage here[199] and on their talkpage here.[200][201]

They again reverted these edits under an IP[202], justifying this is the edit summary because they were "uncommented reverts" (which are no required, as I advised them under H:FIES and H:ES.) Under this same revert, they state "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets." LightandDark2000 again revert Lithopsian's edit here[203], which was restored by Lithopsian here[204], admitting they were the IP "not a troll, just me not logged in, re-instate."

This is blatant omission of using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. (Stated as badsock in Sock) There were previously warned about this here.[205] Worse, they previously likely used again an IP before (151.230.13.97) as badsocking.

Also Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1[206] saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish."[207] is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack. I've explained my uncontroversial reasoning here[208], which has not be refuted (hence consensus.) Lithopsian making unfounded statements that Arianewiki1 "...abuse, and threats to individuals"[209] without evidence is clearly vilification. I feel this isn't true. I've never threaten or abused anyone in these current disputes.

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

Two examples are:

1. In the discussion on their talkpage here[210] Where they said "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation.", but when I modified the text to "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.", they reverted it, removed my correction, then claimed the whole sentence was then not needed. When given the reference showing it does have a variable star designation, they say instead of admitting the initial statement was wrong, their response becomes: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1."

1. Another discussion on the Rigel talkpage here[211], which do not have significant differences except more cite sand the statement "Depending on the stellar mass mass and composition of this initial red supergiant, Rigel may execute a number of so-called blue loops, caused by variations in energy production occurring in the shells.[74]" According to Lithopsian this is all 'fantasy' as justification for reverting it, but bizarrely when you read Blue supergiant star it says "Depending on the exact mass and composition of a red supergiant, it can execute a number of blue loops before either exploding as a type II supernova or finally dumping enough of its outer layers to become a blue supergiant again, less luminous than the first time but more unstable.[6]" Extraordinarily, Lithopsian cites this same text here.[212] so they are reverting my material based on "revert the whole fantasy explanation of supergiant evolution, based on a book about red giants."[213] when they've already endorsed and cited the exact same Maeder (2001) themselves on the Blue supergiant star (Rigel is a blue suergiant star) article. [214]. Perhaps some of this could be reworded, but Lithopsian repeatable using various tactics to remove everything and point blank refuses to discuss it.

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

I do feel they have now show a pattern of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior, and which they have been previously repeatably warned about disruptive behaviour here[215][216][217] Regardless of the PA, it is plainly evidence of disruptive editing. Furthermore, the back-up response by Attic Salt here[218] is clearly grave dancing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Also HTF is this [219] gravedancing? No one has been blocked or decided to leave wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The gravedancing was by Attic Salt not Lithopsian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few final comments. Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [220] so any impersonation issue is not an issue. Note that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with LightandDark2000 thinking the IP was someone trolling/impersonating rather than Lithopsian. As I indicated before this is a risk people take when they don't properly declare. Any doubt was cleared up by Lithopsian. Yes it is slightly more confusing than it should be, but it isn't a socking problem since that's to do with editing in a way where you are trying to hide you are the same editor in circumstances where it isn't allowed.

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

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

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

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

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

Saying that "Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [221] so any impersonation issue is not an issue." is plainly wrong. They must of used the IP address to declare that, and plainly it was done for other reasons. I clearly cannot revert again under 1RR, so they are either doing it to either entrap me or look like they are reenforcing consensus. My only choice was to go back to the talkpage, which I did, and explained my position.

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

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

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

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

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

• A couple of posters have noted WP:NOTHERE issues and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [222] and the attitude displayed at User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. Is there a general feeling that community action (such as a requirement to always use edit summaries and a 0RR restriction) is warranted at this point, if the user's 1RR restriction isn't adequately preventing the disruption? Neither option really directly addresses the editor's behavior towards other editors (which is, I think, the core of the issue), but it'd be a start. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation: Sorry VQuakr. I stopped writing edit summaries after reading from an admin Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[223] Aother was Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I felt I got into trouble for one edit here: [224], saying "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." and said: "I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.)" I stopped edit summaries so I didn't do this again.

Silk Tork advised me "Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem." To correct this, like on the Rigel article, I now properly discuss or explain the problems on the talkpage before reverting. (This explains "Future comments and discussions will only be placed on article talkpages or on my or other talkpages."[225] I've stated this in User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries

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

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

OK, but how does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? When they say: "This is getting tiresome. When I attempt to discuss content with you, then I get accused of violating any and every policy going, acting in bad faith, am met with walls of words that are almost impossible to follow, and you maintain your bizarre interpretation of the subject in the face of any editor who dares to disagree. When I don't engage then I'm accused of violating any and every policy going and being "vindictive". Whenever it looks like you can't batter every other editor into submission on an article, you try to pick them off with threats and warnings n personal talk pages. Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it. But just one final time: I'm not modifying your edits because I'm being vindictive, or because I'm trying to game the system, or because you forgot to dot some imaginary i or cross some obscure policy t; it is because you write a lot of rubbish."[226] and choose to ignore me. Is this acceptable response or WP:PA? Forcing me to write edit summaries will not solve this, and they'll revert anything, regardless if there is an edit summary or not. An editor on 1RR will be trumped to those on 3RR. If I slip up, I'm dead.

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

I am worried about this recent statement of "…and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [227] . How is this disruptive exactly? I explained how the User could avoid issues (they were not explained), I said "... I'll respect your wishes." and advised a solution "to avoid all my edits." The response: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."[228] I don't think I implied (and certainly didn't mean) to bargain anything, and was only a way to reduce the angst. I had no knowledge for the reason for this request.

It is also interesting to mention this User. An example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[229], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[230], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[231] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[232]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Yet 10 days later, they want to ban me from their talkpage? (There are other examples of overwriting context with their interpretation for the sake of grammar. (e,g. Western world versus western world, discussion here[233] other context problems are discussed here[234] or here.[235] This suggests extensive use of talkpages to solve editing issues. If there is any attitude here it is from frustration is the dismissive tone. Reading their response here[236])

Another is getting accused of "Revert errors introduced. Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments." [237] I replied that this was "... petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity."[238] What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument." Is this another example of "general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of undo accusations by an IP

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

---

Users Involved

• RhinosF1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- Filer / subject of accusations by IP
• Optakeover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Original revert-er and accused by IP
• 217.19.216.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP

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

• itchyjunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User making uninvolved comment on IP's talk

Complaint

Hello, Optakeover originally reverted the IP for making changes on Transnistria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that involved changing the name of the place in multiple places in the article. The IP then reverted this so Optakeover took this to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect so I reverted the edit again. The IP then made the controversial changes again so I warned them for edit warring and reverted. The IP then stopped the edit war but has continued to complain about how they were reverted and refuse to discuss the edits claiming they don't need to prove anything and refusing to admit the talk page clearly shows that there is no consensus for the change and it must be discussed. I therefore ask that someone takes action to bring this to a close. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the situation is just the opposite: it’s you who not explain your rollbacks, although my edits are not controversial or related to any non-neutral viewpoint. Instead of to justify your disagreement and the motivation for rollback, you answer only with threats and transfer the topic to a different direction. All discussion was conducted on pages User_talk:217.19.216.247 and partly Talk:Transnistria. The actions of these participants are a manifestation of unwarranted aggression, a provocation of a war of edits, a reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue, i.e., it may well be defined as bias-based vandalism. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd advise anyone reading this to read the IPs talk page where you'll see the issue explained multiple times RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

They can only see how you translate the discussion about my edits to the discussion about renaming of the article from the article talk page, which was going on separately and does not apply to my edits and your actions. Not to one direct question about what was wrong with my last edits, and each of it in particular, was not answered. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The IP then stopped the edit war". So, we have nothing to do here then, hm? People are quite encouraged to defend their positions using talk pages. We don't sanction people for that. --Jayron32 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Jayron32, They've multiple times accused us of using the undo function improperly. I'd like action taken on them for unfounded accsuations. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)}

• IP has now restored the edit that changes the name which is the root of this. I'm not going to revert to avoid an edit war but can someone take action. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 14:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• And on what basis are you going to revert the edit? If you have not noticed, I asked you the same question on the article's discussion page. I specifically returned only one of my edits to give you the opportunity to put forward their claims on it. But no, no dialogue. Expected. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Also pinging El_C as you've interacted with them a bit RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments of the attacked editor(s)

• User:Optakeover: "His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact" - this is a blatant lie, because there are two sources that directly confirm this. Any comments on them are missing again, just edits were canceled.

• User:Optakeover: "Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him" - it's a lie again. It was I who repeatedly asked to justify my actions and continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Not? Then stop pushing your points of view, hiding behind rules that you don’t follow. 217.19.208.96

• About sources concerning the name of the state and offensive terminology. I brought two sources:

• The President of PMR told how to “correctly” call Pridnestrovie in English (Rus.: Transnistria или Pridnestrovie? Красносельский рассказал, как «правильно» называть Приднестровье по-английски)
• “Zadnestrovie” - “Transnistria” was invented by the Romanians, and Pridnestrovie was accepted by the people (Rus.: «Заднестровье» - «Транснистрия» придумали румыны, а Приднестровье принял народ)

That is, direct quotations of direct participants (President of PMR and Professor of History of the Pridnestrovian State University) are given through official mass media. I suppose that an adequate person cannot raise any questions here, I cannot even find what one can argue about here. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Optakeover

I am a recent-changes and vandalism patroller, and when I came across this set of edits that removed a set of placenames en masse, I decided to revert them. However, sensing that the edit was a matter of content dispute, I decided to seek advice from #wikipedia-en-help ^connect as RhinosF1 mentioned. RhinosF1 did assess the edits and decided that the edits were going against consensus that was already being built on the article talk page (through a move discussion; more on that below), and did decide to revert their further edits, an action I personally endorse, while I personally made only one revert to the article page. It is very apparent 217.19.216.247 (Anon) is aware of the controversy surrounding the topic of the name.

The pertinent issue seems to be deciding whether the current name used, "Transnistria" is somehow politically "biased", and "Pridnestrovian" should be used instead. Talk:Transnistria#Requested move 17 February 2018, a discussion to move the page to "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" was closed as No Consensus back in 2018, and since then we have settled on WP:COMMONNAME as the decider of what that name should be. Anon has since repeatedly attempted to push through with his edits, claiming that the current name in his own thinking and his own research that the current name is "biased". As the discussion had moved to his talk page, I have repeatedly requested sources that proves the current name is biased. His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact. I have already informed him of Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. I have especially understood that based on Neutral Point of View, whatever any user/editor thinks is right, Wikipedia doesn't take sides, and editors must present reliably-sourced information, using sources free from their own editorial slant and bias to back any content, especially controversial content. Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him:

"Until the arguments against me are provided on the points of each rolled out change, I have nothing to discuss with you. So far I have not seen anything but charges, threats and attempts to transfer here the discussion about renaming an article that is not related to my edits and your rollbacks." 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC), on User talk:217.19.216.247

Anon has also demonstrated behavior that shows his reluctance to listen to other editors, and has already made up his mind about users having views that differ from his:

"It is more appropriate to say that pro-Romanian editors of Wikipedia themselves are engaged in the promotion of this terminology through English version of this encyclopedia." 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC), on Talk:Transnistria

I think this quote is pretty telling that this user is not only refusing to reach a middle ground and consensus with any editor, he is simply refusing to get it, and somehow we are ridiculous or as biased as the powers-may-be who came up with such a biased "Transnistria" name just for explaining the prevailing sentiment on the choice of the name for the subject topic, thereby disagreeing with his sweeping edits.

The Anon is certainly quite a sharp editor, and has repeatedly responded to most of our quotations on policy and procedural quotes in an attempt to exploit piecemeal interpretations of them, like subsequently repeatedly requesting for discussion on the issue on the article talk page (Despite his thinly-veiled contempt towards those who disagree with him - branding them as failure to respond to his "arguments" as "biased", etcetera ad nauseam), and especially his sudden change of tone after this edit, where he wrote:

"Nobody argued with me, did not make a single argument or even words in general against the amendments, which are mostly stylistic in nature. What then to discuss with you? Idiot." 217.19.208.110 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC), on User talk:217.19.216.247, for which he received a warning from El_C.

On the matter of sources

Anon has mentioned about the sources he used in direct citation to his edits on the name. I leave it to all the participants here to discuss and decide how to interpret these sources, but I shall express my own views here, and let this ANI discussion be the place where we get to decide on how reliably and neutrally-sourced Anon's edits actually have been.

Anon was probably referring in particular to the edits in the range of [239]. Out of all the links used (most were in citation for information on the Holocaust, etc and thus weren't pertaining to the controversial name), the only link I shall comment on is https://novostipmr.com/ru/news/19-04-19/zadnestrove-transnistriya-pridumali-rumyny-pridnestrove-prinyali.

I make these comments:

1) This source still only comments on the name controversy on one side. Changing the name in favor of one version on the back of sources that only side one side of an issue is NOT NPOV.

2) The source is published by a publisher that claims to represent the partially-recognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Where a reliable, neutral source is concerned, this source is already called into stark question.

3) And my most important point: on Wikipedia, NPOV is the recognizing of multiple opinions and pieces of information, whether they are right or wrong, true or false. However as a neutral encyclopedia that claims to document articles and issues by stating all angles of an issue fairly, how then do we state information that is meant to provide the facts of what something is, in difference to all the opinions? I think it's very clear to (most) Wikipedians the fact is we engage in collaboration and discussion to separate fact from opinion, thereby writing fairly by documenting factual information backed up by sources, and covering a spectrum of opinions, even disproved or contradicted ones, by which their notability and existence as pieces of opinions are also verified by sources. This collaboration and discussion is important when we actually start to come to agreements and compromises, based on our own converging viewpoints on all these issues, about what should and should not be included.

And with that, as far as I'm concerned the Anon has made zero attempt to provide meaningful sources that are reliable, and free from their own editorial bias. It's kind-of like an irony, in my way of seeing how things have panned out so far.

Conclusion

I think it's very clear that Anon's behavior has been extremely disruptive. His refusal to assume good faith while engaging editors, insisting that what he wrote is the cold hard fact, uncivility and continuous attempts to reintroduce his own edits contrary to current contributing community's sentiments are a definite sign of his refusal and failure to get the points that we have all been making, and Anon should and must be sanctioned for his role in this content dispute. I hope this ANI discussion is where we will finally clarify and iron-out this controversy. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• This looks to be a conventional edit war between an IP-hopper and a group of regular editors on the Transnistria article. The IP seems to be engaged in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS since they added "is considered very offensive to the locals" to the article in Wikipedia's voice, when referring to the name 'Transnistria'. Apparently the word 'Trans' is what is considered offensive, since the left bank of the Dniester is only 'beyond Dniester' from the viewpoint of Romania, whose army occupied the area during the Second World War. I suggest we semiprotect Transnistria and invite the IP to open a move discussion at Talk:Transnistria if he thinks it is not the best name. That move discussion will probably fail since a related move proposal was voted down in January 2018. The IP addresses that are warring on this article geolocate to Moldova. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: That sounds like a good idea. I'd be happy to proceed with giving the article whatever level of protection is needed and forcing a discussion although I do suggest someone uninvolved like you reverts the IPs last edit to the article per WP:STATUSQUO. My only other concern is the IPs behaviour in relation to calling people 'idiot' and refusal to get the point which led to this this so I'd recommend the IP is strenly warned about how to handle disputes with blocks happening if personal attacks and aggressive pushing of opinions and false accusations happen in the future. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• You are talking about the existence of a dispute where a consensus was not reached, so for some reason it was decided to leave the article in one version, but not in another (it is not clear why). In this case, you will provide a link to the discussion where was discussed about where to use the official name, and where name which the spoken in certain circles (and not about how to call it: this is a discussion right now). On the talk page, I also explained why rule WP:COMMONNAME is out of place here, but this refers to the discussion about renaming an article, not my edits: I did not rename the article. But you did not want to substantively lead the discussion, it is easier for you to attack a specific editor.

• "His replies have been to repeatedly state that the name just is biased, that somehow what he wrote is the fact" - this is a blatant lie, because there are two sources that directly confirm this. Any comments on them are missing again, just edits were canceled.

"Not only Anon has failed to gain the support from any other recent discussion participant or consensus from the community, but has already demonstrated his refusal to discuss with us just because we disagree with him" - It's a lie again. It was I who repeatedly asked to justify my actions and continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Not? Then stop pushing your points of view, hiding behind rules that you don’t follow. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I brought two sources:

Transnistria или Pridnestrovie? Красносельский рассказал, как «правильно» называть Приднестровье по-английски

«Заднестровье» - «Транснистрия» придумали румыны, а Приднестровье принял народ

That is, direct quotations of direct participants (President of PMR and Professor of History of the Pridnestrovian State University) are given through official mass media. I suppose that an adequate person cannot raise any questions here, I cannot even find what one can argue about here. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear 217.19.208.96, my request is to please stop adding your comments to my statement body. It's much better if you add them below as comments to my comment. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I placed them at the top. Some kind of crash. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to remove your comments. For transparency's sake I have reverted your deletion of your own comments. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As you like, I, especially, have not finished writing them yet. In general, I commented on your statements about me, but I wanted to put it in a separate block. And already managed to place them higher in the text. And already managed to place them higher in the text. Here you formulate the essence of your claims, then we will discuss (as long as there is nothing really in the case), otherwise it is just inconvenient to even write anything in such a stream of edits. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point massively, The sources you have given above are useless as we need independent, reliable sources and at no point have we 'hid[den] behind rules [we] didn't follow' we have only enforced consensus which means until otherwise decided the article should as it is. Despite the fact you never moved the article, you have still repeatedly throughout the article changed which word is used as the name which still is against consensus even if you can't technically move the page. I also ask that you stop accusing us of breaking rules unless you can back this up or action needs to taken in that regard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• After reading the comments here and seeing that the IP has been edit warring, I've gone ahead with three months of semiprotection for Transnistria. If anyone still believes that Transnistria is incorrectly named, use Talk:Transnistria to get consensus for your view. If the editors decide to use WP:COMMONNAME as the criterion, they will find from a Google search that the name 'Transnistria' is twenty times more common than 'Pridnestrovie'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Thanks! Hopefully, this will settle it. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Kesha disruption from Russia and Belarus

A handful of IPs are being disruptive at articles related to Kesha, the singer. The IPs are from Russia and Belarus, and they very likely represent block evasion by Special:Contributions/Denis7248427, Special:Contributions/Dionis_Zhmailik and Special:Contributions/Денис_Жмайлик. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• 22 Apr – 83.102.203.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 13 Apr – 83.102.203.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6–11 Apr – 83.102.203.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 5 Apr – 217.118.78.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 4 Apr – 217.118.78.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25 Mar – 178.34.150.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I have pending-changes protected for some time; disruption is steady, but with low frequency. Lectonar (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That will help with the main Kesha biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

At first I read this section header as though Kesha was waging war on us from her bunkers in Russia and Belarus. The Moose 07:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

For good measure, I have semi-protected the template, and pending-changes protected 2 more articles; fwiw, I do not think the last 3 IP's are block evading, as they targeted said articles only sporadically. Lectonar (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed

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

This IP hopper has a long history of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Admin Black Kite recently blocked IP 175.137.72.188 manually for 1 month,[240] but clearly, the IP hopper is not willing to cease this WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern. NB: These are just 5 of his IP's. Same target articles, same geo-location, same POV, same narrative (pro-Indian), trying to come across as separate users, etc. There should be many more IP's. Whoever operates these, he/she is clearly on a single purpose mission and trying to put wool over everyone's eyes. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Petty, uncivil little editor"

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

---

After having several well-explained edits reverted without explanation here and here, SchroCat tells me very kindly to stop "being a pain", to stop "being a pain" and editing their articles, and to "stop being so bloody petty". After my last edit, he or she says: "hopefully that will be the back of the petty, uncivil little editor". My guess is that I was caught in a running feud between Gerda Arendt and SchroCat, but whatever the background, this name-calling and shooing is disgusting. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of any prior disagreement relevant here, but happened to see this after looking at another section. Just commenting to note there doesn't look to be anything really actionable here IMO. Some sub-par communication, perhaps. SchroCat could've really made better use of edit summaries there, but the "petty, uncivil little editor" followed this comment, in which you inferred an WP:OWNership claim and told SchroCat "Time to grow up". Surely that could be understandably taken as uncivil (though not egregious on its own, either, of course). SchroCat could've saved time/energy by using better edit summaries, and you could've made more of an effort on the article talk pages to explain the changes you want to make. That seems to be all there is to do here at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites, both you and SchroCat could have saved time by using better explanations and using better edit summaries.--BoothSift 01:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I was called. I took the liberty to clarify that the header is a quote. Today is 23 April, which (as the Main page tells you) is Der kleine Tag (the little day), a play with music in which the little day turns out in the end to have been the most peaceful day. I know of no (personal) feud between two users. I know I am part of the socalled infobox wars, - and how about ending them today? SchroCat and others sometimes call infoboxes idiotboxes, while I and others believe in also serving idiot readers. SchroCat called a woman by her given name throughout an article, and I thought that was solved long ago (February 2018), thanks to John whom I miss. Today is a funeral day for me. I am open to better understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously? Bringing this tiny nonsense to ANI two days after the interaction, and after your continued "own" accusations (which you have continued in your opening statement)? FFS - life is too short to be dragged to the peanut gallery by someone who thinks it appropriate to delete someone else's talk page thread with the summary "Take a chill pill, Your Royal Highness". Yeah, I'll stick with both "petty" and "uncivil". My profuse and grovelling apologies for calling you "little". - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The interaction with you must be the most unpleasant experience I have had in all my years on Wikipedia. No freaking wonder you needed two clean starts. Surtsicna (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Both of you should take a voluntary (better than an enforced one) IBAN and reconsider getting annoyed with one comment. This is still relatively civil, noting ofc the subjectivity of Wikipedia's civility policies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      • This was our first interaction. If an IBAN is desirable after a single interaction, we are not talking about something relatively civil. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits after final warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legobot blocked

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

---

Just a headsup: I have blocked Legobot for 48 hours, due to a recurrent malfunction which I have described at User talk:Legobot#MFD_glitch.

I have blocked the bot for 48 hours to prevent any recurrence. Any admin who believes that the problem has been resolved, please unblock. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, what was the glitch? --BoothSift 05:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: couldn't/shouldnt you have talked with the user first, before blocking them? —usernamekiran(talk) 05:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift. I included a link. If you want to know the answer, please follow it.

@Usernamekiran: Iwouldificouldbuticant. The bot was doing this at 2 minutes past the hour, ever hour. The bot owner is Legoktm (talk · contribs), who has not edited for 2 days. And I have blocked the bot, not its owner: see WP:Blocking policy#Blocking_bots. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The glitch appears to have been a malformed timestamp added to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Carnatic music when BrownHairedGirl created the page without one. Legobot, having been presented with bad data, seems to have choked on it. I have fixed the timestamp, which should presumably let Legobot do the job it was programmed to do. In the meantime, the WP:GAN page is not being refreshed, one of Legobot's many other tasks that are not being done. Would appreciate an admin looking into this and at least letting the bot do another try. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I was just kidding —usernamekiran(talk) 06:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Effin hilarious, Usernamekiran. Not.

Dealing with this sort thing takes enough energy without being joke-trolled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologise BrownHairedGirl, I had no intention of trolling, I just wanted to lighten up the situation. Sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Unblocked. AGK ■ 06:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks all. [241] is a clear example of GIGO. Legoktm (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi

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

---

User has been told eventually the list will be build and for consistency across the list of broadcasters article, but it appeared that the user ignoring it. 2028 Summer Olympics. [242][243] --Aleenf1 13:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. There are only three posts on the talk page at this time so no WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. Feel free to start a WP:RFC but this thread should be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 15:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks and Editwarning by User:Wm.Tarr

User:Wm.Tarr blocked for 1 week by Jayron32 for edit warring and personal attacks even after being warned. Any recurrence may bring stronger snactions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Attempts to resolve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wm.Tarr

Personal Attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893782054

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893782525

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&oldid=893784802

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LakesideMiners&diff=prev&oldid=893790676

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bazza_7&diff=prev&oldid=893776966

Edit Waring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaffir_lime&action=history

He has been told to stop and talk on the talk page but is continuing his uncivil. behavior. First ANI report so let me know if I missed anything.LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly edit warring and personal attacks even after being warned. Given him a 1 week block. In the future, edit warring can be handled on its own noticeboard, WP:ANEW. Jayron32 16:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Dianaatflourish

Referred from WP:AIV. This user's name implies a company position and appears to be working to promote soccer players but has refused to engage on their talk page after a period of weeks and several warnings about COI and PAID. Pinging @Edgar181: and @Ad Orientem: if they would care to comment also. shoy (reactions) 20:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the name implies that, but they only appear to have added some images at Commons (which appear to be valid, they have EXIF information etc.). They have however created a couple of articles about players who don't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY - I am about to PROD those. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: FYI Earwig: [244] [245] [246]. Leviv ich 21:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah. Deleted that article as pretty much a complete copyvio. I think it's notable, though - and could be re-created if done properly. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like the user uploaded pix for pretty much the entire Jamaican women's soccer team, and a number of the pix are labeled as "professional" or "Word Cup photoshoot," implying they're official portraits. Implies some degree of COI, at least. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• If Dianaatflourish is an employee at a PR agency (the most likely scenario), then they are not the copyright holder of the photos and Commons needs permission through OTRS from the copyright holder in order for the photos to be hosted on Commons. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jabrona

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

---

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

After I revert User:Jabrona's edit on A Nightmare on Elm Street, he called me an idiot after he reverted mine. He made more personal attacks on my talk page, calling me "hard-headed ass", "cluts, a retard, a curse, a failed mistake of life, and a whimpering dog tail", and "hopefully die by being deported" before User:IanDBeacon kindly helped removing them. From what I saw on User:Jabrona's talk page, he was blocked before on similar incidents. This time, he needs to be blocked indefinitely. I do not feel safe of editing if there is one editor who would resort to rude name callings.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jabrona

The user Jabrona (talk · contribs) has a long history of personal attacks on other users. Recently he reverted a good faith edit by User:NeoBatfreak with this edit summary. He then went and posted this message on his talkpage. If you look in his contributions, this is not the first time he's done this type of thing. He was blocked for 72 hours last month for the same type of behavior. See here for example.

I'm not sure what it'll take to get him to understand that this behavior is unacceptable, but I'm posting here so that you admins can be notified. User:NeoBatfreak initially posted on WP:AIV, but I feel that this is the wrong venue, mostly because he isn't a vandal. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the right place. I've blocked Jabrona indefinitely. This isn't the first offense or block for the same behavior, and the last diff on Neobatfreak's talkpage is completely out of bounds. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, and I'm sure Neobatfreak does too! Rockstonetalk to me! 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Help Impersonator!

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

---

I need help over everyone, someone is impersonating me. This fool: User:Andrew the astonaut . I need to know, can someone see what IP this fool is using to help me back my claim, which is that I am not that user, nor am I the kind of guy to sockpuppet. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the board in which people suspect I am sockpuppeting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

He says in his edit summary here that he is with you - i.e. he agrees with you - not that he is you. Is there something else that makes you think he's impersonating you? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, just saw the ongoing SPI, apologies.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd This is a clear legal threat and you risk being blocked if you do not retract it immediately. I agree with GirthSummit that it is a simple misunderstanding.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, a personal attack and the worst WP:BITE I've ever seen. I've no idea whether it's a sock or not, but if it is a genuine new user then someone needs to step in pronto and make some reparations. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked the user for the legal threat. I've also noted that their screaming invective all over Wikipedia has become intolerable. They will have to address that too if they want to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 I see the SPI has come back negative. I think someone should say something to the new user - a welcome and an explanation that what they just got on their userpage isn't par for the course around here. I'll be happy to do it, but will stay out if you are already on the case or if you think it would be more appropriate coming from an admin. Hell of an introduction... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the attack from their page in the meantime and will welcome them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the language used in this report (“this fool”) and the now deleted WP:BITE/threat call for some sort of boomerang for incivility. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Since the user has been blocked.... should we close this? Also, I'm fairly certain that the user is just immature. Hopefully in a few years they will have matured and be a welcome member of the community...Rockstonetalk to me! 05:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Personnel section changes again, North Italy IPs

As reported two months ago at North Italy IPs making changes to music personnel, IPs in the range Special:Contributions/213.213.29.115/21 have been making a lot of unsupported changes to personnel sections. An example from yesterday is adding Clapton to the guitarist list, even though the album credits do not list Clapton. This guy should be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo and Rusf10

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

---

In the aftermath of Rusf10's recent AE sanction, Hidden Tempo is evading his longstanding block and making false accusations against me at User talk:Rusf10, and when I deleted those accusations (per WP:BE), Rusf10 reverted me and restored them. What can be done about this? R2 (bleep) 21:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If there was ever a frivolous filing here, this is it. Ahrtoodeetoo needs to mind his own business. I'm being brought here because I reverted something on my own talk page???? How ridiculous, Ahrtoodeetoo doesn't have the authority to delete content on my talk page. I reverted it not as a show of support to the IP user, but as a matter of principle. Second, if R2 knows that the IP user is HiddenTempo as he alleges, then he clearly knows more than I do and should share with the rest of us how he knows. I can think of at least 10 or 15 disgruntled users than also could be the IP or it could even just be a troll trying to start trouble. If you look through my talk page, you'll see that I never even responded to the IP user. It's people like Ahrtoodeetoo that keep engaging him and bringing even more attention to his comments. The only comment made by the IP user about Ahrtoodeetoo was "I don't know if you noticed or not but R2 went crying to Awilley's talk page to tattle on me for supposed "disruption" and "block evasion"." That is not a false allegation, that's a fact [247]. By not minding his own business, Ahrtoodeetoo is making the problem worse. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking that Rusf10 be sanctioned. I just want the offending content removed from their userspace. I'm not up on the intricacies of WP:OWNTALK, but I'm pretty sure that disruptive edits by block evaders are fair game anywhere in Wikipedia. And if Rusf10 cannot recognize that that was a disruptive comment then we have another problem. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My opinion (which is worth exactly as much as any other single persons is) is thus: There's nothing wrong with your trying to remove the message, per WP:BMB, but once Rusf10 restored it, it should end there. It's his talk page, it's his business. Molehills should not be turned into mountains, especially ones this insignificant. Let it go. --Jayron32 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that WP:BP and WP:DE reach even into supportive editors' user spaces. Otherwise disruptive block editors could run amok in all those walled gardens. If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken. R2 (bleep) 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate questions to be answered here. Question 1 is "Is what happened right" and question 2 is "what should I do about it." It should be noted that even if we concede the answer to question 1 is, unequivocally, "no, it isn't", the answer to question 2 is still "nothing at all". People can be wrong, but it doesn't mean it deserves a response. --Jayron32 13:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If any admin feels that the former Wikipedia username is at all important, I can shed light on how it's known. To my mind, it's sufficient that a respected admin blocked one of the IP addresses used by clearly one individual, the individual under discussion, for block evasion.[248] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If it was Hidden Tempo, I can understand the consternation and would not call it frivolous. If there is a walled garden, that’s another issue. If the IP is blocked and it was HT, we can close this for now as he tends to go silent for a time after a block. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

A user's talk page should be their domain, so long as it's not disruptive. This is borderline as block evasion is disruptive in and of itself — but another admin has already hatted the disputed comments, so that seems like a good enough compromise. I blocked the other IP for block evasion and will semiprotect the page, if necessary. El_C 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I was fine with the hatting approach until I was called out and accused of battlegrounding, which is exactly what I try to avoid in Wikipedia. I believe the type of "us-versus-them" mentality being fomented by Hidden Tempo and Rusf10 is a cancer on the AP space. Of course it's a symptom of a much larger off-wiki problem, but as a community we should try to make Wikipedia a friendly, collaborative place where editors of different political stripes can communicate and learn to understand each other. And I never knew we "compromised" on block evasion. And yes, this was admitted block evasion, and yes, it was Hidden Tempo. R2 (bleep) 00:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We compromise when it makes sense to do so and are not bound to the letter of the law. El_C 00:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And what is the purpose of this compromise? To allow an editor a safe space to harbor block evaders? R2 (bleep) 01:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I evaluate every case according to its particular circumstances. In this case, I wasn't involved at that stage — your best bet is hearing from the admin who was. El_C 02:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• According to our policies, "Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user... Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users" (emphasis mine). So on policy grounds, R2 is unambiguously correct, and Rusf10 is incorrect in describing these actions as "frivolous". More generally, it is difficult to see what constructive motivation Rusf10 could possibly have had for restoring a litany of personal attacks and ill-informed partisan griping by a banned editor, and his actions reflect poorly on him—particularly as he just narrowly avoided a sanction for battleground behavior ([249]). In that context, I think a logged warning regarding battleground behavior in the context of the American-politics discretionary sanctions would be appropriate, but will await input from other admins. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

IP range harassing users

A number of IPs from the same area have been harassing User:Garchy and User:Bbb23 for several months. The talk page posts are particularly offensive, including false use of the {{deceased}} template. I'm not sure whether some sort of rangeblock, and/or protecting User talk:Garchy, would be best. (User:El C protected User talk:Bbb23 last week.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

IP range

Sorted 15 IPv6 addresses: 2600:1011:b12f:325b:ec63:1701:80e3:2d7f 2600:1011:b160:7031:457:4627:b59:95b3 2600:1011:b163:8b8a:249b:9e04:ccf0:47c 2600:1011:b165:7e5a:992b:af1a:9965:340d 2600:1011:b166:bed1:699d:fe89:afe7:b70d 2600:1011:b169:4895:a009:59c6:12d0:dfd9 2600:1011:b169:f050:404f:456b:b38d:66fb 2600:1011:b169:fa8a:596a:67dd:9502:59ea 2600:1011:b16a:bcae:1476:4008:a37e:f2ad 2600:1011:b16a:e2e1:892c:8ca1:b57a:8f63 2600:1011:b16b:9e92:bc4c:aeaa:274c:7b69 2600:1011:b16d:7e70:d8e1:6155:304d:a5b6 2600:1011:b16d:d90b:fd4a:899a:57c7:cde 2600:1011:b16f:ae10:3112:a4ea:5de1:9c0 2600:1011:b16f:f95e:840f:a81a:a6ed:f174 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 8M /64 8M /64 15 2600:1011:b100::/41 contribs 1M /64 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b12f:325b::/64 contribs 1M /64 14 2600:1011:b160::/44 contribs 288K /64 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b12f:325b::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b160:7031::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b163:8b8a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b165:7e5a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b166:bed1::/64 contribs 65536 /64 3 2600:1011:b169::/48 contribs 128K /64 3 2600:1011:b16a::/47 contribs 65536 /64 2 2600:1011:b16d::/48 contribs 32768 /64 2 2600:1011:b16f:8000::/49 contribs 36K /64 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b12f:325b::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b160:7031::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b163:8b8a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b165:7e5a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b166:bed1::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b169:4895::/64 contribs 4096 /64 2 2600:1011:b169:f000::/52 contribs 32768 /64 2 2600:1011:b16a:8000::/49 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16b:9e92::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16d:7e70::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16d:d90b::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16f:ae10::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16f:f95e::/64 contribs 15 /64 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b12f:325b::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b160:7031::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b163:8b8a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b165:7e5a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b166:bed1::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b169:4895::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b169:f050::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b169:fa8a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16a:bcae::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16a:e2e1::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16b:9e92::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16d:7e70::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16d:d90b::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16f:ae10::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2600:1011:b16f:f95e::/64 contribs

I wonder if this is the same user who's been attempting to impersonate Bbb23 these past few weeks? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an indefinitely blocked editor who has been a constant pain ever since his block. Commenting on IP block evasion is awkward as a checkuser, so that's about all I can say. If it gets out of hand the range is 2600:1011:B100::/40. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Block for review, topic ban? (User:Tony1)

I've brought this block here, because the moment I decided it needed to be made I expected some howls of protest, so I'll ask my peers to review it. It's User:Tony1 again, who has just come off a 1 week block for personal attacks relating to the Featured Article process. Almost his first action was this, to accuse people involved in the FA process of being "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals". Criticizing the process is fine, but attacking the people involved is not. I've re-blocked for 2 weeks, and I invite your comments. I'm also thinking maybe we should impose a topic ban on Tony1 from all aspects of FA, broadly construed, including commenting about it anywhere on Wikipedia. To be honest, and having looked at Tony1's blocks and bans on other Wikimedia projects too, I can't help feeling he'll be indef blocked or banned here eventually, but I think a TBAN is worth a try. It would be a shame to lose him as he's a great contributor when he's not angry with someone, but unfortunately he seems very prone to anger, and his approach to others in disagreement is incompatible with the collegiality required here. Thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• When I offered to copy any comments here for him, Tony1 expressed a preference for me to link to his talk page section so people can read his comments there. It's at User talk:Tony1#April 2019. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I supported one on him in 2011, I support it today. I would support a community ban as first choice, but a topic ban will at least prevent him abusing FA processes for personal reasons. Good block if too short.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As for his undertaking, it only covers pings. It does not cover whatever the next thing is that makes Tony fly off the handle, and then we will see the argument, he should have been warned, etc. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Tony's intentions regarding FAC were made very clear last year; "I'll be devoting considerable effort over years to letting the community know that FAC is dysfunctional, and at its worst shows clear signs of having fallen into corruption—you see, I know the details from insider observation. I'll strongly discourage editors from participating in the forum, whether as nominators or reviewers." His first two actions on the ending of his most recent block were to burnish the anti-FAC diatribe on his Talkpage and to express the same views elsewhere. In my view, this rather undermines his claim to have moved on from the episode. KJP1 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support TB per KJP1's recalling of Tony1's stated purpose. If a year, perhaps, demonstrates that they have renounced that approach and can comment on (let alone at) FAC and its processes amicably and civilly, then it can (=should) be re-visited. But at the moment, unfortunately, although they have , this comes only hours after also advising the world I advise editors to stay well away from [FAC]. What a pity, which suggests that it may not be founded in such depth of commitment as would be preferred. Whether, incidentally, this amounts to a coarse attempt at blackmail, I say nothing... ——SerialNumber54129 09:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And this most recent comment does not inspire hope that Tony1 understands (or, worse, ever will understand) what exactly problematic behavior has brought us to this point: In a discussion regarding one's approach to editors at FAC, accusations of houding—having been released from a block only minutes earlier having committed not to cast aspersions, etc.—are troubling. ——SerialNumber54129 10:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Tony on the basis of the commitment at his talk page never to comment on the FA process or those who carry it on. This is not intended in any way as a comment on the block; I think it was a good one, but that it has served its purpose. As I've said on Tony's talk page, if they do not keep to this commitment then I think the next step is an indefinite block. I also take no position on whether a topic ban is necessary on top of the commitment he's given; in some ways it is good to formalise these sorts of commitments, but in other ways it is unnecessary. GoldenRing (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, GoldenRing. I've really tried to demonstrate that a topic ban is unnecessary. I've never made such a total, strongly worded undertaking on WP such as is on my talkpage now. I'm sorry if I've upset anyone. I'd like to move on. Tony (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. If he has a self-imposed topic ban, there is no problem in formalising it. Self-imposition is often flexible (as my dietician can testify), and a formal incentive to keep to the ban would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• ShroCat, I think you should trust me. There's nothing flexible about my undertaking. Tony (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I may have been inclined to, Tony, but since then you've referred to "the show-trial last year that hounded me out". I'm not sure you've 'over it' at all. And to clarify what many people said in the discussion about your approach to reviewing (or "show trial", if you prefer), you were not 'hounded out': you walked away from FAC. I was one of many people who asked you to continue reviewing, but to temper your approach in doing so. If you're still using intemperate language about it now, I don't think you are 'over it', and I don't think you will be able to restrain yourself voluntarily. If you are committed not to comment on FAC or the people involved in it, then having a formal ban shouldn't be an additional burden. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm amazed, SchroCat, to find our names taken in "negativity" on Tony1's talk page only minutes after the unblock. That speaks more to grudges kept than to turning over a new leaf. It reminds me of advice I used to give clients, "Yes, I understand you feel that way but at least keep it to yourself until you're outside the courthouse".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you both for declaring your interest. If you can't trust me to fulfill the undertaking, I have no place as an editor and will leave. Tony (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• It would be a shame if you did that, but that would be your decision. I think your logic is off: most editors on WP don't go near FAC and spend their time happily editing without feeling they need to review, talk about or discuss the process or those involved. SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I only see an undertaking not to make personal attacks, which is the rule for everyone, something then followed up by the mentioning of three editors including myself on his talk page in a negative way that is probably not a personal attack, but illustrates how wide the world is outside the narrow confines of the undertaking and the potential for wikilawyering.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Why don't we take Tony at his word? If in the future he is not true to it, you can topic ban him. I should say, I know nothing about this issue, have not looked at FAC or his talk page, nor intend to, but as Tony has been a guiding light on Wikipedia, whose especial care in language-related topics has benefited countless editors—at least since I joined in 2006—especial care is in turn owed to him before anything drastic is done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I suppose at least it's good that you admit you don't know what you're talking about as you haven't even looked at the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question Which area is a topic ban supposed to cover? Just the FAC process, as it seems like from the talk page discussion? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  As I said in my proposal, "from all aspects of FA, broadly construed, including commenting about it anywhere on Wikipedia". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded. Such a blanket ban pretty much means that he can't try to improve an article at FAR, for example. If the problems are PAs, craft a remedy around PAs. But also ask that the people he finds himself in conflict with avoid him as well. There's nothing wrong with campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process. We can't sanction someone for advocating for reform. Guettarda (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Guettarda: Do you thikn they do not? ——SerialNumber54129 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  @SerialNumber: No, that wasn't what I meant. I'm sorry that it came across that way. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is not campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process, it's the personal attacks on other individuals involved in the process, as I explained above when I said "Criticizing the process is fine, but attacking the people involved is not." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and just to clarify what I mean a little further, do you really think "Go to hell and burn" and "Piss off Now, you miserable little swine" constitute acceptable ways for campaigning for the end of a Wikipedia process or advocating for reform? (see link below) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  No, and I apologise to SN for that. As soon as I'd pressed the button I felt: eek, that's over the top. Which is why I willingly accepted a one-week block for it. Tony (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: I didn't mean that I thought they weren't PAs. What I meant was that I didn't think the remedy was focused on the right issue. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Guettarda: Ah, I got you. Yes, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. For anyone who doesn't know what this is actually about, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Abuse and personal attacks which documents what led up to the previous block a week ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if it's about personal attacks, that's already covered by site policy, regardless of the venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the sake of compromise, but with a warning. The undertaking [which] is total should include a total undertaking not to comment on contributors as here. It appears to me, based on [most] comments on Tony's talk page, that they are sincere in their desire to continue working on this project (Wikipedia) and it seems that that desire outweighs their need to wage war on FAC – at least I hope it does; this last episode was about an upset caused six months ago, sparked by a ping a week ago. The distinction between imposing a TBAN and not is that with a TBAN any comment on FAC will result in a lengthy block whereas without a TBAN any inappropriate (e.g. attacks, incivility, aspersion-casting etc) comment on FAC (and likely anywhere else) will do the same. From that reference view, a TBAN doesn't change much. I did note Goldenring's observation that the voluntary undertaking may be the worse option and end a la TGS, and that has some merit. However, TGS point blank refused to abide by their voluntary self-defined restrictions despite multiple warnings. Anyway you look at it this is an extension of rope. Tony, should you breach the community trust here, there is every possibility that a long or indef-block will be imposed. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Insightful. Tony (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM as redundant and superfluous. The issue at hand here is really Tony's rather appalling behavior to other editors, and this ill-defined TBAN is simply a meretricious way of punishing him for said behavior rather than addressing the behavior itself. The fact that some people here believe he will be eventually indef blocked anyway speaks to this. WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a bigger problem than FAC; if he's voluntarily stepping away, it also makes the TBAN superfluous. Like WaltCip above, this opposition is not "what Tony1 has done is OK", but rather it is more "What Tony1 has done is unacceptable, and it's probably going to get him indeffed anyways, lets just give him that rope". Either he will treat other people with decency and respect going forward, or he won't. A topic ban won't affect either outcome. I invite him to behave properly in the future, regardless of whether or not I expect it. --Jayron32 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been following Tony's pledge to keep away from the FA topic and the subsequent discussion at his talk page, and I've also been pondering the comments made here. The point that a topic ban from personal attacks at FA is not needed as that is covered by Wikipedia policy anyway is obviously correct, but my proposal for a complete topic ban was to help avoid the temptation that could lead to getting involved in personal attacks in the first place. But Tony's reactions to the current block and to this proposal have been refreshingly positive, and at this stage I'm drawing away from a topic ban and would prefer to trust him with his voluntary withdrawal from FA. The bottom line, though, is that personal attacks and aggressive expressions of anger must stop, everywhere on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I have to go to bed. Tony (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Essentially per everyone above this seems to go beyond FAC, I would rather support a warning and hope they would gradually change their behaviour instead of topic bans and blocks. –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Context. I understand Boing's reasoning here, considering the earlier comments towards one editor, but context is everything. I don't perceive that what actually happened here is that Tony1 went right back to <whatever it was related to the previous problem>, rather Tony continued the participation he has always had at the talk page of the TS article, and with me, as someone heavily involved in the FA process. Perhaps that conversation should have been on my talk page, but that's hindsight now—too late to fix. A question was asked there, and I answered it there, even though my answer went off-topic.

  Tony's copyediting is the reason that Tourette syndrome had thirteen years ago—and maintains to this day—the strongest and fastest level of support ever seen at FAC; there is no doubt that Tony's prose standards once prevailed at FAC, were recognized and rewarded, and there is no doubt that those standards have considerably fallen. (And I should add that the prose at that article deteriorated for reasons related to issues at a different WikiProject, but that's a whole 'nother discouraging story.) Tony has always followed the TS article, because he helped (lovingly) build it, and considering my long involvement with the FA process, Tony and I have more than a decade of history of frank discussions of the FA process.

  Had the discussion been on my talk page, would the frank discussion have been more acceptable? With context, I don't think Tony intended to go right back to something, rather to continue a discussion he and I have had for more than a decade.

  So, where I am confused ... If I say today the same truths that Tony said, will I be blocked? The FA process has serious problems today—if we ban someone from the process for calling it like it is, does that lead to a good outcome for Wikipedia?

  As to whether this matter should be solved at ANI ... There was a time when it was always abundantly clear that the FA process handled its own problems, and it did just that. The FA process had a director, and all the pieces (FAC, FAR, WIAFA, FAS, TFA) worked together, and trouble was dealt with. That is no longer the case: with a moribund WP:FAR, that bronze star no longer has any meaning, since thousands of deficient FAs have not been demoted, while sub-standard FAs are being promoted, and the pieces of the process no longer work together to assure standards are upheld. Criticism should be good for the process; stifling it concerns me. Particularly if some of the same people who enjoy the relaxed standards at FAC are now advocating for a ban against someone who upheld standards. I understand that what got Tony blocked a few weeks ago was over the top, and I respect Boing's reasoning here, but I submit that this comment was a continuation of discussions Tony1 and I have always had, and that need to be had, with frankness allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Re: "So, where I am confused ... If I say today the same truths that Tony said, will I be blocked? The FA process has serious problems today—if we ban someone from the process for calling it like it is, does that lead to a good outcome for Wikipedia?" - I don't think there is any problem at all with civil discussion of the problems of FA (and I'm happy to disclose that I have no idea what they are, having never had anything to do with the process). As Iridescent says, below, it's actually nothing to do with FA itself. It's all about telling people to "Go to hell and burn", to "Piss off", that they're a "miserable little swine" and "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals" (and a whole list of personal attacks the length of your arm going back years). If you can discuss FA (or any other topic) and interact with people involved in FA without that kind of behaviour, you should have nothing to fear. (And no, I don't think it would be permissible to attack another group of editors as "bullies and pseudo-intellectuals" at your talk page either - I'd suggest that if you want to have a discussion that belittles other editors with such insults, it's maybe better done off-wiki?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. FAC just happens to be the venue on this occasion, but Tony1 directs his bile virtually at random; Greek water polo, how to translate the German title Ministerpräsident, when it's appropriate to link to [[Australia]]and whatever the hell this is are just a handful of recent instances. Either the rules apply to him or they don't; we shouldn't be making some kind of deal that provided he stays away from FAC he's allowed to carry on abusing random passers-by as much as he likes. ‑ Iridescent 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, no, I wasn't suggesting abuse is fine providing it's not at FA. In fact, my condition for not opposing an unblock was "a convincing commitment that from this day forward you will not make any more personal attacks on any other Wikipedia editors". But I do agree FA isn't the problem, and I'm happy to withdraw the TBAN proposal if anyone feels like closing this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Although I voted to support a Tban, I'd agree with ^^^. T1 has had a pretty clear warning here, and per WP:ROPE, his takeaway should be that regardless of past glories, there is such a thing as conduct unbecoming. The future holds two possibilities: T1 reigning in his temper and becoming a productive editor (in whatever area he chooses), or T1 leaves (on either his or the community's terms). Either way, the project is the beneficiary, whether as the recipient of a productive editor or by removing a source of toxicity. ——SerialNumber54129 07:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support for topic ban, since I'm sorry it has come to this. Tony1 was once active in the League/Guild of Copy Editors, but seems to have become another copyeditor who gives the rest of us a bad name. No one is irreplaceable, and he may be hurting the encyclopedia more now than helping it. Miniapolis 22:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony is a long-term, valued colleague who has made a very considerable contribution to improving FAC. This was not a good block. He was expressing general concern about what's happening at FAC. He didn't refer to any individual, not even indirectly; there was no personal attack. Clearly, he could have phrased his comment more diplomatically, but he went through a hurtful experience at FAC recently. We need understanding and de-escalation, not a topic ban. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Tony's comments don't look that abusive to me. He's obviously not happy with certain processes, and is saying so in strong terms sometimes, but he's is not totally unreasonable. He's a super valuable long-time editor, and we may lose him over our deteriorating values, but let's not add to that possibility. Just warn him to cool down. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sandy Georgia and SarahSV. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony does fly off the handle. He does get in a state sometimes. That's a bad thing, perhaps especially in the text medium. I understand why he was blocked. But I'm glad GoldenRing unblocked. As for a FAC topic ban, that is surely unnecessarily humiliating for someone who used to be one of the FAC greats. I think his calmly made undertakings at this point should be trusted, and I agree with every word SarahSV says above. (Well, except that I can well understand Boing!'s block.) Also, please read the context by User:SandyGeorgia another of the FAC greats. Bishonen | talk 09:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

Socks or students?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Manabimasu

Someone please block user:Manabimasu and undo his dozens of disruptive redirect changes to Roman Catholic Church topics, being done without discussion and against stable primary topic redirects. He is doing them faster than I can keep up. I reverted some, he reverted right back. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting a moderator. I was redirecting multiple pages to the disambiguation page. Can I have chance to voice my edits? In other words, may there be a arbitration on this matter? I have put it on the talk page. I have not changed the content only redirects to the page. Please I want to be civil.Manabimasu (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You have changed dozens of long-time stable redirects against previous consensus, and are edit-warring against changes back. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3 revert rule and I have stopped. Please be civil.

I initiated discussion before doing the changes. I do not know how consensus is done on wikipedia. I put my topic in the Talk Page. Also, to Hyperbolick, I hinted that we could go to the arbitration committee in my talk page. You escalated it quickly. I appreciate that you are looking out for Wikipedia. I was willing to go to arbitration. Why did you threaten to block me in Talk? Let us be civil. Manabimasu (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Undo your remaining link changes. They continue to violate WP:INTDABLINK. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

---

I rollbacked those changes as I feel (mass) redirection to the dab page is against long-standing consensus. My suggestion would be to further evaluate what the consensus is on the talk page of Catholic Church or in another centralized venue. El_C 02:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Ok, Thank you for your civil response. El_C. Manabimasu (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Just noting the humour of two consecutive threads about Japanese sockpuppetry (or at least, sockpuppets with Japanese usernames) showing up apparently spontaneously. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not accusing sockpuppetry. Just contentiously bad editing. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Competence block requested

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

---

Hi all - We've got a new-ish user Monismansoori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is repeatedly making poor articles that are being speedily deleted (and it appears he's sometimes recreating them). The user claims to be an admin on the Hindu Wikipedia however it looks more likely that they've done a copy/paste of someone else's userpage considering the barnstars and such. Can someone put him in time out please? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely. From what I can see, we have a serious lack of competence and comprehension of the English language, at the very least. El_C 06:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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