Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025

Plagiarism

• Diotima of Mantinea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kristy.m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [Not active since 2016.]
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article by Nancy Evans from which text might have been copied: "Diotima and Demeter as Mystagogues in Plato's Symposium"

I don't think this warrants administrative sanctions, but the less formal request has bounced [[1]] as it apparently requires the other editor to participate in the discussion [[2]] - User insists on reverting to plagiarism on article Diotima_of_Mantinea. I don't know how to make the issue any clearer to them since they don't seem interested in the article's discussion page. Not the reason why I started editing, and a poor way to stop if the editor were collaborating at all, but given the circumstances, frankly, it will do. A quick search only gives me Template:Uw-copyright-new which seems excessive. Perhaps someone they'd be more inclined to listen to could give them a nice message instead? Emelkaji (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Emelkaji: can you please show the source of the alleged copyright violation? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a temporary picture [[3]]. Source is [[4]].Emelkaji (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me what the issue is. Is it plagiarism or copyright violation? They are related, but distinct, things. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as one's own, but copyright violation is a legal concept that protects the words (or images, music etc.) created by someone else from being reproduced without permission. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for referring to the content as "plagiarism". The issue is then copyvio, ostensibly through plagiarism of an editor [5] - though the old revision history has been cleared, it seems a first cleanup missed some of the copyvio words, and left them bereft of context. I've nonetheless rewritten the words so that they would, as far as I can tell, no longer be copyvio. I think it would be nice for the rewritten version of those words to not be reverted to the copyvio version of those words. I also think it would be nice if editors were to discuss rather than resort to rule-lawyering of this sort, however that is not the issue.Emelkaji (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an obvious copyvio, I've restored Emelkaji's version for now. Paul August ☎ 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture has accordingly been deleted. As I will no longer be following the matter, please notify me if help is later needed with the source.Emelkaji (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The filer did not name the other party in the dispute. I am guessing that the original copyvio is due to material added in 2016 by User:Kristy.m, a person who is no longer active. The party who was recently warring with Emelkaji was User:Antinoos69. The academic paper copied was presumably by Nancy Evans, as I show above at the top of this section. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Alybood on their talk page

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

---

Editor in question added the (claimed) name of the woman with John Entwistle on the night he died to the respective article. I AGF-reverted as unsourced and left them the "unsourced" welcome, they readded without a source, I reverted again and warned again for unsourced additions, they readded, claimed to be the person in question, and cited an ebook they wrote, I reverted one last time and said that that's not a reliable source (and am done reverting for now, WP:3RR and all that). They proceeded to make a legal threat on their talk page ("Put it baxk or faxe legal action you tirant" (sic)). I gave them the legal threats warning, they doubled down here and here (as far as I'm concerned, phrases like "defamation" and "slanderous action to my public image" suggest interest in legal action) creffett (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you also tell the admins that my name was previously a verified fact of this bio for over a decade or that I am the person in question? Did you tell the admins that you are defaming a previously wiki verified fact of that bio page included for over a decade by removal of the edits? And that I am a public figure and your putting this put publicli IS crossing legal territory of defamation by stating I am a liar and by the action of removal will also be considered legally defamatory. I was not vandalizing....as you put it...anyone's page but simply reinstating a previously verfied fact to a page that had been there a decade. Don't cry wolf and leave out facts like you do on the bio page you are harassing me over. And now you drag this onto a public source as to try and defame, humiliate and slander me even more? I consider this harassment on YOUR behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alybood (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I had a thorough and point-by-point rebuttal put together for this, but it's pretty clear that you're going to continue to call me removing an unsourced claim in an article harassment, defamation, and what have you, no matter what I say. The fact of the matter is that you've been informed of the relevant Wikipedia policies on sourcing (and legal threats) and don't seem interested in following them. There's nothing more for me to say here. creffett (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Elfboy758

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

---

Smells like a sock, hasn't responded to any of my talk page notices and he keeps adding stuff that violates WP:CRYSTAL. I don't want to break WP:3RR so I'm leaving a note for you peeps. Whispering^(t) 02:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Whispering - I just wanted to apologize here to you for reverting your most recent edit / reversion of this user. I did not realize that he was violating WP:Crystal and I have reverted my own edits accordingly once I realized why you made that change. Michepman (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Michepman - It's all good. Whispering^(t) 03:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of non-free images without relevant NFURs.

User talk:213.205.241.118 has warnings about repeatedly adding non-free images without relevant NFURs for use on the pages in question, but he continues to do so, such as at Saudi Arabia national football team. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This kind of thing happens quite a lot since many editors (not only new editors) often mistakenly assume all images are the same and are unaware of things like WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. This happens quite a lot in sports team articles like national football(soccer) team articles; someone sees see an image used in one article , and just automatically assumes it's OK for the same image to be used in other related articles. Sometimes all that is missing is a non-free use rationale (FUR) and that can be fixed by anyone who feels up to it per WP:NFCCE, but other times simply adding a missing FUR is not enough per WP:JUSTONE because there are other non-free content use criteria not being met as well. In some cases, like files have been previously discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD and the consensus was to remove them, but most editors will not be aware of this without doing some digging through the article's page history or looking on the file's page/talk page for mentions of such discussion.

FWIW, there are bots (like JJMC89 bot) which go around like for non-free files without corresponding FURs being added to articles, and they will remove the files and leave an edit summary explaining why. Other editors who work with files may also remove the files or add the missing rationale (if they think the use is justified) per NFCCE; sometimes even using templates like {{di-missing some article links}} and {{Missing rationale2}} is done in lieu of simply removing a file when things might be a borderline case. Most of the time this type of issue gets sorted out without going to ANI.

The question in this case is whether the IP is knowingly ignoring your warnings and continuing to add non-free files without corresponding rationales despite the user warnings they've been receiving, and whether that disruption should lead to the account being blocked. Most IPs like this usually show up for burst of editing and then disappear, and pretty much never respond to anything posted on their user talk (they might not even be aware they have a user talk). For sure there might be some cases, where the IP is actually someone who has a regular account (perhaps they've been blocked) who's aware of the relevant policy but just doesn't like it; however, it seems pretty hard to try and establish such a thing based upon a hunch. This particular IP doesn't seem to be going back (at least not yet) and re-adding any files which might have been removed; so, maybe it might be better just to wait until the bots remove the files and then see what the IP does, If they come back and re-add the files without making any attempt to explain why, then perhaps that's one step closer to a block. If they don't come back or don't re-add the files, then blocking them would seems to be more to punish them than to prevent any further disruption. This IP made a handful of unrelated edits early in the year, stopped editing, and then reappeared a few days ago to start adding files to articles; so, perhaps they will disappear again. Anyway, they seem to have stopped for the moment and maybe nothing other then some cleaning up after them is all that is really needed at this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not sure it is a socking issue too. Not long ago, a very new user did the same: Simonnollaigcaomhanach (talk · contribs). Matthew hk (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

EOP Gatekeeper - Executive Office Of The President editing our articles

• Washington Examiner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 204.68.207.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably should be a heads up on this one, but I didn't know where to post this. Bureaucrats? Jimbo? Anyone? WP:RFPP had a request for help on disruptive editing on Washington Examiner. I reverted the edits and protected the page. There were numerous edits re-writing the article, from IP 204.68.207.13 . Who Is Gateway and What Is My Address both confirm this IP is the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Not entirely surprising, but how do we handle this? — Maile (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The notes on blocking sensitive IP addresses are here Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses WilyD 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This IP (Special:Contributions/204.68.207.13) is not listed in the table of sensitive IP addresses nor on the handy list in the block settings window, but everything about the technical data and the contact domain name and such suggest that it should be. Nonetheless, it's clearly edit-warring, and considering the source, also blatantly violating WP:COI. Protecting the page was the correct approach, and I have sent a message to the WMF communications committee. (courtesy ping GVarnum-WMF Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just another day in Wikiland... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• A 3RR report was just removed due to this discussion. It seems to me that issues with the EOP edits in general are distinct from issues with the IP user edit warring, so I just want to make sure both are addressed. Dyrnych (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• User:Maile66 semiprotected the Washington Examiner article for one month at 16:04 on 5 December. That should take care of the matter for now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Technically Dyrnych is right that as I understand it, and rereading the above page seems to confirm my view, you are allowed to block sensitive IPs as you normally would except you should avoid long blocks, which weren't justified here anyway. You should take care with your block message, and should make sure your block is justified since it could easily receive media attention; and for that reason are supposed to notify the WMF when you block. But otherwise I don't think there's any limitations on blocking. Still I don't begrudge an admin not wanting to step in that minefield. And while I'm personally normally opposed to semiprotecting when it's likely a block will do (since it prevents other IP editors for no reason), in this case it seems a reasonable course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, I endorse semiprotection as the path of least drama here. Guy (help!) 11:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The sockmaster NoCal100

In the last 24 hrs, I've uncovered two socks that NoCal100[6] used. I think there may be more, in particular among editors who called for me to be banned in a recent admin noticeboard discussion[7], which is something that both of those socks did. The pattern of editing for NoCal100's socks is to (i) run interference for anti-Muslim groups and individuals, (ii) accuse article subjects of being anti-semites (in particular, liberal Hollywood people), (iii) edit pages for Israeli and Jewish subjects, (iv) do lots of normal and minor edits to individuals involved in cinema, and (v) feign indignation and accuse others of being sockpuppets when they are accused. I literally do not have time to actively look for more of these socks, so I'm putting this here to alert others that this guy is managing multiple accounts at the same time and ruining the encyclopedia (for example, on the Gatestone Institute talk page, those two sock accounts ruined a RfC). If he has two accounts going at the same time, he has more. I'd check for editors who fit the pattern I mentioned, as well as editors who are new, jump into hotly contested topics and who happen to stumble into RfCs on subjects that they have never edited before (I have suspicions about two such users but do not have time to chase it down). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

When you do get the time, WP:LTA may be a good place to do to compile the evidence so we can all find it. They have a report format there that is useful for keeping things like this together. --Jayron32 16:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Site ban for Edgar181

Discussion being held at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite community site-ban for Edgar181. –xeno^talk 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

This will hopefully be a quickly-enacted community site ban for Edgar181, a just-desysopped admin who seriously abused multiple accounts and has been indeffed by ArbCom. A site ban enacted by the community will reinforce the ArbCom action, and raise awareness of a form of corruption that strikes at the core integrity of a volunteer website that millions of people rely on. Jusdafax (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would propose this. Pointless waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, since among other things it deals with possible further socking from a proven sockmaster. Jusdafax (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And how precisely would it "deal" with that?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see my reply to the first oppose below, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bbb23 - ArbCom has already banned blocked Edgar181 (and in doing so, has banned the person behind the account), so I don't see any value in a CBAN other than a symbolic expression of outrage (which we've seen plenty of on the ACN talk page already). Regarding your "possible further socking" concern - any socking will be ban block evasion and will be treated as such. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, my mistake. Struck/updated above. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose process for process's sake. They're not going to be unblocked: check. Do we siteban people for propaganda purposes? Uncheck. Encourager les autres some other way. ——SN54129 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, I disagree and specifically with your saying I am doing this for “process’s sake.” To quote from the link in the section title, “ An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances.” This is a useful tool. Jusdafax (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not useful in this instance. Any new account created by Edgar would be sock-blocked. Any IP discovered, depending on how recent the edits, would probably be blocked for block evasion. A community ban would not make it easier to deal with any of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. I feel absolutely confident in saying that no administrator would unblock any of these accounts, nor any that are identified later. (Well, not unless he has another adminsock hanging around, anyway.) —Cryptic 14:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with everyone who says this is pointless. It is already clear that Edgar181 will be blocked whenever he appears again, and adding the extra layer of a ban will not help that. Also, thanks to @Barkeep49: for assuring the extra extra bit of pointlessness by assuring this discussion drags on and gets even more repetitive. --Jayron32 15:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Not a bureaucracy and all that but WP:CBAN says these discussions must be open for 24 hours.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In fairness I think that misunderstand what CBAN says - it can't be closed as successful sooner than 24 hours. I don't see that policy precluding closure as failure sooner than 24 hours. I'm not here to support the site ban (I saw this before it was closed) but I think people deserve a bit more than 90 minutes to weigh in. If someone wants to reclose it I'd be willing to accept that I'm in the minority. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members seems unambiguous to me, whether it's closed as successful or unsuccessful.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree but that's not what the RfC which is footnoted as the basis for that language actually closed with. You're right the language at CBAN is unambiguous and should perhaps be modified to reflect what the RfC said better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for a CBAN here. This is an ArbCom block, and speaking as a former ArbCom member, I can assure you unblock requests are not taken lightly for these types of blocks. It would take a good deal of both time and good faith to reverse this block, and honestly I don't see that happening for the near future. If Edgar decides to keep socking, the CUs are already aware and will discover them I'm sure, as they do with other LTAs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I personally see a need for a CBAN, just to completely rule out the possibility of ArbCom unilaterally reversing the block after a private discussion, which they (to my understanding) are currently allowed to do. There is very likely community consensus that such an unblock should not happen, but this consensus has not been formally established. An existing block, whether by ArbCom or not, should not prevent the community from formally clarifying that ArbCom alone does not have the authority to unblock the user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless. Edgar181 is arbcom blocked and will not be unblocked without very good reason and lots of scrutiny. A formal ban will not change this. A formal ban will not help in detecting future socking, nor authorize any tools or procedures not already authorized by the arbcom finding. The only non-symbolic effect would be that if a future arbcom ever decided, with good readon, to unblock (unlikely but in theory possible) an additional hoop of removing the ban would be required. Doed it seem likely that a future arbcom would unblock here under such circumstances that a separate community review here at ANI or some simialr forum would be needed to confirm that such an unblock would be OK? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Meh. He probably deserves it, but I don't see the need. He's not going to be unblocked nor allowed to return under a different name. The only ways he could come back are if 1) he manages to avoid detection, or 2) he gets a corrupt crony to cover-up his return. Neither of those outcomes would be prevented by a site ban. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support – The community, not Arbcom, should be the one to decide when, whether, and on what terms, Edgar can return to editing. I don't like the idea of a future Arbcom potentially acting on an unblock request privately, without community input. Could a future Arbcom agree to give him a clean start, and we wouldn't even know about it? Also, there was an RfC in 2018 with near-unanimous support to change "are normally kept open" to "must be kept open" (emphasis in the original) in "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." and that's been a part of our WP:CBAN policy for almost two years now (until it was boldly changed just a couple hours ago). What more does the community need to do to ensure that these discussions are kept open for 24 hours? Promote it to the 6th pillar? What will it take for everyone to take on board that while you are editing, half of your colleagues sleeping, and they should be given the opportunity to weigh in on these discussions before they are closed, rather than being closed by whichever admin's patience runs out first? – Levivich 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

*:Without comment on this specific discussion, the notion that every ban discussion, even those determined to be disruptive, vindictive, vexatious, pointless, and without merit, must be kept open for some minimum time period seems unwise. If this specific one was closed too soon (and it may have been, I'm not saying it wasn't, and I'm not saying it was) then we should re-open this one on the merits, but the idea that we have to blindly obey some formulaic process at all times, without thought or consideration for the merits of the specific case at hand, runs counter to both Wikipedia's ethos and good sense. I have no problem with re-opening discussions if one has something valid to contribute about the discussion at hand (and I note, Levivich, that you raise valid points on this case, and as such, is probably evidence that this discussion was closed too hastily) however, that does not mean that we should endorse seeing every single discussion through to some pre-determined point... --Jayron32 18:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Never mind. I've changed my mind. I'm re-opening it for two reasons. 1) 24 hours really isn't too short, even for a bad discussion. Giving it one day is not a big deal 2) Enough people have had substantive objections to this close. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Apparent COI account not acknowledging issue, continuing to edit

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

---

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

This account recently appeared on November 29th and began editing. Their edits so far consist almost exclusively of promoting the researcher Jack Turban. This includes creating and working on a draft about him, [8] and they have added content about his primary research to various articles. [9][10][11][12][13] Here is an especially odd example where the article already referenced Turban's research, but this account added his name to the main text for no apparent reason: [14]

I warned the account about COI. [15] After this, and after their edits had been reverted, they started putting edit requests on some of the same articles' talk pages, but still without declaring or denying any COI, and without mentioning Turban's name but still citing his research. [16][17]

Flyer22 Reborn then also warned the account about COI. [18] They still continued to work on their draft [19] and their edit requests [20][21]

At one of those, Spintendo specifically asked if they had a COI, [22] but they never addressed the issue and instead pushed to use other sources for the same POV. [23]

They've even made a couple of mainspace edits (albeit less controversial ones so far) to related articles since then. [24][25]

Most recently, they've removed the COI warnings from their talk page. [26][27]

I think it is clear that this account intends to continue to edit and make edit requests in this topic area without acknowledging their COI. So, I think it is time for the admins to examine its behavior for themselves and decide whether a COI is likely. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Chronic Lyme

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

---

• Sthatdc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chronic Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Under Our Skin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sthatdc has 117 edits since registering in September. Following an earlier bout of edit-warring on the subject of "chronic Lyme" I notified him of DS on fringe / pseudoscience ([28]).

After a two month hiatus he has returned today to resume the disruptive edits: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. These substantially repeat edits previously reverted in his September active period: [35], [36], [37].

He's now repeated the edit on "chronic Lyme" for the fourth time: [38].

The user has failed to WP:ENGAGE. No edits in Talk space at all, warnings and alerts are blanked ([39], [40], [41], [42]) and the only community engagement has been in the form of peremptory demands to "explain yourself or accusing long-term editors of disruptive editing.

I honestly suspect that this is not a genuinely new user, but regardless, I think he needs some assistance with understanding how we work here. I suspect that if he carries on as he is he will be topic banned pretty soon, if not blocked altogether. Guy (help!) 11:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has explained what they objected to about my edits. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they didn't even understand the point of them. User:JzG in particular has left canned edit summaries only, when reverting edits which are basic common sense and which I explained in the edit summary. Quite why they would prefer to pester me with form messages and report me on noticeboards instead of simply explaining what problem they had with my edits, I cannot imagine. Sthatdc (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, See above. You need to engage on the article Talk page. Guy (help!) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you don't actually have any concrete objections to my edits. Sthatdc (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, In fact I do, but since you appear unwilling to explain on Talk what you are trying to achieve there's no obvious way to resolve this. Guy (help!) 14:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The obvious way to resolve this is that you explain what your objections are, if you actually have any. Repeatedly undoing without explanation my straightforward, minor edits, which I explained when I made them, is obviously not a good faith action. Sthatdc (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, actually the obvious way to resolve this is simply to block you as a timewaster who doesn't understand what words like "straightforward" and "minor" mean on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 16:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You are that reluctant to explain why you undid my edits? Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sthatdc is edit-warring and not discussing content, while being abrasive with other users. Content wise, the edits (e.g.[43]) are in my view not great (removing on-point content, not properly respecting WP:V). If they don't engage and start discussing content in a civil manner I suspect their Wikipedia career will be short, especially considering this topic is under DS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Which "on-point content" did I remove? Where exactly do you think my edits were in conflict with WP:V? I asked you this before; you didn't respond. Sthatdc (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussing behaviour. You need to discuss article content at Talk:Chronic Lyme disease and gain consensus for proposed edits. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

So you, like User:JzG, are refusing to explain exactly what you objected to. That is a ridiculous attitude. Sthatdc (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The burden is on you to use the article talkpage to explain your edits. Please do so. If you do not, you may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sthatdc: It's up to you to discuss contested edits to get consensus (maybe try WP:BRD?). I don't think, though, you'll get consensus to change (for example) the opening of the article so it drifts apart what the reliable literature on the topic says, which is what you are apparently wanting to do. But if you don't explain what you're trying to do how can anybody respond? Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidently, you have not understood what my edits did; you've grossly mischaracterised them, still without explaining specifically what you object to. I explained them clearly in my edit summaries; your edit summaries have been either canned, or mere insults with no basis in reality. If you are not prepared to describe exactly what you object to, there is no possible basis for discussion, is there? Sthatdc (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure plenty of editors are prepared to discuss. You've been advised how to proceed; you can take that advice, or you can continue edit-warring in which case you will likely be blocked. The choice is yours. Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You are not willing to explain what your problem is with my edits. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Sthatdc (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, How do you know? You haven't raised it on the Talk page. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I know because you have undone my edits without any explanation three times. If you were editing in good faith, you would not have done that. Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, The onus is on you to achieve consensus for a disputed edit. Since you refuse to even explain your issue, or to engage on Talk at all, I think we can readily see why that's not happening. And by now I think you're just trolling. Guy (help!) 23:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is willing to explain what they objected to about my edits. if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. Indeed. Sthatdc (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Alexbrn is the root problem here, having failed to properly understand what my edits did. Their initial revert seems to have been aimed at a different editor [44]. Their claim in that edit summary of "wild POV-skew" is a flight of fancy, and yet they have become instantly entrenched and simply refused to actually read my edits and see what they did. User:JzG has never bothered to give any reason for his reverts, seemingly persuaded by the mere fact of someone else reverting that they must do the same. Any editor who undoes an edit but refuses to explain why is not acting in good faith. Sthatdc (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sthatdc, no, the problem is you. You refuse to engage on the Talk page, you remove warnings and comments on your Talk page, and you leave aggressive peremptory demands on the talk pages of those who challenge you. You have virtually no history here, and the people you are so belligerently challenging have a lot. Talk:Chronic Lyme disease is the correct venue for you to defend your edits, this page is for you to defend your behaviour. You've done neither, as it happens. Every comment you've made here is based on the assumption that you are obviously right, but it is definitely not obvious and the balance of probabilities strongly favours multiple long-standing editors being right, not one new editor who doesn't engage on Talk. Guy (help!) 16:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On 8 September 2019 I told Sthatdc:

I have noticed that whenever you get into a disagreement about the content of a page you immediately go to the talk page of whoever reverted you.

Our policy at WP:CONSENSUS says:

"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns."

WP:BRD says:

"Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution."

I am going to assume that as a new Wikipedia editor you were unaware of our policy on talking things over on the article talk page (not the user talk page of the editor who reverted you), but now you know.[45]

Sthatdc deleted that comment without discussions, as he does with all warnings and criticism. And he has continued posting rather aggressive comments to the talk pages of those who disagree with him while refusing to have any discussion on any article talk page or on his own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If people undo a change I've made and give a reason that corresponds in some sense to what I actually did, we can all have a lovely discussion and find a way to make the article better. If people undo a change I've made for no reason, or give a reason that bears no relation to what changed, we cannot. You don't think that's obvious? Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If people undo a change that you’ve made, go to the article talk page and explain why you made the change. Then it can be discussed, and (hopefully) a consensus can be reached about what changes are appropriate. That’s how BRD is supposed to work. Don’t just try to edit-war it into the article; that won’t end well. Go to the article talk page and discuss it there, and we can close this thread.

Alexbrn and JzG, it might be a good idea if, when reverting a comparatively inexperienced editor, you explicitly referred them to the article talk page in your edit summary. As Guy said, this editor had only a hundred or so edits. Wikipedia is a complicated place, and certain areas (articles falling under MEDRS rules being one of them) are more complicated than others; people really can’t be expected to know how things work around here by some sort of instinct.

There hasn’t been an edit to the talk page of the Chronic Lyme article since September. Can somebody please go there and start the discussion? Brunton (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Why none of the involved editors could have started a discussion in the right place is beyond me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that AN/I isn't the right place for this, I think the editor's comments here makes it seem like there are bigger WP:IDHT issues. Darthkayak (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, because we don't have a problem with the existing article. At least two of us have invited the user to state his case on Talk, and his response has been to delete the messages and continue the edit war. Not much to work with there. Guy (help!) 23:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Phil Bridger: BRD doesn't forbid the "wrong party" from beginning the discussion, and doing so is constructive even if the opening comment is just "please explain your edit". --JBL (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, It is, however, futile when the user refuses to WP:ENGAGE. As evidence: TP discussion has been open for a day, and the user still does nothing more than make conclusory accusations here. Guy (help!) 16:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Since the discussion has been opened, the editor hasn't made any edits at all. That seems like a major improvement to me (both over the edit-war and over this ANI thread)! --JBL (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, you are not wrong. Let's see if he does the same in another three months. Guy (help!) 19:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JBL, you are correct. In fact, WP:BRD directly says that the "wrong party" can start a discussion: "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." I begin to suspect that you might have actually read the page, unlike most editors.

For those who haven't, BRD also says that it is a specific and optional protocol that is recommended only for experienced editors who are trying to make progress. "Bold–Revert–Demand that the bold editor WP:SATISFY me" isn't how BRD has ever worked, no matter what anyone has ever told you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

CoolGood1567

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

---

CoolGood1567 is very clearly a harassment only account. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 12:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 12:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Indian National Army

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

---

Hi, I'm hoping for some help. The ip address '[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:88D:AEB5:B418:9AAD:FA95:DE81 2402:3a80:88d:aeb5:b418:9aad:fa95:de81] ' is editing the article Indian National Army repeatedly to add incorrect information, irrelevant information and duplicating redundant information already discussed in brief in the main article and in detail in other articles. He has for example repeatedly edited to include that the army was founded by Rash Behari Bose, edited to include a relatively obscure small detail in the lead, edited to include generally noninformative bullet points, deleted sections of it detailing controversies surrounding this organisation, and has continued without contributing to discussion despite repeated comms and messages. I am not sure how else to communicate with this person. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of this article is Talk:Indian National Army. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Phil, more than content it is the reversions that I'm drawing attention to. I have communicated on the ips talk page directly, and previously invited to discuss in talk page in edit summaries without any success.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• You can use AIV or message an administrator, althought ANI is pretty quick too (as are both the other options). ANI is more of a last resort, but that's okay. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Rueben lys lacks justification for removing content of over 11k bytes. He believes he is the sole authority to edit this article and all he has done until now is repeatedly lie that he is removing information because "content added are present in the article"[46] when none of that content ever existed in the article without those additions. This is too deceptive of Rueben lys. I think it might be also because of the fact that Rueben lys has a poor grasp of the English language but it should not justify his disruption. 2402:3A80:88D:AEB5:B418:9AAD:FA95:DE81 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Please block

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

---

Please block User:K8ka. Interstellarity (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm a new editor, why would you want to block me? K8ka (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Request copyvio rev-del

Resolved

Per this edit [47] at Acadians, which was apparently taken from here at The Canadian Encyclopedia. User advised here of copyvio policy. Heiro 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And now an IP has reinserted here. Heiro 01:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet again, restored by the original editor with a minor attempt to reword, but still largely copyvio. Can someone with a bit go take a look at this. No response to talk page requests. Heiro 01:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Now at WP:3RR restoring copyvio, still no talk page response, not even sure if they know they have messages. Heiro 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected Acadians but will leave handling the copyvio in history for someone experienced in that area. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, done. While there might be a whole pile of "email this or that to the WMF" to be done - and please let me know if there is - as shortcut see the Substantial similarity doctrine article about US copyright law. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Right on. Thanks for mop usage, both of ya's. Heiro 15:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi issue resolution

Hello, I am seeking to resolve this issue. Initially, there were two pages; One for Roy Ben Artzi and one for Gigi Ben Artzi. Both were put up for deletion recently. Since the deletion notices were put up, I've gone ahead and substantially expanded on both while providing sufficient references and citations. Since both subjects work and operate as a duo, the proposal was brought up to merge the two into Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi. I understand that creating this new article is problematic having had newly created it without the history of the previous articles. From my experience on Wikipedia, I know that it would be possible to merge the Gigi article under it, thus providing the proper history logs for the article. This is my request; If and when you can, please merge Gigi Ben Artzi under the current Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi and bring this dispute to a close. Thanks in advance. --Omer Toledano (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would allow the AfDs to run their course before performing a merge. In any case, its unlikely we would merge the two and close out the AfDs with a result of merge without the AfDs running their course. Just be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin

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

---

• Colin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine § MEDPRICE

Colin has had a long term issue with incivility directed towards multiple members of Wikiproject Medicine. They were previously brought to ANI for this is 2018 but problems have persisted.[48]

Two days ago Doc James requested that Colin stop pinging him.(Dec 2nd at 19:04) Colin’s reply was "James As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name." and he has continued pinging.[49]

There are lots of concerning comments by Colin in 2018 including "But there are real problems with his behaviour on this project, and frankly those problems are not helped by editors like you worshipping him........ James is so arrogant....... these videos are just a symptom of a deep illness affecting WP:MED, and James is at the core of it.......... This "making Wikipedia more shit" has been going on for years."

And in 2018 he compared editors at WPMED to sexual predators and refused to withdraw the comparison when called on it.

“These things that are being discussed are symptoms of an underlying illness with WP:MED which at its core lies Doc James, with a chorus of worshippers......... Tryptofish, do you realise your comments "If you choose to edit medical pages, you can, but you have to deal with it as it is" sound exactly like an apologist for sexual abuse in the workplace: "The guys here are a bit crude at times, might feel your bum in the lift, peer down your top, but you know, they don't mean harm by it, and if you want the job, well you have to deal with it as it is". Wrong and bad.”[50][51]

Issues go a long way back with Doc James requested that Colin not post on his user page in October of 2014 after a prolonged period of incivility directed towards him.[52] Despite this Colin has continued to do so.Nov 25 2019Nov 26 2019,Apr 4 2018,Apr 2 2018, etc--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the behavioral and content problems dominating WP:MED for several years now have become so pronounced, entrenched, and factionalized, that it will not be long before an Arbcase may be needed to look at all of the behaviors, and the serious content issues, and an increasingly entrenched approach that ignores sourcing and content policies, and applies guidelines as a means of furthering personal preferences. Colin is confronting a regular handful of editors who have a tenuous grasp of policy, and regularly pile on "Me, too" type support for non-policy-based arguments, with little logic or reasoning supplied. These trends have resulted in a clear deterioration in what was once a fine WikiProject, while Colin continues to argue, coherently and thoroughly, in favor of content policies. Should the needed arbcase eventually happen, Colin's preference for content policies will be viewed in the context of everything else that is going on at WP:MED, and those who continually ignore, or advocate to ignore, content policy are not likely to be happy with the outcomes of a deeper look at these behaviors or those who support them. As a once prolific medical editor, and FA writer, I have found that the scholarly direction of the WikiProject I was once a core member of has deteriorated to factionalism and support of people who don't evidence an understanding of content policies, so I have mostly stopped trying to improve medical content; the scholarly collaborators have long since left in the face of a lesser qualified crop of current editors. I am surprised that Colin --who was a core member during WP:MED's ascendancy, and responsible for most of the guideline and policy discussion and formulation that brought the project to its now-gone high point -- still tries, as the environment and lack of logic he faces is daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't really expecting this, but SandyGeorgia's summary looks better than Ozzie10aaaa's. (Although the "I'll ping you if I want to" thing is a bit of a dick move.) --JBL (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. Repeating what I've already said multiple times on the matter: I'm stunned by the behavior I've been seeing related to pricing across Wikipedia in order to support some sort of broad exception to content policies. It needs to stop, but it appears ArbCom is the only way it's going to.

(Yes, the pinging should stop.)

See Wikipedia:Prices#Discussions_about_best_practices for a partial list of discussions. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SandyGeorgia's comment about the long-term changes in the group resonates with me. We used to be focused on writing brilliant articles filled with precisely delimited claims and superb sources. Then we went through an anti-woo phase: almost anything's okay, as long as it hurts the spammers and alt-med proponents, and nothing's okay if it helps them. This naturally is going to frustrate anyone who wants brilliantly written and carefully sourced articles, because there was nothing brilliant or careful about any of that. (Example: An editor once claimed that a peer-reviewed review article could not be used to say what color a cosmetics ingredient is, because the editor-in-chief was suspected of being a poor businessman.) Now we seem to be talking more about issues of health policy, which is a more approximate subject area with a focus on practicalities, like approximate prices. Which is naturally going to frustrate both of the previous groups, because it's not up to the standards of the first group, and practicalities sometimes don't produce the proper anti-woo signals. I have been thinking for some time that the group needs to have a proper sit-down and figure out what we want to accomplish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues affecting WP:MED are ripe for community-wide RFCs because WPMED no longer has a vibrant participation, or exhibits a core understanding of consensus-building, while previous RFCs are being ignored. Colin is the most knowledgeable and experienced wrt formulating an RFC to reach a useful conclusion, but we see a) other editors not understanding that a good RFC comes from ample discussion, and they instead pile on meaningless “me, too” supports that smack of cabalism, and b) other editors launching ill-formed RFCs and !voting. The sit-down that should be happening is in the form of discussion, not “me, too cabalism”, so that someone experienced like Colin can then write a neutral community-wide RFC. The core problem at WPMED is that guidelines are being interpreted as policy to further personal preferences of a handful of people, while more knowledgeable content and policy editors gave up and left. (And any time you see the pricing of a worldwide commodity with standard benchmarks -—oil—- compared to local prices of retail pharmaceuticals, you have to wonder where the logic has gone, and know that a broader community discussion would point out the faulty logic.) But pricing is not even remotely the first time we have seen this kind of problem recently at WPMED. Read any of the lengthy discussions occurring on the talk pages of WP:MED, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS to quickly see who correctly makes policy-based posts, and who always piles on one-way, me-too supports based on little understanding of policy. WAID and Colin are doing the best they can, given the conditions. Producing even mediocre content stopped being a priority at WPMED several years ago, and poor behavior from those who support the minority has been tolerated in what looks to be quid pro quo behavior. Broader community input is needed to break the logjam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like every walled garden in Wikipedia. It would be wonderful if we found a way to tear the walled gardens down. I've only been here a year but I understand this has been a problem since forever. – Levivich 05:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There may very well be problems, but I'm unconvinced that Colin is the best person to be the primary one drafting an RfC to deal with them. This is one of those cases where I think as this "they're just words" or "bad words" or "sticks and stones" etc talk misses the point. Whatever problems may exist in the area, making such a comparison which is offensive not only to those involved but especially to those who have to deal with real sexual abuse does not help advance the discussion, or your point or case in any way. Such talk not only turns off those it's directed at, it turns off everyone else including both neutral parties and even those who are supportive of the editor. We all make mistakes especially when tempers fray, but it sounds like Colin hasn't actually acknowledged this was a mistake. Surely there's someone who can better lead the charge, who can actually have a hope to deal with the issues because they don't offend everyone in the process including those who may actually support them were it not for the fact they're so utterly terrible at communicating? Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, there was one remark that provoked my "sounds like an apologist for.." comment. Tryptofish wrote, "I will oppose any efforts to treat the WT:MED editors as wrong or bad." This sounded to me very much like one bloke sticking up for his mates regardless of whether anything bad was going on. History would come back to bite Tryptofish's defence of WP:MED editors. Jytdog was in that conversation too, and was among those siding with James and attacking me at the time. When Jytdog fell dramatically from grace, James et al, backed him as "one of us". The community disagreed and he is indef blocked by ArbCom. I accept my analogy was ill judged and likely to cause offence. Office bullying is a more appropriate analogy, then and now, and Jytdog was a symptom of a general behaviour at WP:MED, not an outlier. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, you need to understand the rationale behind that. WP:MED has some of the strongest sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, for excellent reasons. Medicine is very prone too hyperbolic claims based on a study of three mice, on one end, and bitter hatred from the Gary Null posse on the other. We maintain an exceptional standard of reliability on those articles by sticking to RSMED and managing out obvious POV editors.

The "pharma shill gambit" is very commonly used by fans of quackery to discredit anyone engaged in serious medical research. That's further complicated by people like Peter C. Gøtzsche who makes excellent points around issues with psychoactive drugs, but then erroneously extended that to criticism of HPV vaccine that has been exploited by antivaxers. Gøtzsche is a serious and thoughtful man (I've shared dinner him and David Colquhoun of UCL, also a trenchant critic of issues with academic medical publishing). This contributes to a bit of a bunker mentality whic, for the most part, the MED editors do a remarrkable job of tamping down.

The issue of pricing does not seem to have a genuine consensus. That's the underlying problem. Guy (help!) 11:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you are aware that I wrote WP:MEDRS and pushed it to becoming official guideline? You are aware that it is Doc James using the "pharama shill gambit", not some alt med quack? You see "bunker mentality" I see bullying, ignoring policy and edit warring. I appreciate some folk supported Jytdog because he was "on their side" against the quacks, but he was a bully and an edit warrior and deserved his block. That WP:MED would no doubt welcome him back with open arms is in fact a damning criticism of the current state of that project. -- Colin°^Talk 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, Jytdog may have been an edit warrior, but he was not a bully. He is much more of a Tigger than an angry mastodon. Guy (help!) 12:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Didn't he get perma-banned because he made real-world contact with someone he was edit warring with, or something like that? That doesn't sound like a bouncy, cheerful Tigger to me.

Guy, I strongly agree with you that "The issue of pricing does not seem to have a genuine consensus." I think that WP:NOTPRICE might be due for a thoughtful review. I believe that there is still a strong consensus for not including ever-fluctuating retail prices for generic consumer products ("today, Amazon's cheapest price for a T-shirt is US$3"), but including some prices (e.g., the initial list price of some electronic devices, the base price of some vehicles) might have stronger support than we'd have seen among the original generation of Wikipedia editors. User:Alexbrn IMO brilliantly summarized this question as "in essence a philosophical dispute about where Wikipedia should sit on the information⟷knowledge spectrum" (information being approximately understood as a number, and knowledge being approximately what that price means). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, as a medical editor since 2005, I can assure you that the community-wide acceptance of WP:MEDRS can be almost entirely attributed to Colin's efforts and that a good deal of WP:MEDMOS is also due to Colin's effort. Most significantly, it was Colin's ongoing insistence that WP:MED guidelines cannot get ahead of Wikipedia-wide guidelines and must reflect policy that led to a page that was widely accepted and useful. Considering the very effective guidelines, the bullying that took hold to deal with alt-med quacks was unnecessary, and ugly to watch. It is possible to deal with alt-med quacks without resorting to the kind of blunt force bullying that came to characterize WP:MED. Yes, Jytdog joined forces with a small handful of others (who rarely argue policy but always add "pile on, me-too support" to positions taken) in the factors that contributed to this environment. Not even the most qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable medical editors have been spared from the OWNERSHIP that overtook WP:MED. Both MEDRS and COI were used to bully, and not just alt-med quacks. Older and experienced policy and medical editors have watched as WPMED has descended to cabalist group that took its strongest tool (MEDRS) and used it as a blunt instrument to bully, quite often with a lack of civility that led the esteemed User:MastCell once to wonder why some of these editors still enjoy editing privileges on Wikipeda (that is, why they haven't been banned).

Similarly, the guideline WP:MEDMOS has been used to widely convert broad categories of medical articles to contain personal stylistic preferences not supported by guideline or policy. WhatamIdoing remains as one of the few WP:MED regulars whose positions are typically grounded in policy and well reasoned. User:RexxS is a sometimes medical editor who rarely resorts to faulty logic or pile-on support. Those who have a basic understanding of why we needed MEDRS and how to appropriately use it are mostly gone, replaced by newer editors that pile on support without offering reasoning grounded in policy (which Colin's always is). I invite anyone to read through any WPMED discussion and see the familiar lineup..

Colin, the person who mostly wrote the guideline, has consistently been opposed to the bullying that has come to characterize WP:MED as cabalistic behaviors became the means of chasing out alternate viewpoints, and even qualified experts.

(I am slowly working through the new posts, but I expect it can now be seen why the WPMED issues are ripe for an arbcase, and those issues go well beyond the current pricing dispute. No, this is not just a content dispute or support of older vs. newer editors; it is a long-standing problem of CABALISTIC, non-policy-based, OWNERSHIP that has overtaken WP:MED.) The other factor affecting the dynamic is that Colin does not edit war, while Doc James has a history of editwarring to install his personal preferences; I (again) brought this to his talk page within just the last month.[53][54] As an admin, he is typically spared blocking, but the admonishments don't seem to have long-lasting effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, what kinds of alternate viewpoints? There are definitely alternate viewpoints that should be chased out (naturopaths and other fake medical professionals for example).

I do see QuackGuru as a problem, and have held him up as a classic example of doing mostly the right thing in mostly the wrong way. But n the main I see this as a case of policy drift based on too few eyes and a disagreement between editors acting in good faith who have not come up with a way of resolving an underlying disagreement for much too long. I could be wrong. My personal view is that canonical policy mitigates against including data and for including information, so pricing on albuterol or insulin, clearly a matter of active policy debate, should be included, but I am much less persuaded by some others. Maybe it should be fixed by using an external link to the database of drug information that includes pricing, much as we routinely link IMDB. I don't know. Anyway, I am trying to ascertain the policy-based rationale for blanket inclusion. At this point I tentatively agree with you and others here that the policy-based rationale for inclusion is weak, and the argument for inclusion verges on dogma, certainly in the case of QuackGuru. Guy (help!) 09:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy where I disagree is in the techniques and lack of civility employed to keep quackery, and some editors out. With a strong guideline supporting quality medical content, there is no need for bullying and misbehavior and lack of civility. The alternate viewpoints I was referring to are not from alt-quackery editors rather information that is compliant with policy and guideline, but that has encountered disagreement from certain editors who essentially have owned WPMED. The expert who was chased off of the epilepsy article is a good example; the problems in that article persist. In my personal editing (and I sure don't support any alt quackery or marginal sources), I have had correct and correctly sourced information reverted on prostate articles (text that stands today as accurate), with the usual Jytdog collegiality involved. I assure you that even policy-compliant, knowledgeable editors have been exposed to the tactics used to allow only certain information into articles, or for articles to be structured in certain ways based on personal preferences. Perhaps the constant quackery-patrol has led to a degradation in civility among some med editors. The "argument[s] for inclusion [that] verge on dogma" are repeated across multiple areas and topics, and supported by a handful of editors who employ no policy-based reasoning. You have mentioned QuackGuru, who is not the only one. Joining together in support of quackery-bashing led to a bad dynamic taking hold over ALL editing at WPMED, and an unfortunate "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ("I must support anything proposed by anyone who supports me in keeping quackery out") effect in the "me-too, pile on supports" for issues that should be discussed with policy-based reasoning. We only get discussion grounded in policy from a few current editors, with a whole lot of "me-too" arguments, and a strong dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT (good example being the videos). Moving to community-wide RFCs may help, because WPMED is, and has been for several years now, a walled garden with very high walls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't have any basis on which to dispute this, and accept your word as one whom I have always trusted.

Nonetheless, I think the specifics here (i.e. around drug pricing) do stem from a question on which reasonable people may differ, and the lack of a proper resolution of the underlying dispute makes it harder to separate egregious warrior behaviour from excess of zeal in advancing a principled position.

I have made a proposal for resolution of the underlying issue. If that has traction then I hope we will rapidly find out whether this is resolvable or whether we'll need another ArbCom case, the process - and probably also the outcome - of which would very likely be unsatisfactory to all concerned.

In fact I'd have no issue with applying "consensus required" to all medical articles. I mostly see them when repeat vanity spammers appear to add their latest paper, but it does seem that most edits are either unexceptionable or lead to protracted fights, often with no middle ground. Guy (help!) 10:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrt current content dispute, see Talk:Ivermectin#Price and the edit war over pricing, which predates my involvement in the issue. It is interesting that Ronz sought further third opinions, who agreed with him, though one noted that "providing prices of drugs in the intro seems to be standard across Wikipedia" -- well it is only so because James, and James alone, added those prices to the leads, and will edit-war with anyone who removes them. On that talk page, James says "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored" and indeed James has cited WP:CENSORED to me, as has CFCF. The detailed price-in-lead thing not only breaks WP:NOT and WP:LEAD, but his arguments for including it appear based on his agenda rather than policy. For example "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value" and "industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population". Along come Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru and CFCF, on the talk page, MEDMOS talk page and WP:MED to back James up with "I support James" level of argument. Soon James is telling Ronz "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you." despite the count being 2:3 on the talk page, even if we assumed mere numbers were any measure of consensus.

See also Buprenorphine/naloxone edit war. There is also an edit war at WP:MEDMOS where QuackGuru has imposed Price-supportive text in the guideline. I should stress that in none of these venues, have I engaged in any edit warring.

So this is the background. The leads and bodies of most of our drug articles have price information, in defiance of two policies/guidelines WP:NOT and WP:LEAD, and James and a few others at WP:MED will outnumber and edit war with anyone who removes that. Anyone who does so is accused of being a big pharma shill attempting to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia in support of suppressing drug price information.

James is an admin and de facto head of WP:MED, and has single-handedly imposed his personal agenda on drug pricing across Wikipedia. As such he cannot ask inconvenient editors to stop holding him to account. He would prefer the problem went away, no pings, no talk page request, and above with Ozzie10aaaa's request, a clear attempt to silence an opponent.

In contrast to James's edit warring on multiple venues, I have engaged in detailed discussion about the many flaws in James' approach. We have a clear case of original research being performed by an editor who's article statements are unsupported by the source, who lacks even a basic understanding of statistics, who cherry picks prices from databases in order to present low-developing world price and expensive US pricing, and who just plain makes big mathematical mistakes. James has corrected a few of the mistakes and errors and has recently conceded that even the concept of a "wholesale cost" is complicated -- this is from an editor who juxtaposed wholesale and retail prices in articles without indicating so. James will happily juxtapose a price from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo in 2014, claiming this price reflects the whole "developing world", with a price for a different drug in the US in 2019. And he will make such egregious accounting errors while quoting numbers to four significant figures of "precision".

Wrt "Colin and the Videos", that didn't work out so well for James and his supporters. WP:MED deviated strongly from being part of a community-edited text-based encyclopaedia, which is what Wikipedia is. James secretly engaged with a commercial provider of medical student training videos for content, and added them to hundreds of articles, often without using any edit summary. James edit warred with anyone who removed them or questioned them. Does this sound familiar? In the end all 300+ videos were removed from Wikipedia, when the wider community expressed its strong rejection of commercial uneditable article-as-video content. Colin°^Talk 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

WPMED Break 1

• Support indef block Whatever else, I'd support an indefinite block of Colin until and unless they agree to stop pinging Doc James, and stop posting on their talk page except for essential messages. It's well accepted that such requests should be respected, and failing to do so is WP:harassment. Anyone who will ignore such basic decency is not welcome on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I should clarify in case there is any confusion that such basic decency does not prevent people continuing to discuss problems with article content. Such discussions should normally happen outside editor talk pages anyway. If an editor has asked not to be pinged, they cannot complain they were not pinged and so were not aware of the discussion.

  It's often unnecessary to ping editors to discussions anyway, that risks WP:Canvassing concerns. If an editor is already aware of the discussion, there are plenty of ways they can follow the discussion such as watch lists or simply checking out the page regularly. And the fact they were already aware generally means it's expecting they will do so, and not rely on pings even in case where there's no barriers to pings.

  As for concerns over editor behaviour, as I've said before if it reaches the stage where someone is asking you not to post on their talk page it is unlikely your messages are helping. If someone starts banning everyone who posts on their talk page with concerns, it's fairly obvious this won't end well for them.

  Further such bans do not preclude you being a case to an appropriate notice board like AN or ANI (and notifying them of the thread is one reasonable exception to the ban), likewise with an arbcom case. You can explain in your discussion that you cannot try to discuss the matter further with the editor concerned since they've banned you, so editors will taken that onboard when considering whether you've adequately tried to deal with the matter via discussion before bringing it to AN//I or arbcom.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, could you not just have written: "Colin, I think you should stop pinging James and writing on his talk page". You might get the response you are looking for if you ask nicely. Since when did we start indef blocking people before asking them first? -- Colin°^Talk 10:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, all the time, if they are being a dick. Don't be that guy, eh? Guy (help!) 11:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: By definition you were already asked to stop pinging and stop posting on their talk page otherwise we wouldn't be here. If this was just an accident, e.g. because you always ping someone and forgot about the request not to ping a specific editor then sure a firm but polite reminder would be enough. But we're here because you not only ignored the request, you thumbed your nose at it "As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name." I find this disgusting. There is absolutely zero reason you need to ping them. You're an experienced editor. You must know full well you can mention someone without needing to wikilink their name or do something else which would cause a ping. I'm guessing you even know there are simple ways you can effectively wikilink a name without pinging if you really need to do that. So there's zero reason why you would believe you need to continue to ping someone after they've told you not to other than your apparent view you have some right to annoy someone with behaviour that you can easily stop and which provides no benefit to anyone in the discussion. It's not the first time I've supported a block for such disgusting behaviour and sadly it probably won't be the last. The fact you needed to be taken to ANI before you would stop such disgusting behaviour israc on you. Not me. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you wrote the above rant one hour after I wrote the message below, that I would not ping Doc James. Talk about rubbing someone's nose in it. It is clear I got the ping thing wrong. Nobody else asked me not to ping him. The first I hear about it being an issue is this AN/I and your threat to indef block me. You might not have noticed, that James and I have been having a conversation for several days, where he makes some points and I make some points and we continue. I had no idea it was such a big thing. -- Colin°^Talk 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: Well I knew you'd already agreed to stop pinging Doc James otherwise I wouldn't have said "before you would stop such disgusting behaviour is on you". You chose to reply to me saying I should have just approached you directly. I chose to reply explaining why there's no reason I needed to approach you directly because you were already approached. I don't really give a damn about who else did or did not approach you. As an experienced editor, there is absolutely zero reason you needed someone else to approach you before you would obey a reasonable request.

I'm somewhat unsure what happened with the talk page thing since it's an old request and I can't be bothered looking into the history. But for the ping thing, no one has said you could not reply to Doc James in discussions elsewhere wherever they occur. You're perfectly entitled to. (Subject to the normal norms of discussion.) You're perfectly able to continue to do so without pinging Doc James. No one has faulted you for pinging Doc James before you were asked not to ping. As I said, if you simply forgot about the request, then okay fine. But you explicitly said you would not follow it. Whether because you were lazy and couldn't be bothered making a minor change to your behaviour or worse reason, I don't know and don't really care.

It did not have to be a "big thing" if you had just obeyed the requests rather than thumbing your nose at them. You acknowledge you got this wrong, but don't really seem to understand why.

It's because that's how we operate on wikipedia as in much of the world. We treat each other with respect as much as possible. So if someone says "hey can you stop doing this" and they have a reason why they want it to stop (stay off my talk page and stop pinging me don't need explanations just like don't call me X, don't call me he/she etc), and it's trivial for you to do so and there's no benefit to anyone for you to not do so, then you do so. You may forget. That's fine. Explicitly refusing to do so is another thing completely.

Nil Einne (talk)

• For the record: I agree not to ping Doc James and post on his talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support an indef block or rather a temporary block per what Nil Einne stated. It's not just a pinging a matter. There's also the matter of not posting on Doc's talk page except for essential messages, and not making Doc feel harassed in any other way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 Reborn, what are you expecting me to do or say to avoid such a block? -- Colin°^Talk 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just don't do anything that others will consider harassment. Nil Einne has already addressed this above. I've been harassed plenty, and those who harassed me were admonished and/or sanctioned because others saw it as clear-cut harassment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I hope you did not intend to compare Colin's policy-based arguments on policy and guideline talk pages to the type of harassment you have endured in article editing. There is an enormous difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• support a temporary block per Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support designation of WikiProject Medicine as "Wikipedia friendly space" WP:5P4 says that Wikipedia is a civil place for everyone to enjoy. In any difference of opinion it is possible for everyone to express themselves in positive way. The conflict which I see here is that Colin has a style of personal expression which incorporates negative sentiment. Communities which want to permit negative sentiment can do so, and communities which wish to disallow it should be able to do so also. I wish for the community of contributors at WikiProject Medicine to designate it as a positive sentiment environment or Wikipedia Friendly Space.

Sentiment is unrelated to the validity of claims. Colin raises good points and is commendable for their creativity, insight, and correctness on many points. However, communities in public spaces should regulate how much negativity they allow into their environment. If individuals use negativity beyond the welcome allowance, then the community of that space should have encouragement to remove that negativity and direct the user at its source to another forum which has social capacity to benefit from their way of communicating.

WikiProject Medicine is a public facing forum which is unusual in Wikipedia for high activity and attracting all sorts of new users. New users thrive in environments which are more positive. In general, more people enjoy contributing to environments which are positive most of the time. Please look at Colin's choice of words with me. Here is WikiProject Medicine right now - special:permalink/929382711. Here are some phrases which Colin uses in this present version which I assert would trigger robotic sentiment analysis detectors for negativity, and which anyone could see by searching for strings in that page -

• just plain incorrect
• problems with our use
• wrong on so many levels
• rather embarrassing to WP:MED
• This is your problem
• I think you have forgotten
• James is misusing
• it is just nonsense
• wrongly claims
• usually inappropriate to use
• the sort of thing we shouldn't do
• The problem
• you are just acusing me
• It wasn't intended
• nobody else does this
• there is no consistency
• falsely claims
• more complicated than you want
• your statements are very unclear.
• If you won't accept this
• over-simplified like you do
• no reasonable way
• I know you wished
• you are being wilfully obtuse
• You ignore
• you are not acknowledging
• you cherry-pick
• you had an agenda
• WP:MED intends to silence any criticism
• It doesn't work
• which is wrong
• it would be good for you to admit you made a mistake
• You still haven't found any
• falsely claims
• isn't what I asked for
• you don't understand database copyright
• are not allowed to do that
• failing to present anything coherent

I take the position that Colin could have expressed everything they had to say without communicating in a way that people and bots can readily detect as negative. Many of these words are negative and fail to contribute to a positive friendly environment. If we make the shift to positivity then that should apply to everyone. The remedy for further use of negativity should be an invitation to post in a place other than WikiProject Medicine. I encourage everyone to be as friendly and supportive as they can everywhere in Wikipedia in all circumstances. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry I find your approach interesting, though must admit it seems a little naive and utopian to expect only positive sentiment in an environment where editors and admins might misbehave and are open to criticism. I can see it working for some photography forum and indeed the "Photo Challenge" on Commons I set up was deliberately designed to only permit positive sentiment vs the critical environment that Featured Picture and Quality Image can encourage (photographers nominate their works for FP/QI and other editors agree or explain why they disagree, sometimes quite harshly). The Photo Challenge only allows positive 1/2/3-value support votes or to give a 0-value "love" vote. It has been a great success and run now for many years.

Negativity and chasing away new editors can be achieved while still using neutral or even positive (wrt one's own edits and views) language. This is particularly so when an editor is in a position of power over another editor. Their position is already the content on Wikipedia and a slow revert war is all that is required to retain it. Can you consider that each revert or each out-of-hand dismissal of another's argument is negativity too? Perhaps that's too subtle for your robot? What if every time you saw a revert diff, it spoke out to you as a "f**k off"? What if every time a policy concern was raised and dismissed without addressing the concern, it spoke out to you as rude "meh".

In the diff list below, James responded to the removal of prices with "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored". This positive language. Yay! We are not censored! Further James adds "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value". While that language sounds positive, James is clearly trying to frustrate the discussion. What on earth have prices in US commercials got to do with Wikipedia content? It is an odd tangent. James goes on to say "industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population" are I hope you are getting a feeling here about what James might be suggesting wrt Ronz's price-removing actions. "One opinion was in each direction" is the happy positive edit summary that went along-side another edit-war revert from James. Remember to speak out a rude interjection of your choice that went with the revert. The interaction concludes with the thoroughly dispiriting "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you", after James recruits a body to support him. But really, the most negative language I have read on Wikipedia for a long time, language that is chilling is the following statement from Doc James to me: "That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia is concerning". What does your emotion robot make of that? -- Colin°^Talk 19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: There is a discourse about systemic tone policing in academic publishing about automated moderation. The best way to communicate about this would be to build out Wikipedia article's on this and related topics. Some of these points you raise are about principles and limits of the field, so I will not address that, because eventually we just have to edit wiki articles to frame the conversation.

As you might expect, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and the rest of the online moderators invest heavily in this, arguably into the US$billions. Those three were at wikiconference:2019 speaking about moderation and I would be in favor of Wikipedia increasingly intermingling with AI support from them and others. We do not have Wikipedia articles on this built out nor do we have much Wikipedia policy development.

Probably how tone bots would work in Wikipedia is to look at someone's entire Wikipedia edit history and count every instance of negative tone then score everyone based on percentage of negative interactions. Some people get more negative with other users or in certain contexts ("hounding"), like for example, some people are good editors but go out of control on politics or whatever overstimulates them. The bots detect that too. All of this analysis is based on other theories about what the optimal tone is for a conversation. As the theory goes, in general, communities like Wikipedia operate with more user engagement and satisfaction when public places have positive tone, and in general, the more private places have membership which can self sort to for individuals to choose the tone they want for their own environment.

You raise different test cases - anyone could discuss any of these, but the entire process happens at a societal scale and not just in Wikipedia. The tone we enforce in Wikipedia would be set with data and research from the entirety of the rest of the Internet. Whatever comes out of that will be more precise than any human review process. To me the more important part of this for the Wikipedia community is not focusing on the fringe of the tech, but considering how we want to apply moderation in the usual case. Our usual case in Wikipedia is that we have public forums and sometimes people say something which obviously triggers the negativity meter. When this happens, the bot steps in and suggests that they edit their message before posting. The normal case is that the bot will be correct for what it does, which is to match the Wikimedia community's tone expectations, and to be forward in saying that everyone can say what they want but they have to say it in a way the community deems nice.

In WikiProject Medicine I would not want a sharp line right now about individual posts, but I think we as humans could say that we all have an expectation of friendly tone in WikiProject Medicine. Perhaps users who have 100+ readily identifiable uses of negative tone could be put on notice to conform. Wikipedia moderation in the past has mostly been about single incidents, or sets of single incidents, but early experiments in tone are probably going to be about user history over years. I would not want to single anyone out, but in general, yes, I think tone is something that we can objectively set on a dial from 1-100, and that WikiProject Medicine should be set to about 95% positive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, if you examine the article Tone policing in actually explains how a tone argument is fallacious. I appreciate there is a wider point you want to make, and this isn't really a great venue for that, but the main thing is that by focusing only on tone, you ignore the elephant in the room: the polite bully who's pressing of the revert button does not register on any AI robot and whose declaration that "more people agree with me" sounds neutral but is in fact a "gave over mate, you lose" and not at all in keeping with our culture. You pull me out and quote me above, yet choose not to analyse James. Guy suggests that Wikipedians have to be tough with the quacks. I do wonder how trying to get a bully to stop being a bully can be done in a way that makes the experience enjoyable for the bully. There's ultimately going to be some disappointment, shame and community negativity (anger, outrage, frustration) against someone who edits in that way. I don't think you've been examining article edits or whether an editor is consensus-building or edit-warring in their approach. -- Colin°^Talk 12:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block — User:Colin has long-standing issues with civility, dismissing valid arguments brought forth by other users, while trivializing dissent of his positions. In response to an earlier incident I authored the essay WP:ORACLES due to his behaviour of WP:BLUDGEONing the process through sheer volume of text, and intensity of editing different articles, as well as stating that he alone was able to interpret community consensus (or at least invalidating and ignoring all attempts to discuss what consensus had existed up until his engagement).
  In short this is a case of a user with a very firm grasp of policy and who knows where and when to call for backup — but with massive issues with WP:CIVILITY and unclear editing goals (WP:NOTHERE). He does not respect WP:BRD, often coming to issues lacking knowledge — but with very strong opinions — acting by changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once, totally ignoring implied consensus. He may once have been a positive force on Wikipedia, but is today, and has been for a longer time — nearly without fail — disruptive per WP:POINTY. His style of editing is a danger to any collaborative work on this encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• CFCF just hold on a second. Where does "He does not respect WP:BRD" come from? Where does "changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once, totally ignoring implied consensus". "His way of editing"? Who on earth are you talking about? What article content have I been abusing? What "hundreds of articles at once" edit have I ever made in my entire existance? Have you got the wrong AN/I section? If you are going to make such outrageous claims, I think we need some diffs. -- Colin°^Talk 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin — Rest assured no mistake has been made — my position is represented above. I and many other editors are unable to find the time or motivation to respond to repeated requests for clarification. I will not elaborate my position further, doing so would act to show WP:BLUDGEONING in action, engaging in a deliberate timesink. I believe interested parties will be able to see the issues for themselves. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really expecting you to clarify because the statements you made about me are 100% made up. I must object most strongly to someone making claims, in support of a indef block, that are outright fabrications, and then "unable to find the time or motivation" to respond when called out on it. Yes, interested parties will make of that as they wish. -- Colin°^Talk 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CFCF, your statements about Colin are not even remotely aligned with fact; I suggest you strike a lot of content above, or produce diffs. I understand that you strongly supported Doc James position in the last effort that was overturned by a community-wide RFC (the videos), and I understand that keeping up with Colin's policy-based reasoning can be time consuming, but your personal views are unsupported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia — For the record, I fully stand by my previous statement(s). My motivation for not providing diffs is that the behaviors in question are fully apparent as is. I neither wish for WP:BLUDGEONING to succeed by engaging in nitpicking over exactly when and where uncivility occured, nor do I wish to be provoked into saying something other than what I intended. Please respect that the above comments represent my opinion and that I will neither change them nor will I elaborate further. Anyone who is interested will be able to read all relevant discussions. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to accept and respect them as your opinion, but it would also behoove you should this case eventually appear before the arbs to be aware of previous arb findings about casting aspersions, and to take greater care moving forward to supply diffs for such accusations. To my knowledge, those diffs do not exist, and repeatedly accusing an editor who consistently argues (correctly) policy of BLUDGEONing a group of editors who do not argue policy and DON'THEARTHAT is to ignore WHY Colin's well reasoned posts have become lengthy by necessity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, CFCF was and remains extremely vocal in his support of Doc James wrt the Osmosis videos and the more recent VideoWiki. He gets particularly upset whenever the essay I wrote, WP:NOTYOUTUBE, is cited, using language towards me that would certainly trigger Bluerasberry's negativety robot. The "changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once" might be referring to when James, tail between his legs, removed all 300+ videos from Wikipedia, after he lost his own RFC on the matter. It seems that CFCF has still not forgiven me for that. -- Colin°^Talk 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, in my experience any accusation of censorship in Wikipedia is almost always POV-pushing. I find that disturbing. Guy (help!) 09:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy I'm a bit confused by the location and indent of this reply of yours. I'm don't think you are referring to the comments/replies by CFCF but rather to my comment much further up, where James accuses me (and others) of censorship in supports of industry evildoings. Could you clarify please, because it might look the "I find that disturbing" was a concern about me. If you want to move your comment to below my quote of James above, then that would make more sense, and you can delete this comment. -- Colin°^Talk 11:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose block – Colin said they'd stop pinging and posting on the talk page, so there's no need for a block to prevent that. It seems all sides of the debate have made some comments that were uncivil, and everyone should tone it down. I'd support civility warnings but I don't see evidence that a block is necessary to prevent any ongoing disruption. – Levivich 19:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block. As I said below, a 2-way fight between "Block Colin" and "Topic Ban Doc James" is not going to solve the problems that people suggest underlie all of this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block. We don't block long-term editors on the say-so of people who have a dog in the fight, or indeed in one case a COI. Indeed, even though Colin shouldn't have made the rather silly ping comment, it looks frankly pathetic bleating for an indef block of a 14-year editor with a clear block log on the basis of "too many pings". I'd suggest you go away and self-reflect on that particular idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about "too many pings", but about long-standing and repeated uncivil behavior from the editor in question. The issues could certainly have been expressed more tersely above, but in one sense this is an issue of "editors that do" versus an "editor who complains". Liken the lack of a bulleted list of negative actions to WP:NOTSOCIAL. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CFCF I hope you did not intend to imply that Colin is an "editor who complains" and not an "editor who does", as his article content and guideline contributions do not match that description. The Medicine Project should be eternally grateful for the guidelines and articles it does have as a result of Colin's efforts, as his guideline contributions greatly facilitate the work we all do. Further, if his current activity on Wikipedia is similar to mine, I can say we would both be writing a lot more content today were it not for the current environment on WPMED that is not conducive to generating article content. (Writing content to FA standards only to see them degraded for non-policy-based reasons is offputting.) At any rate ... Whether intended or not, the ad hominems need to stop if we are to move forward. Colin is a DOer; I invite you to peruse this data I put together last year. I can add you if you wish. (My sneaking suspicion is always that if any of the editors entering non-policy-based logic to guideline discussions were to write and maintain a few FAs, they might see things in a different light, as did all of the original framers of the WPMED guideline pages.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz asked me if I was trolling and restored Colin's comment that was not about improving the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've had such unpleasant experiences with Colin that he is one of only three editors that I have banned from my user talk page. I also consider DocJames to be a wiki-friend. So those are my cards on the table. I'm going to make myself neutral about the indef proposal, but I do think that there has been a long-standing feud that involves multiple editors. As best I can tell, early editing about med-related articles was done by some editors who have also been very active with featured content, and who write content very well indeed. Gradually over the years, WP:MED came into existence, with a different group of editors as the most active ones. Over time, these have become two opposing camps. I'm not a regular participant at WP:MED, but I dip in and out of it from time to time, because my editing interests are more at the basic science end of it, and I've tried to stay as neutral as I could whenever I found myself in between the two clans. Roughly a year-and-a-half ago, I spent some time trying to help out at Dementia with Lewy bodies, at SandyGeorgia's request if I recall correctly. (See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 2.) By the time of Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 3#"Should" and similar language, I became so exasperated with Colin that I just walked away from the page. Something that I think is important to understand about this dispute, as a whole, is that MEDRS and the like were developed over time by the most active editors at WP:MED, but it was absolutely not a "walled garden". As far as I can tell, and I think I do know enough about it, all of the discussion at WP:MED was open to whoever wanted to participate, and was driven by WP:Consensus. And it led to some very useful guidelines for standardizing our medical content. Unfortunately, the earlier FA-oriented editors disagree with a lot of those guidelines what newer editors see as best practice for med articles, and regard the WP:MED editors as upstarts who ruined what we had in the good old days. But I don't think the FA editors were excluded by WP:MED. Rather, they just didn't want to engage with others who disagreed with them. And here we are now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Tryptofish, That is a very odd history indeed. WP:MED predates Doc James and in its best years was de facto headed by User:Jfdwolff. It supported a collaboration between lay and qualified editors. It produced several featured articles, the best of which involved lay and professionals working together.I have written one myself, which was copyedited by one of our literature editors (sadly no longer with us) and reviewed on my request by a world expert in the subject. Those days involved collaborative editing the like of which todays's WP:MED editors know nothing. WP:MED also produced the MEDMOS and MEDRS guidelines but you get your facts wrong there. I polished MEDMOS and promoted to guideline status. MEDRS, I created and worked with others to push to guideline status. These are not the products of the newbies. Far from "the earlier FA-oriented editors disagree with a lot of those guidelines" it was those editors who created and nurtured them. They were interested in quality and sources and readability and Wikipedia being the best source for medical content on the internet. Which it was.

Then the edit warriors took over. They were only interested in fighting the alt-med people, and only interested in reverting contributions that failed to be perfect in their eyes. It didn't matter if the contributor was a subject expert or a troll. Revert. Revert. They weren't interested in writing articles and reading books, but just in inserting factoids into pages based on whatever PubMed paper they last read. The quality of content deteriorated and no more featured or quality output was produced by WP:MED. Our medical articles became random repositories of incoherent nonsense. The chief of these factoid-inserter serial-reverters is James, but Jytog was certainly up there at the top. Praised for keeping Wikipedia clear of alt-med woo, these editors could do no wrong and got blind support. Tryptofish, I quoted you above ("I will oppose any efforts to treat the WT:MED editors as wrong or bad.") stating that you refused to countenance a bad word said against any WP:MED editor. And I do recall you and James being among the most vocal supporters of Jytog when he, well, took things a bit too far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe both of you opened your arms to any future prospect of this warrior returning to the fold. Someone who sought out the phone number of an opponent and phoned them to harrass them in person.

Admins here are welcome to view the history at the dementia articles Tryptofish mentions. You might also wish to compare the state of the article before User:SandyGeorgia started improving it, and after. Sandy is one of the old school, literate, quality-focused, editors. I believe the article history will well display Doc James edit warring and some current members of WP:MED tendentiously blocking progress with rather silly and unique interpretations of our policies. We are where we are because the edit warriors and illiterate factoid inserters won, and rule. And folk like Tryptofish defend them like brothers. Today, well, Wikipedia is no longer the best source of medical information on the internet. There are many other excellent websites, whose content is readable and coherent, and which don't inconvenience their readers with essentially random dollars and cents prices of drugs, in some bizarre effort to stick the finger up at Big Pharma.

Readers may be surprised that I too once counted Doc James as a wiki friend. I too fell into the "he's on our side" mentality, without really examining his edits. When he visited London, I took James and his wife out for dinner to a vegetarian Indian restaurant, and we all had dosas. But since those days, James edit warred away a neurologist who was in good faith trying to improve our epilepsy article, an article that James had taken ownership of and, frankly, a topic of which he is profoundly ignorant. James collaborated with a private company to produce more than 300 articles-as-videos and then inserted them into our articles without even an edit summary. Any editor who queried the content of these videos was edit warred into submission. Many at WP:MED repeatedly told frank lies about the videos being editable by the community (they could be cropped, that's all). At an RFC, the community clearly voiced its displeasure at our project being commercialised and content taken over by a private third party. James removed all 300+ videos. My campaign to remove the videos, and my essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE, has, shall we say, not made me many friends at WP:MED, though a few of the medical experts who had pointed out factual problems with the videos were supportive. I don't suppose I'll be on many WP:MED Christmas card lists this year, but, hey, when ever any one of them cites WP:MEDRS, I get my reward. -- Colin°^Talk 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And that's a good illustration of what I was talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish, yes, pretty much your entire history above of how WPMED developed, relative to FA people, is incorrect; those who wrote most content, including the GA and FA writers, were the same group that helped develop and strongly supported the project guideline pages. What you describe as "two opposing camps" isn't entirely accurate either, nor is the idea that you aren't a regular who regularly supports certain positions. I haven't looked up the Dementia with Lewy bodies diffs, but yes, I basically invited anyone and everyone to help, hoping that WPMED could experience again what collaboration felt like versus constantly troll whacking and quack-bashing; my inner Pollyanna came out and I hoped that WPMED could once again be a group that worked together to bring quality content. I quickly found that would not be possible. The turning point for me was when Jytdog behaved miserably towards established and fine article writers, and then a lengthy discussion with another medical editor who intended to install a personal preference over objections from everyone else who weighed in finished derailing the attempt. Although I gave up on that article (indeed, the entire suite related to Lewy Body dementias), dementia with Lewy bodies was intended to show what WPMED might accomplish if they started collaborating, and still today offers a fine start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into a point-by-point back-and-forth. But as for "nor is the idea that you aren't a regular who regularly supports certain positions", I'll quote SandyGeorgia telling me on my user talk page, 31 March 2018: since I don't include you among those contributing to the "walled garden" mentality at WP:MED, I value your opinion. [55]. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on what happened on en-wiki prior to my starting to edit here, and I apologize for any due credit that I did not give, but I think my description of the two camps remains more accurate than the revisionism here. In any case, I think that the proposal below for an RfC on the content is an excellent one – and I look forward to finding out who does and who does not accept community consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No point-by-point, and that is an accurate reflection of my views from one-and-a-half years ago, which have changed. On the two camps, I am not seeing where you would put many editors, like WAID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear that I do not think that everyone can be put into one of the two camps. Of course not. As of the time you said that, anyone can see my approach to med-related editing at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 2. And I really have not edited any med-related articles since then, nor have I commented in any significant way at WT:MED. About the only significant thing since then is that I strongly criticized Colin for saying at Commons that en-wiki editors are "racist". Is that what makes me an active partisan at WP:MED? Or was it that I said that I was sad to see Jytdog leave Wikipedia? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish To hopefully avoid any further unpleasantries of digging into old history, let me first apologize for my lack of manners, and thank you sincerely for the considerable effort you did provide at the DLB article. I greatly appreciate it, Wikipedia is better for your effort, and I meant what I said in 2018. Second, it would be unproductive to produce diffs of very old history, so I offer this: I am willing to and will be happy to continue to consider you as an impartial and neutral participant at WPMED discussions. Going forward, if I see you lodging a "me-too, pile on" commentary in favor of editors who bully and invariably provide support in one direction, I will bring it to your attention and hope we can discuss it with mutual respect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you very much for that! I'm delighted to read it, and of course I welcome helpful feedback. I really hope that other editors in this dispute will take that as the right posture to take, going forward. If there is anything that can be a cure for opposing camps, or for the perception of opposing camps, it is indeed discussion with mutual respect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I really don't think it is helpful to your case to refer to an instance where you went over to Commons, attacked me based on your own confused interpretation of events and personal animosity, and then went back to Talk Jimbo to try to hire a mob to attack me back on Commons. I never said en-wiki editors are "racist", but facts don't seem to matter in this AN/U. One particular editor made a racist comment. That event made you not only an apologist for bullies at WP:MED but also for someone who made a racist comment about one of Commons' Indian admins who didn't have English as his first language. I suggest you drop this and take Sandy's advice about being careful where you lend your blind support. -- Colin°^Talk 17:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not lend support blindly, and I saw what I saw. And if discussion with mutual respect is the right posture, then that comment is the opposite. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You explained that you were quite ignorant of WP:MED history, but regardless still felt my description was "revisionist". Nothing respectful about that Tryptofish. And nothing respectful about lying about what I said on Commons and making folk here think that I claimed they were racists. I didn't and saying "I saw what I saw" is kind of an "there are alternative facts" response. Trypto, I think you are digging a hole and suggest take your animosity towards me and go watch something nice on telly instead. -- Colin°^Talk 18:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Before I "go watch something nice on telly", I feel the need to set the record straight. There was a heated discussion at Commons about a possible de-adminship, with a lot of editors from en-Wiki coming over to comment. Here at en-Wiki, I posted this: [56]. Not exactly hiring a mob, was it? Meanwhile, at Commons, one of two editors who had been dubiously blocked posted this: [57]. I would call that a blocked editor venting, and maybe showing some lack of cross-cultural sensitivity, but absolutely not racist. Colin said this: [58]. Sounds like it's directed broadly at en-Wiki editors, doesn't it? I replied this: [59]. Colin, to some extent, clarified here: [60], and here: [61]. The so-called personal issues refer to Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 3#"Should" and similar language. I replied: [62]. Judge for yourself. After reflecting, I also decided to say this: [63]. How did Colin react? Here at en-Wiki, he posted this: [64]. I replied with this: [65], and this: [66]. Colin's response was to try to get me blocked at Commons: [67], which went nowhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Allright, friends, we've all been heard-- time to hit the reset button.

Could we simply conclude that a good deal of the unresolved conflicts center on the perception of past support of bullying behaviors from bullying editors, and pile-on or cabalistic behaviors in talk discussions, while ignoring lack of civility and resulting in a decline in content contributions and productive discussions? Can we all agree to be on the lookout for those and curb them in the most egregious offenders? I am far more concerned with the consistent pilers-on who blindly add me-too support and never cite policy and do not seem to have a minimal understanding of same. More concerning, we have editors who haven't digested policy adding content. Could we all work on that aspect together ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, you are of course right. I will do so shortly, but first, I feel that I need to defend myself from something just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood, but perhaps you would be willing to open up your talk page to Colin so that you two could discuss this thoroughly off ANI? We have bigger fish to fry, and we don't need to have the "good guys" going at each other. A good step in the right direction would be to give Colin the possibility of working this out with you on user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but no. I look forward to the content RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to fill in some data for Trypto:

• Colin started MEDRS in Nov 2006: [68]
• DavidRuben promotes to guideline status in Sep 2008: [69]
• If you look at editors in the interim, you find at least seven eight (corrected to include Graham Beards) FA writers: Eubulides (talk · contribs · logs), Tim Vickers (talk · contribs · logs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · logs), Colin (talk · contribs · logs), OrangeMarlin (talk · contribs), Axl (talk · contribs) and MastCell (talk · contribs · logs). Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), also an FA writer, is involved early on as well. (My apologies to anyone I missed!!} I can't easily list GA writers, as there is not to my knowledge an equivalent page to WP:WBFAN for easily locating them, but most of the medical content editors are there, and certainly WhatamIdoing, Arcadian, Wouterstomp and Stevenfruitsmaak at minimum were also top medical content editors. Just pointing out that the division is not as you laid out. The division is along the lines of those who cite policy and those who don't or can't, and that the guidelines pages were heavily written by top content producers. Notice how many of these early, top content medical editors are gone now, or do not go near WP:MED, and keep in mind that I still hear from some of them and know how they feel about the current environment. I'd also add that WPMED does not have this number of top content producers today: the emphasis has changed from content production to whack-a-mole quackery control, altering articles for the purpose of translation, and promoting off-Wiki ventures like videos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, you forgot Graham Beards (talk · contribs), virus expert, and true collaborator. -- Colin°^Talk 18:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin Oh, dear me, dear me, yes certainly, Graham Beards is an expert and true gem in content creation and behavior. But I saw Graham87 (talk · contribs · logs) (the other expert and editor extraordinaire in accessibility issues) in the early MEDRS editing, not Graham Beards ? My apologies if I missed the infamous poop doctor :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, I defer to Jimbo on our handling of quacks: WP:LUNATIC. It is necessary to be firm because they have strong vested interests, which they very often refuse to accept. We are in a situation precisely analogous to evolution/creationism in the early days of Wikipedia. We should not subscribe tot he fallacy of "different ways of knowing" and should not treat in-universe sources such as quackery journals as equivalent to reality-based medical journals. Example: acupuncture as currently practised is largely a creation of Mao Zedong, who harnessed local superstition and then current disinformation techniques to build a mythos entirely uinsupported by any articulable scientific principles. The question of how to separate fact from fancy was settled in the 17th Century, but we are experiencing an unprecedented upsurge in assertions of Truth™ against fact. The word fact only came to have its meaning at the start of the scientific revolution, it has always been bitterly opposed by those whose religious beliefs are not supported by fact, and alt-med is a quasi-religious belief system. Guy (help!) 09:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I really don't have the answer of how to deal with quacks and their POV pushing. It does seem as though the whack-a-mole approach is having negative behavioural consequences for how some editors deal with other editors, particularly ones they haven't come across and already respect. Bluerasberry above asks for "a civil place for everyone to enjoy", but this does not seem compatible with the approach taken wrt quacks and infects the approach taken with others. I would ask both of you to study the diff-list interaction below on ivermectin. While we don't have guidelines on avoiding negative language, we do have guidelines on edit warring, on article ownership, on working towards consensus, on what consensus is, and on sourcing supporting article text. Such guidelines are not contentious. James was clearly doing a slow edit war. He added the drug price, without seeking consensus, but expects others to achieve consensus to remove it -- this is a very typical pattern. On the article talk page, Ronz was arguing based on policy, while James was stating his agenda. Consensus was not achieved. We would like a situation where both parties found something they could agree on. Ronz tried to compromise (by allowing price in body but not lead) but James knew he didn't have to compromise. Once a "I support James" body turned up from WP:MED, James had the numbers. This is against all the wiki guidelines we have. We edit articles by consensus, not by numbers of supporters one can recruit. We do not edit war with good faith editors. I find this bullying, agenda pushing, and slow edit warring with ordinary good faith editors to be far more concerning that whether either one of them used positive or negative language. -- Colin°^Talk 12:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this block proposal. Clearly, Colin had already acknowledged the pingie problem and agreed not to continue pinging Doc James. (Although I find the whole thing odd. Because of the extent to which Doc James involves himself at WPMED, it doesn't seem reasonable for him to expect not to be pinged, but his choice, and I see Colin has already agreed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a non-admin to add comment here, but I am a less experienced editor who is the subject of an effort by Colin to stop Videowiki. Myself, James and Pratik came together for a 6 month push to make the platform Wikipedia compliant and engaging. You can read details elsewhere but at each stage of development and in almost any forum we needed to post, Colin would participate with 1,000+ word comments, links to his essay on his opposition to video, dismissive remarks about the project, hyper-critical remarks about the quality, and belittle stated reasons for the project. Examples can be found in the discussions about a namespace for scripts, templates for offline discussion, even congratulations on a Slate article and minor edits of related files on Commons. Collectively, having an experience and respected editor constantly overwhelm any conversation and critique the project with phrases like, "...boring Siri slide show...", "...better of watching a video created by an Indian government agency...", "...glorified PowerPoint slideshows with tedious robot narration...", "...half-baked "solution" to a problem Wikipedia does not have...", etc... is exhausting and a little frightening. It certainly made me second guess posting in many discussions and it absolutely took much of the enjoyment out of volunteering for the project. Ian Furst (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose block since Colin has agreed to stop pinging Doc James. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block at this juncture. I much prefer the more peaceful solution below suggested by Guy below, which I have supported instead. Colin, a knowledgable and skilled editor, does care passionately about Wikipedia which fuels his conflicts with some medical editors, but in the process he has developed an intense and unhealthy very personalised ego battle with Doc James and a few other editors. Hopefully an RfC will resolve things but a temporary block might be necessary as a last result further down the line. I really don’t know about the drug pricing dispute, first I heard about it was here on this incident board.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strongest oppose. The timing of this report is not accidental – there is an ongoing discussion between Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James on one side and Colin and QuackGuru Guy on the other.[70] It started a couple of weeks ago and looks like it is not going to Ozzie10aaaa's liking. In my view, this report and ban request is a malicious attempt to weaken the opposing side. Note that Doc James did not file this report nor reached out to Colin about suspected harrassment, it's Ozzie10aaaa's initiative. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Kashmiri, I was traveling over the US Thanksgiving holiday and may have missed something. My impression was that QuackGuru is advocating to add pricing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Corrected now (your correction and my post crossed). [71] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia Apologies, my bad. Yes, managed to correct it seconds before you replied :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

oppose block per sensible Boing ---Sluzzelin talk 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on Doc James wrt Drug Pricing

I propose Doc James be topic banned from the topic of drug pricing in articles. Further, editors at WP:MED should accept the long-held consensus at WP:NOT wrt the inclusion of drug prices, and the guideline WP:LEAD that the lead should summarise the body.

As briefly noted above (more diffs can be provided), James has single handedly added pricing to the leads (and sometimes body) of most of our drug articles. He is, AFACS, the only editor doing this, and doing it on a massive scale. He has engaged in edit warring to retain the prices. He has voiced on multiple times that Big Pharma has an agenda to suppress pricing and any editor who removes or discusses removing such prices is engaging in censorship of Wikipedia. James is clearly and openly editing in this area with an agenda and to Right Great Wrongs.

Since our sources do not supply the price information James wants to include (merely incomplete raw data records), he has engaged in original research to invent prices, citing cherry-picked database records, arbitrarily choosing one pill size or formulation over another. He has in many occasions juxtaposed prices for the "developing world" and the "US" in ways that are not comparable or unsupported by the sources (e.g. different drugs, different doses). He continues to support the use of a source that has not been maintained since 2015, and uses it in a way the writers of the source recommend against. He juxtaposes wholesale with retail prices without informing the reader. He presents prices ranges in misleading ways, where the range is an artefact of his method, rather than inherent in the data. He repeatedly claims to our readers that "a" drug has "a" price, when in fact the article covers multiple formulations of a drug, for multiple indications and multiple methods of administration.

The price of drugs is notable on occasion. For example, extortionate price rises when there no competition for a generic version of a drug. Or a very high cost to healthcare providers of new medicines, which are then judged unaffordable and rejected by healthcare bodies or insurance. But the routine inclusion of these essentially random prices, which can vary by factors of 15 depending on methodology chosen by James that day, is not supported by policy. Further more, nearly every price I have looked at, has serious issues with being misleading or even just plain mathematically or statistically wrong. -- Colin°^Talk 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. So there's a content dispute, and you've come here to get administrators to rule in your favor AND shut down opposition to your position. Really really really don't think that's going to happen; a WP:BOOMERANG is far more likely, and how hard it hits would depend on how hard you push this tactic. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, that's not happening. Is there a central RfC on drug pricing? If not, that seems to be the obvious starting point. Guy (help!) 11:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Calton, I didn't "come here to get administrators to rule in my favour". Did you spot the enclosing section where Ozzie10aaaa (who supports Doc James) hauled my ass here to silence an inconvenient critic. Just, for example, who do you think is edit warring on drug pricing? It isn't me.

• I didn't "come here to get administrators to rule in my favour" Baloney. That's EXACTLY what you did, since your long screed is all about how Doc James is wrong wrong wrong on the content and must be stopped, and nothing about behavior -- which is PRECISELY what Ozzie10aaaa's post was about and which behavior you are REPEATING. So spare me.
• who do you think is edit warring on drug pricing?. You. Duh. --Calton | Talk 12:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Calton diffs please? Or please retract that allegation. -- Colin°^Talk 15:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I left a note on Calton's talk page a couple of days ago to say that he had (inadvertently, I was sure) made a false accusation. Colin hasn't edited a single medicine-related article since the question of when and how to describe drug prices started weeks ago, which would make it distinctly difficult for him to be edit warring over drug pricing. Calton replied on my talk page with a blunt refusal and profanity. I was surprised – we all make mistakes, and most of us up own up to it when we discover that we were wrong – but upon looking at his lengthy block log, I'm now quite a bit less surprised. I'm pinging the admins who've blocked and unblocked Calton over the last few years and who have been online during the last day: User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Coffee, User:Drmies, User:JBW, User:RegentsPark, User:BrownHairedGirl, and User:GiantSnowman. Is this what you expect from this user? Can you recommend a way to prevent Calton from being so aggressive and rude towards other editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, WP:NOT has been clear on pricing for some time. James was clearly aware that his edits were contra to policy, because he started an RFC in 2016 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84#Price of medications to get it overturned or an exception made for drugs. James made a number of claims in that RFC that have been clearly shown to be false. His RFC failed, was closed "no consenseus" and editors were reminded by the closing admin of the longstanding WP:NOT requirement: "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing". So, yes, there was an RFC to change policy and it failed. James ignored it and has continued adding and edit warring over this. -- Colin°^Talk 11:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Colin, so that's a "no" then. I have ventured an opinion at the ongoing discussion. Guy (help!) 11:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose As I said earlier, if you want the community to look into some dispute, it helps a great deal if the messenger isn't someone who rubs everyone else the wrong way. When someone takes forever to acknowledge an offensive comparison, and also needs to be taken to ANI before they agree to stop harassing another editor, then there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking into their claims, to see if there's really some reason for a topic ban. I suspect I'm not the only one to feel this way, so it would probably be best if this is dropped deferring to someone else e.g. SandyGeorgia to make this request if they feel it's merited. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is basically a tone argument. So you vote "weak oppose" on an issue that you openly say "there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking into". Way to go! So yes, User:SandyGeorgia can take up this if they want to. -- Colin°^Talk 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• We all volunteer our time here. People can't be expected to spend their timing doing something which they feel likely has no purpose. The way you've handled everything, compounded now by the way you've behaved here makes me thing it will not be productive for me to look into this dispute since I'm unlikely to find anything meriting your proposed course of action. From what I've seen this happens a lot at ANI. People make a very poor request, so even if there is something behind it, no one knows since most people think there probably isn't and even if there is, it's hard to find it. Mostly it results in the request simply being ignored. And normally if I want to point this out I simply leave a comment or approach the editor directly. But in this case, with several people already opposing, I felt it best to suggest a quick death too this proposal. If people waste time on it now and it results in no consensus, it's likely to reduce the chances of anything happening when someone who can actually make a good case proposes it. In the event that this actually starts to get some decent support, I may change my mind. Even if I don't my !vote will count for little. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne to be sure I am understanding this correctly, the suggestion is that I should be the person to request a topic ban for Doc James on pricing? I am not sure why I would be asked to do that, but if that is what you are suggesting ... I believe the proposal is too narrow in scope and a pricing topic ban would not solve the broader problem. Doc James is a mature person, and should be able to recognize on his own, without the need for admin action, that his OWNERSHIP behaviors need to change. Pricing today, videos last time, altering structures of articles for personal preference before that, dumbing down language only so that articles can be translated to other languages before that, altering leads not in compliance with WP:LEAD for years, and so it goes. The problem moves from one issue to another, and pricing is merely the latest example. This behavior is encouraged by his supporters.

If I were to propose something it would be more like:

• Doc James must stop edit warring. Some admin needs to decide how this can be addressed effectively. Even giving Doc James a 1RR restriction would not be effective, because there are enough editors who revert to his position without consensus or discussion.
• Doc James must understand the difference between guidelines and policy. I don't know how admins can make that happen-- open to ideas.
• Doc James should stop installing personal preferences across broad swatches of articles. I don't know how to make this happen; the problem has existed across multiple issues for many years, and the message isn't getting through.
• Previous RFCs, and collaborative discussion, should be respected by all WPMED editors. The 'Me, too' cabalism needs to have a light shone on it.
• A community-wide RFC on pricing should be collaboratively developed, executed, and results respected.
• The OWNERSHIP and cabalistic issues dominating WPMED might improve if more non-MED editors watchlisted, became aware of, and called out these issues when they occur. It's not hard to decipher who does and does not consistently ground their positions in policy and guideline.

Again, in my opinion, the problems at WPMED are entrenched enough and serious enough that we are not far from an arbcase. I suggest that Doc James needs to take seriously the problem with edit warring and using a guideline to install personal preferences, but that there are many more editors than just Doc James that need to clean up their act and stop engaging in non-collaborative behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• oppose....but,Support WP:BOOMERANG per Calton (for Colin)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Ozzie10aaaa: do you mean a topic ban for Colin from drug pricing in articles or something else? Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

it depends on the discussion here, however 'drug pricing' or any other medical subject should not have to descend to incivility towards so many at WP:MED, can't he have a conversation without "unlimited pinging" or name calling as indicated in my original post....please?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I'd like to think it's worth a concerted effort to understand what purpose people think is served by adding pricing, and have started a discussion around that. The idea that this is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overriding canonical policy does have some merit, but there may be a good reason that;'s just not articulated yet and places the inclusion of pricing within the bounds of ordinary policy despite a MOS default preference for exclusion.

For what it's worth, I find MOS to be the weakest of all arguments used in Wikipedia content disputes, notwithstanding that it has caused some of our longest-running and most acrimonious disputes. Guy (help!) 12:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your manner of discussion and in the end I might agree with you(using logic and not bothering Doc James or anyone else) however this ANI is not about content is it?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, no, but neither is it about one or another POV-pusher, it's about established and committed editors frustrated with each other over implementation of their view of consensus, without having an unambiguous shared basis to establish what consensus actually is.

Both sides are acting in a suboptimal manner, but both have sufficient history of good faith contributions that I think we're best served by trying to help them resolve the underlying issue and form some kind of truce based on that. And if one or more won't? Well, then we'll know who is actually a problem. Guy (help!) 11:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

per logic/objectivity you are correct (however due to the admission and evidence of pinging I ask for Colin to get a formal warning and going forward in the event of any future incivility to face a 24 hour block per the aforementioned warning)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Gray-zone content-disputes are not settled over here. see WP:DR. ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ivermectin:

• Prices removed by Ronz with WP:NOPRICES policy cited
• Prices restored by Doc James without intervening discussion -- James is now edit warring.
• Ronz opens talk page discussion.
• Ronz reverts James without waiting for reply. Ronz is now edit warring.
• James explains his position "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored". James plays the WP:NOTCENSORED card.
• James reverts Ronz without waiting for reply. James is now edit warring a second time.
• Ronz makes a further request on talk page. Based on policy he is asking for "sources available to demonstrate such prominence and encyclopedic value"
• James explains "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value"
• James adds "Yes industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population"
• Ronz replies "Neither [source] mentions ivermectin"
• a third opinion comments "The price of this drug is not mentioned in the article, and even if it were mentioned, I doubt it would be one of the "most important points" unless there are sources which show that this drug's pricing is unusually noteworthy. So, I would say that the price should not be in the lead"
• Ronz removes prices again taking 3rd opinion as consensus and lack of sources provided by James supporting price notability for this drug
• a fourth opinion comments essentially saying that pricing is common on drug articles [ed: that's because James put them there] so they supported James
• James adds prices to lead again saying "One opinion was in each direction"
• James adds prices to body
• Ronz asks "How about we remove it from the lede, given the lack of sources demonstrating such weight"
• Ronz removes prices from the lead since there was no reply from James for many days
• James restores prices to the lead. He asks "What is wrong with the sources"
• James explains "Price is present in medical textbooks thus making it sufficiently notable." "Yes prices are a key aspect of a medication." "Every version of the British National Formulary contains the price in the UK."
• Ozzie10aaaa joins the discussion "agree w/ Doc James, pricing should be included"
• Ronz cites the previous RFC "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles"
• Ozzie10aaaa claims "pricing, in this case(article), would benefit the reader...IMO"
• Ozzie10aaaa removes "undue" tags from lead.
• Ronz restores "undue" tags to lead.
• James wins "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you" Having recruited Ozzie10aaaa, who hasn't made any policy-based argument, Ronz is simply outnumbered.
• Ronz cites WP:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"
• James cites Wikipedia:Prices, an essay that James would go onto modifying further to support his POV.
• Ozzie10aaaa agrees with James
• Ronz complains "An essay does not overrule policy. You two know better".

This is typical. And if you open the article today click on the source James uses for the "developing world". You get a broken database search result. There are no prices at all. There are no prices for 2014, which is the "search year" James used. All that edit warring, and the source doesn't even have any prices.

If I search for 2015 I get a "buyer" price for the health service of Costa Rica. The source itself says not to use "buyer" prices (only "supplier" prices) if wanting an international reference price. So James is claiming the price Costa Rica government pays for the drug (after discounts, rebates, bribes, etc) is representative of "the developing world". The price James quotes (12 cents) would correspond to a 15 mg one-off dose for a 70kg patient with strongyloidiasis. But the tablets are 6mg and you can't buy 2.5 tablets. So James has indulged in original research to assume the age/weight of the patient, their particular tropical disease and done some crude maths to give a figure that requires asking the pharmacist for 2.5 tablets. And then he compares the price in Costa Rica in 2015 with the US price in 2019. This is typical. -- Colin°^Talk 14:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, I'm uninvolved but reviewed the lengthy discussions linked here. Seems to me there is a serious problem. First, habitual edit warring is unacceptable, especially from editors of high station like admins, functionaries, and trustees. Second, statements along the lines of "XYZ drug costs between $0.01 and $0.05" are obvious oversimplifications that misinform our readers. Third, we have documented consensus on pricing that is being ignored. Fourth, the problem has spread to a large group of articles through the tendentious efforts of a few editors, apparently primarily DJ. Fifth, prior efforts at resolving or discussing this with DJ have clearly failed. Sixth, this is an example of the walled garden behavior I mentioned above. It needs to stop. I support the tban. – Levivich 13:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In re comments below, I agree the content dispute should be handled through DR like a new RfC if needed, but I see evidence of disruptive editing regarding drug pricing and no indication it will stop despite prior attempts made by other editors. That's a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, and that's why I support the tban. I'd support an official warning of some sort as a lesser measure as well. – Levivich 19:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Question when did the wiki become focussed on pricing in one area? Eneryone in the UK knows that all drugs cost £9. But that doesn't belong in a drug's article. Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Unless the prices themselves are notable, do not include them as WP:NOPRICES says ArkayusMako (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Nothing either way to this suggest yet by this, but now I recall this discussion at WT:NOT [72] that I commented on but that involves those mentioned here, which I see directly applicable for consideration in light of what's being argued here. --Masem (t) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. See no reason to topic ban Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some here seem to be treating this as a discussion on whether drug price should or should not be included in articles, but that is not something to be decided at ANI. That's a content decision, and it needs a content discussion and consensus - perhaps an RfC as some have suggested. That consensus needs to be reached before we should be considering sanctioning anyone from either side of the disagreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee, there is a policy WP:NOPRICES and there was an RFC (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84#Price of medications), which James lost. James is now editing, and edit warring, against policy.That's a behavioural problem. -- Colin°^Talk 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Colin, that's a 2016 discussion and there was significant support and opposition, and consensus can change - and I don't think this specific proposal is the way to resolve ongoing disagreement. If there's still a behavioural problem (which comments from a number of well-respected contributors, yourself included, suggest there is) then it sounds to me as if it goes significantly deeper than this one issue - the drugs prices disagreement sounds like a symptom rather than the core problem. So if behavioural issues need addressing, as others have suggested, I think it should go to ArbCom which can consider in-depth issues in a way that ANI can't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee I get that the RFC had points on both sides, but ultimately it failed to overturn the policy at WP:NOPRICES. You need consensus to overturn policy, and there was no consensus. Yes consensus can change and yes another RFC might be required. It would need to be a bit more truthful this time about the limitations of whatever sources we have, and the complexities of how to explain prices to our readers. Most of the support comments last time were of the "I think prices are useful" variety and "We have great sources for prices here and here" variety. I think a telling factor here is that nobody else than James added the prices, nobody updated them, nobody spotted that most of them were wrong/misleading, and nobody seems to care that the source used stopped being maintained with new prices in 2015. Nobody took the care to check that Hey, that price you say is for the Developing World, is actually just for war-torn DRC in 2014. Or Hey, that price you juxtapose with a wholesale price is actually a retail price. This could be that (a) our readers are not the slightest bit interested in prices in dollars and cents and (b) the editing community is not the slightest bit interested either. But woe betide anyone who dare remove a price. The forces of WP:MED will rise up against these obvious Big Pharma Shills and their censorship and squash them. Anyone who plays the WP:CENSOR card to support their editing on WP has IMO already lost the argument. -- Colin°^Talk 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Colin, that all reinforces my belief that this is too deep and emotive to be settled by a simple ANI discussion. A 2-way fight between "Block Colin" and "Topic Ban Doc James" is not going to solve the problems that people suggest underlie all of this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think the problem here is adding prices when MEDRS-compliant sourcing doesn't seem feasible (plus the WP:NOT policy context noted above); pricing also tends to fail WP:SYNTH. While Doc James might be driving this (a well-meaning effort since cost is a major concern in health care), I don't get the sense he's alone so I'm not sure a topic ban for one editor makes the most sense - perhaps WPMED needs a clear message on this topic (I'm too inexperienced to know the "right" way to do that, but the RFC did not ban addition of prices AFAIK, rather it provided no consensus for their addition in mainspace generally). The notes here about behavior are spot-on; as a physician and biomedical researcher I've been dispirited by the tone of discussions at WTMED - and have no interest in joining one of the factions. The prominent players here (Doc James and Colin in particular) tend to drive forward without consensus (or write a wall of text), quickly invoke old grievances, when we have so much less controversial content that deserves attention. — soupvector (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • soupvector, I haven't found any editor other than James adding prices to our drug articles, or edit warring to retain them (although others may join him in edit warring as diffed above). A few other WP:MED editors have taken "I support James" approach to discussions, but have not actually engaged in any policy or source based argument. The price additions were done on a mass scale and have been left to rot and age. The source used no longer maintained for five years. It seems very clear the community is not interested in adding or maintaining the prices, and until I started examining them, nobody had noticed that nearly all of them are wrong or very misleading to our readers. WP:MED used to prize accuracy and truthfulness in our articles. -- Colin°^Talk 16:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • My perception is that accuracy is prized, but discussions are exhausting because brevity / succinctness / civility get too little attention. Reasonable people might learn to stay away from the drama fest? — soupvector (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Wrt accuracy, not if you examine any of the drug prices. There's more than one way to be uncivil. Edit warring is pretty uncivil. Slipping 300+ videos into Wikipedia with no edit summary is pretty uncivil. Making statements that are obviously false or misleading is uncivil. -- Colin°^Talk 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Colin, perhaps you've forgotten that I came down strongly against the Osmosis videos, and was critical of the videowiki content. I read what you write and I respect nearly everything you do - except for the badgering. — soupvector (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban is an over-reaction, but adding prices (that are not, in themselves, of especial noteworthyness) contrary to the 2016 RfC is a problem, because edit warring invariably follows. If participants wish to change the guideline that that 2016 RfC offers, they are more than welcome to launch another RfC, with the aim of weighing the current consensus or lack thereof. El_C 16:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose — merely as a formality, see my response above regarding support of an indef block of Colin. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Not quite as terrible an idea as indef-blocking Colin (mainly because it's not as ludicrous), but no, that's not going to fly for the same reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wrong solution for the wrong problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but Support something like what SandyGeorgia suggested above Paul August ☎ 15:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not necessary and wrong solution at this juncture — an RfC is the correct and necessary approach for resolution to this drama as this is an intractable content dispute. Doc James does need to be more careful, he should’ve, in my view, sought an RfC at a much earlier stage instead of letting the content dispute escalate. Similar advice really as for Colin. I need to think about the drug pricing dispute and read more arguments for and against to really form any sort of opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support requiring Doc James to obtain consensus before forcing prices to WP articles (whether they are drug prices or any prices). Unsure whether this should be a formal ban or simply a clear recommendation – I prefer trying softer means first. To be clear, this is not a content dispute but a behavioural dispute, with Doc James regularly refusing to seek consensus before forcing his view through. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Doc James is an experienced and trusted user. In my experience, he is also thoughtful and responsive. The idea of a topic ban in an area where he has considerable expertise seems... unsettling. A properly formatted RfC, where interested users can thrash out the issues and arrive at consensus, seems the better way to resolve this - I have no doubt that Doc James would respect the outcome of any such discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is not really about anyone's experience or trust. It is about challenging behaviour and inability to drop the stick and work collaboratively. And yes, I am sure Doc James will respect any outcome, hence I am not keen on a ban and instead support a polite recommendation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

oppose topic ban per sensible Boing ---Sluzzelin talk 23:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A word of caution from a member of the engineering community

I am an embedded systems engineer. If you are making an electronic toy at a rate of 100,000 units per hour and want to reduce your costs by 0.01 cents per unit I am your man. Medicine, not so much. I don't edit medical articles for the same reason that Colin and Doc James don't edit our articles on Cockcroft–Walton generators, Hall effect sensors or Negative resistance. I am very much an outsider in this situation, but I do understand the human aspect of how subject-matter experts like Colin and Doc James end up interacting with ANI and Arbcom.

In the above discussion, I am seeing a lot of discussion about user behavior, the usual "he creates content and has friends, so behavior that would get anyone else a 24-hour block gets a warning" bad attitude, and at least some examples of "Yeah, I know we aren't supposed to rule on content disputes, but dang it, this content dispute is just so darn interesting that I am going to forget the basic rules about ANI and content disputes just this once". I recognize the latter because I have seen it when engineers end up at ANI fighting over engineering content disputes.

My caution is for each of you to watch yourself carefully and only to deal with user behavior, without any hint of ruling on article content.

Nothing I wrote above should be construed as supporting either side on the content dispute or on the behavioral issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to second Guy Macon's analysis here. I also am not taking sides, but do note that the following problems are evident and blatant and occur quickly in the discussion:

1. Legitimate concerns about behavior are, within seconds, quickly swept under the rug because the person who committed the alleged infractions "does good work" otherwise.
2. Discussion veers away from behavior at all, and people start explicitly voting based upon their opinions of content.

We really need to stop this. I suspect that this discussion will go nowhere because the well has already been quite poisoned by the tangents the discussion has gone on. We really should ONLY be focusing on the matter at hand for this board, which is is there a problematic behavior being shown by a user and what should we do to address that. At no time should unrelated matters regarding content (either the content the accused user has contributed, or the content of the articles at the nexus of any dispute) ever really enter into the discussion. If there is competing bad behavior (that is, if the reporting party has also engaged in sanctionable offenses) then we of course should consider dealing with that as well, but we really need to keep content issues out of these discussions, and leave that to article talk pages and the normal WP:DR process. --Jayron32 15:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, the way to stop it is, in my view, to establish what consensus actually is, and then abide by it. Guy (help!) 17:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but this is not the place we establish consensus on content. --Jayron32 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, hence the link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing above. Guy (help!) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only do we not establish consensus on content here, we don't address content at all. This is difficult. What happens when two editors clash, one is 100% right about the content but has misbehaved, and the other has not misbehaved at all but is 100% wrong about the content? Every admin then has a choice; either go to the article and work on getting the content right as an ordinary editor, abandoning the ANI case and obeying WP:INVOLVED, or choosing to comment on the behavior only on ANI with zero reference to the content. It is, of course, OK to use the tools to deal with someone who has introduced content that goes against consensus or violates policy, but the focus must be on the going against consensus or the violation of policy, not about what the content is or is not. This too is difficult. It is difficult because so many editors who get reported at ANI either were reported for the content they added/removed or point to the content they added/removed when confronted with their behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's really 100% in either direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable people may differ on this, but in my personal opinion it should be as close to 100% as possible, and admins should try to stay well inside the boundaries set by WP:INVOLVED rather than standing right on the line that they are not supposed to cross with their toes hanging over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood you. What I meant is that I don't think either editor is 100% right or 100% wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I did misunderstand. Neither being 100% right is most likely true, but I don't feel qualified to say in my own voice that I have examined the evidence and am ready to opine on the content dispute. On the charges of misbehavior I haven't carefully followed the history and examined the evidence, so all I can say is that, if true, either refusing to stop pinging someone or refusing to abide by the result of an RfD should get you a 24-hour block to show you that we don't tolerate such behavior no matter who you are. Note the "if true" disclaimer and that I have not personally examined the evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! We basically agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

My reading of this and the prior debates is as follows:

1. There is a fundamental and unresolved dispute between committed editors on the issue of when to include drug pricing.
2. This has not been resolved despite several previous debates, and is being handled through editing disputes in articles and guidelines, which is disruptive and ineffective.
3. The dispute, and perhaps some other unresolved underlying disputes, has contributed to polarisation and factionalism among an editing community that was formerly much more collaborative.
4. Assessment of behaviour may be conditioned by opinions on the merits of the case being advanced, leading to competing demands for sanctions against members of other factions. This is a symptom of escalation of the unresolved dispute and is not helping. There has been an erosion of the assumption of good faith.

My proposals:

1. The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue (I propose Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing).
2. Editors are requested to formulate a consensus RfC to resolve the underlying issue, which will be published at WP:CENT for wider community input addendum by an uninvolved admin after confirming that the question(s) are neutrally worded..
3. The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances.
4. There is an embargo on adding or removing pricing during this process.

Is this worth trying? Or should we simply start dragging the warring parties apart and applying escalating blocks? Guy (help!) 10:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support I think it's worth trying anything that avoids blocks and/or arbitration, the worst that can happen is it doesn't work and things move on to blocks and/or arbitration anyway, but at least we can then say all other avenues have been exhausted. I do not think drug pricing is the sole reason for the multitude of disputes outlined at length above but it's as good a place as any to start. Fish+Karate 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support This is a reasonable and mature way to handle the problem; I would also add that, in the interest of advancing in a civil manner; and without either a finding of fault or innocence of the above parties in any prior bad behavior, we allow those parties to save face and, if they are willing, participate in that discussion in a civil manner. If the warring parties can agree to this process, I see no reason to consider sanctions (blocks/bans/etc.) against any of them. --Jayron32 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support with one or two uninvolved admins watching over the discussion and using a heavy hand on any misbehavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yes, and I'd like to ask for volunteers. Guy (help!) 00:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support — Although the problem is clearly much bigger than drug pricing, this sounds like worth trying to me, in order to solve this piece of the problem. I would appreciate knowing what SandyGeorgia opinion on this proposal, as well as what Doc James, and Colin have to say about this. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. I was actually thinking about suggesting that this needs to be resolved via a formal RfC. The other suggestions to resolve this dispute above are also good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support in principle — The proposals are necessary, but not sufficient. The issue is bigger than drug prices, and is one of civility and above all WP:BLUDGEONing. Without clear restrictions there is no reason to believe that: 1) WP:BLUDGEONing of a dedicated page will be addressed; and 2) that WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:UNCIVIL behavior will be avoided with regard to other topics. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support however, as I explained over at talk MEDMOS, an RFC on "should we have pricing" could be a failure, with two factions talking past each other, having totally different value systems, and the result just a lottery rather than consensus. And it does't resolve what actually ends up on our articles. For example, de facto, we've had drug pricing for about four years on the majority of our drug articles. And nearly every one of them breaks WP:V, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT. How would you stop editors cherry picking or arbitrarily selecting prices or juxtaposing different kinds of prices of different kinds of things. The community has not managed that in the past four years, so why should the next four be any better? -- Colin°^Talk 16:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Same as any other RfC: You put forward your concerns you mention above in your vote and comments during the RfC for consideration. And the result is what it is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

[The above] comment wonderfully encapsulates the issue at hand — 'There is no acceptable outcome of community decisions apart from the WP:ORACLEs divinations'. — Truly an example of "No true Scotsman" together with BLUDGEONING by repeating the same position in different places. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarified Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My post went through at exact same time as yours without an edit conflict, not had that happen before lol. Maybe we posted literally at the exact same second, it is the twilight zone, lol. Anyway, I do not see where you are getting that exact quote from Carl?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a quote, but a literary interpretation of what is textbook BLUDGEONING. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay. You placed it in “double quotes” instead of ‘single quotes’ which is what made me think it was an exact quote that you forgot to add a wiki diff link to or something.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support as a place to start, and hope that the trends/problems will either cease, or become evident to uninvolved editors so that they can then be addressed without escalating to the arbs. But more clarification is needed in the area of slow edit warring enforcement and civil POV pushing, reverts without consensus, and focus on Carl Fredrik's persistent tone and unwarranted (also diffless) accusations. User:JzG, could you consider the issue that we have seen malformed and poorly written RFCs launched in the past, so a caution NOT to launch a premature RFC may encourage editors to work towards consensus in the pre-RFC phase as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, care needs to be taken in how the RfC is structured. Perhaps both sides of the dispute could carefully draft two statements — for and against — to be posted immediately below a neutral RfC question?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am generally a proponent of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Pro and con RFC system suggested by User:Literaturegeek, but I am doubtful that we're at the point of this large and wide-ranging dispute being reducible to a yes/no question. I'd be very happy to use that format for some of the smaller associated questions (e.g., "Should prices be in the lead if not elsewhere?" with the options being something like "Yes, because readers are interested and it supports translation efforts" and "No, because the MOS says no"). The central dispute is more like "When, whether, and how should we handle prices?", which is not a yes/no question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. As Jayron32 said, I see value in having a venue in which this particular dispute can be resolved that allows all parties to save face. I don't expect it to completely resolve the underlying issues with communication styles, editing styles, or trust, but having a clear direction on content would make it easier for the community to address conduct. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

neutral as the OP will wait and see if this works--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Yes, this is worth trying. However, it looks to me like we're going to need to create guidelines for selection of sources and presentation of information. This is a horribly complicated issue, and a large part of the problem is that it has been presented as if it's easy to identify and present a price for a medication. There's also spillover to non-medical topics as Wikipedia:Prices and it's use demonstrates and documents. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I am confused ... WP:MEDRS is the relevant "guideline for selection of sources" in medical articles, that the proponents of adding pricing seek to change. Please clarify?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There are at least three articles: NOT, MEDRS, and the Wikipedia:Prices essay.

There's spillover to non-medical articles, so NOT might benefit from changes.

Wikipedia:Prices needs to better align with policies/guidelines and whatever results come from the RfC. Hopefully we could get it on track to becoming a guidelines. Otherwise the essay should be place back into user space to avoid confusion.

There's indication from the discussions that specific guidance is needed on what sources should be used for pricing information and how they should be used. Yes, this type of guidance would go into MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't obvious where the discussion should be. MEDRS is more about health claims than about economics, and it only really becomes a health matter when folk conduct original research to present a cost per some arbitrary daily dose or treatment duration. MEDMOS might be more relevant to the issue of whether or not to include price and how to present it, but then the discussion needs opened up to more than just a tiny number of people. Wikipedia:Prices should go in the bin. -- Colin°^Talk 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz; now I understand where you're coming from (that NOT may need to encompass more information on pricing, applicable to more than medical articles). But again, is this really a problem for medical articles when we consider that WP:NOT is policy, WP:MEDRS is the guideline that interprets policy for medical articles, and we shouldn't even be contemplating an essay here ? Yes, move essays that don't reflect policy back to user space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support – worth trying, as good a place as any to start. – Levivich 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not unreasonable for this issue. There are however some undisclosed COIs that muddy the waters, and require at least disclosure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Doc James ... While there have long been unjustified claims of COI in medical editing (Jytdog went after me twice), I have seen the issue that I suspect you are referencing via the editor in question's own wording, have stayed out of it to avoid agida (and because I was traveling), but am concerned as well about what that editor's wording seems to openly state. I assume you have addressed those concerns elsewhere and that the outcome will eventually be contemplated by any admin closing any RFC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have had a fair number of COI claims sent my direction aswell. The request here was simple for disclosure (not a huge bar to meet IMO). Will send to the admins closing any RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the obvious way forward - let's talk it through in a proper, structured manner, without trying to block or TBan any respected, valued and long-term contributors on either 'side'. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ping @WhatamIdoing: to this proposal as they are a very active participant in these discussions, but missing from this proposal. Since most of us appear to be in agreement, it would be good to hear from WAID before this closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. This proposal is really quite normal (albeit more fully explained and better written than most), and IMO there's nothing wrong with it, except that for my nagging sense that it won't work. If you'll let me use the comments near your 20:24 comment as an example, the list of potential problems includes doubtfulness that the traditional form of WP:NOTPRICE retains as much support (project wide) as it had back in the day. If that's the case, then we probably need to have the central NOTPRICE discussion first. Additionally, there's the complication that MEDRS is both relevant (you have to be true to the source, and you can only use decent ones) and irrelevant (the proposed guideline change is to the Manual of Style, which always assumes that you already have a sufficient source in hand). The existing financial information in drug articles does not seem to be our best work. Also, I think that it may be premature to try to sort this out, because people have very different views about what Wikipedia's ideal content would look like, and very different conceptions of how important the financial aspect is. We won't get "there" when everyone's idea of "there" is different.
    It's possible that we would have more success with a series of isolated questions than with a single large RFC. For example, one of the (likely) simpler points to this dispute is whether the price of a drug go in the lead if it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Now, with your long history in the WP:FA process, I think I could safely predict your view about whether anything belongs in the lead if it isn't described more fully elsewhere in the article, but some editors have other views. It might be easier to deal with some of these side questions slowly. And we're still missing an example of a "perfect" description with an unquestionably stellar source for the price of a relatively common drug. We've got a few examples of companies announcing a list price of a zillion dollars for a rare disease, but nothing that's really ideal for a more typical drug. We don't even have people speculating on what might be ideal: Do you want the head of the World Health Organization telling a business magazine that "Generally speaking, providing Combined oral contraceptive pills to a woman costs about US$100 per year in developed countries and US$20 in developing countries"? Or do we want a statistical tome that exactly calculates a theoretical average and uses thousands or millions of actual sales to determine the most common price per region? Do we need that fancy statistical tome when pretty much every source, regardless of quality or precision or even basic reliability, indicates that the worldwide wholesale cost of generic ibuprofen is on the order of two pennies per 200mg tablet, and none of them are claiming that it's two-tenths of a penny or 20 pennies per pill? It'd be easier to solve this problem, or even to formulate a potentially useful RFC, if people were writing (as User:Bluerasberry suggested last month) little "stories" like "If I had <this kind of source> that said _______ about the price, I'd use it to say _____ in ==This section== of the article on Subject". Also, this is bigger than drugs (e.g., cost of medical devices: I wonder how many people here already knew that the patented consumables for glucose meters have such a high profit margin that the manufacturer can afford to give away the device itself for free, just to lock you into buying their proprietary and expensive test strips). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • WhatamIdoing, you accurately predict my take on WP:LEAD :) Would the Epipen example I gave on talk weeks ago not provide a sample starting place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC) PS, I was aware of the glucose meter issue, in fact. I don't see that we have a problem in these cases because MEDRS-compliant sources typically discuss them, and we can work the content into articles as long as we respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. Similar with EPIPEN, which was why I provided that example. Perhaps we need to separate out the issues that are not coming from MEDRS sources, rather than relying on databases and original research to add content to leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I think a well-advertised community-wide RfC about the content side is exactly the right solution. And as for the conduct issues, they will be easier to sort out meaningfully, when we see who does or does not accept community consensus. For those designing the RfC, I'd suggest taking a look at WP:GMORFC. Now that was a far more extreme situation than the one here, so please don't get stuck on that difference. But I think that the general approach of how to structure the discussion, as well as the basic rules for civility, worked very well under those difficult conditions, and some of that might prove useful here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, although Doc James's remarks above indicating his intention to influence the RfC closure off wiki is very concerning. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Involved parties will presumably have the same access to the closing admin to discuss confidential information involving COI concerns. On the other hand, clarification of one talk page post that seemed to indicate a possible COI could go a long way towards resolving one side issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, see that, but what is the weight of a talk page statement coming from an anonymous WP editor? Won't it tempt malicious editors to drag the interrogation further, risking OUTING? Good to remember that one admin here has a history of breaching confidentiality for reason of, as he has put it, "transparency", which then cost him his ArbCom seat. I honestly don't know how such things are best resolved other than with the help of ArbCom. For clarity, myself I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Doc James, For this, I don't see any real need for waving the COI stick. It's a reasonably abstract question. SandyGeorgia, see my addendum, is that OK? Guy (help!) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  This addendum could help; time will tell if the parties can come up with neutral wording. JzG, if we don't hear from QuackGuru as to whether they have read and support this proposal, there will need to be some kind of notification of the restrictions in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia, we are fully entitled to move forward without QG. He has been drinking in the last chance saloon since forever. Guy (help!) 01:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: @WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, and JzG: I think the idea of discussing smaller issues first has merit, though some rather presume we have already agreed to detailed prices without supporting commentary from sources in the first place. I hope we can all agree that for the small number of drugs with really notable prices, the problem of describing cost to the reader disappears, because our sources do the maths for us. If we do routinely have prices for drugs, how on earth can we source this and present something simple enough for lead text or even body text without conducting OR? I think that should be the first question. And those wanting to do this, need to satisfy the community they can do it without breaking our fundamental policies first. Do we think that is a good first step? After all, if we can't do that, there really is no point having a emotive discussion of what our readers want, or what an encyclopaedia should present, or whether big pharma suppressing prices in US commercials should inspire us to litter our articles with them.

WAID's statement "The existing financial information in drug articles does not seem to be our best work." is rather polite way of describing numbers that are at best totally arbitrary and at worst effectively random. Her example (ibuprofen) may be quite a simple case, and she may be happy with being in the base 10 order of magnitude in terms of accuracy. The source currently used for "developing world" prices MSH actually has a median price for 200mg ibuprofen of 0.0068 with a high/low ratio of 2.97 (the highest is 0.0107 and lowest 0.0036). So the 2 pennies price is 3x higher than the source's 0.068 median price. I'm really not comfortable giving a price in dollars and cents that is 3x higher than our sources claim, and that's our problem with just having raw database records as sources. If we actually wanted to just tell our readers that the price is extremely low, or is very affordable, which is "knowledge" rather than just "raw data", then we need a much much better source, of the kind Wikipedia typically encourages -- Wikipedia policy hates original research from raw data. And ibuprofen is fairly easy with one obvious indication and common tablet size. Most other drugs are far more complex and so far have required extensive original research to select which database record to cite, and further maths to present a meaningful price to a reader. -- Colin°^Talk 11:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So, now I see why my Epipen sample doesn't work to solve the bigger issue; in a case like Epipen, the sources do the work for us, and there is no policy question as to whether prices can be discussed. Epipen complies with my starting point that we shouldn't be including price info unless WEIGHT is met based on MEDRS-compliant sources, while others want to include database-type info, or info from one source, and it is those examples we need to sort out. Yes, there are preliminary questions that should be resolved on talk before we can advance an RFC; it makes no sense to advance an RFC to the community if information proposed and included now in articles is not even compliant with policy. The initial burden should be on those who want to include the prices to give a working and accurate example before RFC launch.

Another general concern I have is with the direction WPMED has been headed for several years now: important medical articles are incomplete, inaccurate and no longer kept updated, so who is going to keep up with all this price information? Why are our limited number of medical editors working on database information available elsewhere, while articles suffer, and why is there a need for this particular deviation on pricing from WP:NOT? (Concern about Big Pharma hiding prices can be solved by adding a generic external link to all drug articles, as we did in the past with DMOZ, and that helps us avoid doing the math/original research.)

As I see the preliminary work is already happening on the guideline talk page, I'll continue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User: Mortal Aphrodite

Mortal Aphrodite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long-standing history of repeated disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Their continued removal of reliable sources, and either not replacing them for other reliable sources or simply implementing unreliable sources, not to mention, their continued inability to not stick to the source or follow manual of style policies have been on-going across multiple articles — or even remove maintenance templates without rectifying the issue. User has received multiple warnings, from myself and other editors, and their refusal to discuss with other editors or use an edit summary for their edits. Not to mention, as evident of their user page, they are using Wikipedia as some kind of forum for themselves, which is not what Wikipedia is about, and despite a warning about this, they continue to make such edits. livelikemusic talk! 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is going to take this seriously without diffs. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If you check their talkpage and contributions, most of the edits are to their own userspace, apparently detailing imaginary tours [73], [74] etc etc. Most of the links in them direct to disambiguation pages and some to real articles, although others direct to further user space articles creating a weird walled garden.

They appear to have had a 48 hour block on 14 October for disruptive editing, and were then warned about hoax pages (and had one of the userspace pages deleted) on the 15 November by another admin, and notices about disruptive editing, and adding unsourced information from several other editors all during their time here. A lot of their recent edits are to setlists, which are changed with either bad sourcing [75] (its clearly a wiki) or none at all [76] (although they did remove the citation needed tag). They have never left edit summaries; they edited both a users and page talkpage soon after they first started editing, but not apparently since 28 June. Curdle (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue

New account Margherita0102 appears to be copy/pasting chunks of content into articles from various web sites. From spot checking:

• This comes from the Mayo Clinic Y cleaned.
• This comes from PMID 26825807 Y Article is released under a compatible license. I've added the required attribution.
• This comes from here.Y Article is released under a compatible license. I've added the required attribution.

Will need some attention. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned the above three and will get to the rest momentarily if MER-C does not get there first. MER-C has dropped a uw-copyright-new warning on their talk page. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are at least three other users who are using the same IPs as Margherita0102 and editing the same kinds of articles: AsiaRenzi95 (talk · contribs · count), Francescadv96 (talk · contribs · count), and FedericoLoPresti (talk · contribs · count). However, each has a different user agent, making me think that these are separate people who know each other, perhaps students, researchers, not sure. I have not looked to see if the others are also infringing copyright. Nor can I tell if the edits are otherwise constructive as I know nothing about the topics.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

AsiaRenzi95: 4 edits, all clean

Francescadv96: 5 edits, all clean

FedericoLoPresti: 3 edits, all problematic. Cleaned. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Over-tagging by PopularMusicEditor

• PopularMusicEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:600:8280:58F0:C9D2:97F0:6FDE:C98E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I posted on PopularMusicEditor's talk page about their excessive use of the {{citation needed}} template after adding 39 of them to one article. I then pinged them again after they continued doing it, assuming they just didn't see the first message. After I pinged them they signed out and started editing. I gave them {{uw-login}} because it was pretty obvious it's the same person. They've since blanked their talk page, so at this point they're just ignoring the messages. Might be time for some admin intervention (but I'm not posting on AIV because I'm not sure it's necessarily vandalism). – Frood (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume the article you are referring to is 2000s in music? If so, I'd have to suggest that drawing attention to the ridiculous amount of unsourced opinionating in that article (which has been tagged as an essay since 2010) was a good thing. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs to be improved a lot, there are better ways to go about it than adding dozens of templates. Plenty of the tags they added could've actually been citations if they clicked the links in the sentence they were tagging. It takes an extra five seconds, but it actually improves the article rather than just tagbombing. – Frood (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Cardei012597 copying without attribution

Cardei012597 has repeatedly violated WP:CWW, ignoring multiple warnings.[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] These warnings are deleted as "archived" but not actually archived in a visibly linked talk page archive.[85] I request that most of Cardei012597's advanced perms (NPR, PCR, Autopatrol, rollback) be revoked, that they be required to really archive rather than delete warnings and other corrections to editing practice (see much of the rest of talkpage history), and that they be given at minimum a final warning. (ping @Diannaa, Chetsford, Beeblebrox, and Xaosflux:) Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming I was "pinged" because I added rollback to this account? To revoke this we would need to see examples of rollback being used inappropriately. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And I can only assume I was pinged because I added autopatrolled. What you've provided is evidence that one admin has repeatedly warned them. What you need to present is the actual diffs of this user's problematic edits. From those warnings it is not clear to me if they involve page creations or not, which is all autopatrolled is relevant to. I am also not aware of any precedent for requiring archiving, deleting such warnings is in fact explicitly allowed. You would need to provide very stong evidence that the lack of archiving is causing harm to the project before that could even be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I read your warnings and visited my talk page about this issue. I promise to you, and Wikipedia Administration, that I will not copy edit for any and all reasons ever again. I have every right to remove the warnings on my talk page, according to WP:OWNTALK. I will try never to make these copy edits ever again. I'll most likely just stick only to smaller forms of editing like updating Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, for now on. I am sorry that my copy editing was violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, on the recent warning, I did leave the proper attribution [86], but it was ignored by the Wikipedia editor who issued the warning. The Wikipedia rule also states that "If the copy editor is copying from his own sole work, attribution is not necessary" and some of those examples of copy editing were from my work. This fact was also ignored. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "copyedit"; to copyedit is to amend text to make it clearer, more grammatically correct, fix misspelled words, things like that. What you need to do in edit summaries when copying within Wikipedia is to include attribution using an edit summary such as Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok -- thanks and apologies. I've now (re?)read OWNTALK. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Aphex Twin lead dispute

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

---

User Cambial Yellowing has made some helpful changes to the article Aphex Twin, but several of their specific additions to the lead have been disputed by myself and another constructive editor of the page. In particular, we feel the additions include trivial details and overemphasize elements of the artist's career which don't accurately summarize the general material in the body of the article. After several reversions and a talk page discussion in which Cambial Yellowing failed to build any support for their edits, they have continued to replace their additions to the lead. I'd like to avoid any further edit warring. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Behaving like a stroppy child will not help, gentlecollapse6. Do you think your edit history is invisible? For the benefit of admin, I initiated the discussion here. After gentlecollapse decided to resume edit warring despite discussion beginning, I continued discussion here and, after gentlecollapse declined to respond while editing elsewhere here. I waited 3 days for a response (during which time gentlecollapse was on-wiki) before resuming editing, with some input on the relevant passage from another editor. Consensus building is something that everyone has to take part in gentlecollapse, not just editors other than yourself. This is tiresome. Cambial Yellowing❧ 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I imagine Admin will have no problem reviewing our edit histories, as you’ve condescendingly suggested. You’ve once again not addressed any of the points above—two editors disagreed with your addition, no other users supported it, and you’ve built no consensus, but you continued to replace it anyway. Please calm down with the language. Thanks. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than being "condescendingly suggested", the inclusion of diffs is specifically requested by the admin noticeboard - see the top of the page. Given that you've neglected to do so I've taken the liberty of including relevant earlier diffs. Cambial Yellowing❧ 03:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Consensus building is something that everyone has to take part in gentlecollapse, not just editors other than yourself., I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but a consensus doesn't require either unanimous participation or unanimous agreement. You were correct here in that a consensus is not simply a counting of votes; however, if more than one editor is disagreeing with you on the article's talk page or if your additions are contrary to a previously established consensus, then you are going to be typically expected to to try and establish a new consensus in support of your position. You don't restore you the disputed content to your preferred version because that can be seen as WP:BRRD (Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss). It would be better to restore to that last stable version of the article before the content dispute happened per WP:STATUSQUO and try and resolve things per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that either of you are going to get an answer you want here, AN/I is not for content disputes. With a 2:1 discussion on the article talk page I would suggest that you start a WP:RFC and get wider input. Opening discussion with This is highly relevant and sufficiently notable that it belongs in the lead. Do not remove it without discussion. and continuing here with Behaving like a stroppy child isn't going to win the day either. — Ched (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! gentlecollapse6 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A WP:RFC is one possibility, but you might also considered moving to the next stage of WP:DR or seeking assistance from relevant Wikiprojects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Gentlecollapse6 and Cambial Yellowing: When Ched suggested above that an WP:RFC might be one way to possibly resolve this, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean for each of you to go and start your own RFCs. You'd be better off trying to combine the two into one that you can both agree upon because dueling RFCs is almost certainly not going to lead to the result that either of you seem to be hoping to get. Maybe taking a step back and trying to see things from the other person's point of view can help you reach an agreement on a way to neutrally word the RFC to address both of your concerns so that it has a chance of actually accomplishing what it's intended to accomplish. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment because RFCs which are poorly formatted or otherwise confusing often end up receiving very little participation and die on the vine without really resolving anything. It will also help things move along if you both could stick to commenting on the relevant content and stop sniping at each other per WP:TPYES since that is not going to help resolve things and reflect well on either of you, and may actually discourage others from wanting to get involved and try to help sort things out. There's no need to turn the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Sphilbrick

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

---

This user [Sphilbrick], who apparently is an admin, is abusing his/her power. From my experience with them, Sphilbrick seems content on making his/her rules which is an example of WP:ADMINABUSE. On Jeanie Tracy, he reverted my edits when I added the singer's birth date. And while my edit was unsourced (simply because I forgot to add one during my major edits in expanding the page), I added the birth date back to the along with the reliable source [Soultracks] I got it from. Sphilbrick reverted my edits and then opened a discussion on Talk:Jeanie Tracy. In his comment on the talk page, he tried to twist the WP:DOB by saying "Current policy permits removal of the month and day of birth, and only permits the year of birth by a reliable source. Restoration of the day and month will result in a block." I don't see anything on the WP:DOB that says that. To own my understanding, if an exact birth date is known and can be sourced, we can add it to the page. So after reverting his revert and adding back the sourced content, he called my revision as "Disruptive editing" and then block me.

I don't understand how you can block a user for adding sourced content or even block someone who hasn't violated the three-revert rule. Mind you, Sphilbrick has also violated the three-revert rule. Aside from that, he stated that allegedly Jeanie Tracy has opened up a ticket to have her birth date removed, but I don't know if that is authentic or not. Because it contradicts why Sphilbrick is challenging the reliablility of Soultracks which is the source I used to reference the singer's date of birth. Apparently, if her birth date came from AllMusic Guide, then this wouldn't be a discussion. The main issue is twisting that Sphilbrick twisting Wikipedia policy, reverting source content, making ludicrous blocks, and on top of that; Sphilbrick doesn't use good grammar when making comments. I also noticed that Sphilbrick has a tendency of blocking users for his/her definition of "disruptive editing". This user needs to have his/her adminship reviewed and possibly removed. Horizonlove (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the subject of the article has asked to have their birthdate removed from Wikipedia, and that the emerging consensus at WP:RS/N#Soultracks is that the source is not adequate anyway. These being the case, this content should stay out of the article and you should expect to get blocked if you try and force it in. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't tried to "force" anything. You need to familiarize yourself better with the problem before making ludicrous statements like that. Many users have used Soultracks in the past a source and no one has ever disputed it. You may need to take a look at Soultracks before judging something at face value and other users' opinions. Horizonlove (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Just because you cannot see ticket:2019120610002527 that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I cannot see the ticket as well but an OTRS volunteer like Sphilbrick can and if he says that it is request the the subject's birth date not be made public, then it's best to assume that's the case. Now, if you don't believe Sphilbrick for some reason, then you can ask another OTRS volunteer at WP:OTRSN to check the ticket. At the same time, if you do believe Sphilbrick, but think that it shouldn't matter, then you should probably seek clarification at WP:BLPN. WP:DOB does contain language which suggest that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth when the subject has complained and WP:BLPSELF tells subjects that they can email OVERSIGHT when they have concerns about content in Wikipedia articles written about them. It was OK to be WP:BOLD when you first added the content back in October, but once it was removed by Sphilbrick with an explanation explaining why on the article talk, it would have been better to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion. You did post something on the talk page, but then went a re-added the content. That wasn't really a wise thing to do which is why Sphilbrick further escalated their warnings.

OTRS tickets are confidential and (I believe) only OTRS volunteers can see them. The best that Sphilbrick of anyone else can do is say that a ticket was received asking that the content be removed. They can't post them, or reveal and discuss their details on Wikipedia or to any one other than another OTRS volunteer. This is probably a case where Wikipedia is just going to have to be satisfied with stating simple where Tracy was born in deference to whomever emailed OTRS. I get that you were only trying to improve the article in good faith, but when an editor, particularly an admin and OTRS volunteer, starts saying there's an OTRS ticket involved, it's probably a good idea to slow down and be WP:CAUTIOUS. Moreover, when the reliability of the source being cited is also being called into question at WP:RSN#Soultracks, that's also probably an indication to take a step back and slow down until the dust settles no matter how right you believe you are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After looking at the discussion on your user talk page and on the article's talk page it does appear that Sphilbrick was trying to explain things to you, but you seemed unwilling to even consider that what he was saying might even possibly be right. Moreover, the You do not have the authority to block anyone, especially after only two reverts. you made here is mistaken in that administrators have been tasked by the Wikipedia Community to issue blocks when they feel it is for the benefit of the community, and they can do so without giving any warning at all if they feel immediate action is necessary per WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Of course, all blocks are subject to review, but it seems like a fair amount of warnings were issued to you and you had the opportunity to seek out help from others, but you decided to press on as before and continue to re-add the disputed content until you actually ended up blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly I wouldn't say beneficial to the community if you are removing sourced content and then calling the user who added that sourced content "disruptive". Especially when there is very little reason for removing beyond saying that the singer submitted a ticket that hardly anyone can see and/or verify. Horizonlove (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers can see and verify the ticket; it's not made public for the reasons given in WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia. OTRS volunteers (I believe) actually have to sign something in which they agree to not make any of the things they see public; so, there's only so much that they can reveal. If you want the ticket verified by someone other than Sphilbrick, follow WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution. As for being disruptive, I don't think that Sphilbrick was saying that adding content supported by a source the first time was disruptive, but that continuing to try and do even after reasons were given both on your user talk page and on the article talk page as to why you shouldn't and warnings were issued that you should stop was what was being seen as disruptive. The source was being discussed and RSN in addition to the reasons given by Sphilbrick on the talk pages; so, even if there was no OTRS ticket, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:DOB and WP:BLPREMOVE would've been applicable and you should've waited until the questions about the source had been resolved before trying to re-add it and the associated content. You don't just plow full speed ahead and restore you preferred version of the article while it's appropriateness is being discussed, particularly when it comes to articles about living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Pro tip - when making comments like "...can't use good grammar when making comments" it's a really good idea to proofread your own post. HTH. -- Begoon 07:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest the nom read WP:BOOMERANG, and then reflect on Philbrick's generous nature in only blocking them for 31 hours and that that will increase next time. ——SN54129 07:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 That doesn't have anything to do with what is going on here. I already stated what happened. Horizonlove (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The evidence shows that even after being warned, you tried to re-add without consensus info about a living person when our BLP policy explicitly says the info should generally be excluded when the subject had requested it, which they did. So you are the one at fault, and as others have said are lucky to only get a 31 hours block. You then came here and made a false accusation of admin abuse while continuing to show no understanding of why you were wrong. As others have said, there's really no reason to disbelieve SPhilbrick about the OTRS ticket. Still you could always ask someone else with OTRS access about it rather than making false claims of admin abuse. This is the sort of behaviour which can lead to a boomerang i.e. you being sanctioned. I don't think this is that likely here since you've already been blocked, unless you try to re-add the info yet again. Still if you continue to make groundless complaints, it could happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Horizonlove, you should, by now, be detecting that nobody who has responded here agrees with you. If you are, then good, that will be useful for you to understand. Nobody is going to take any action against SPhilbrick, because SPhilbrick has been doing the job entrusted to them by the community - enforcing our policies. You were clearly told why you should not keep reinserting the material, and clearly warned that you would be blocked if you did. You reinserted it and you were blocked. As SN54129 points out, the block period was quite lenient, given this was a BLP issue, and given your deliberate refusal to abide by policy. So, really, what are you hoping for here? We get that you are upset that you were blocked, but, honestly, the only one to blame for that is you. Take it as a learning experience and move on. -- Begoon 08:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• {re|Horizonlove}} OTRS access means that the person with access is trusted. OTRS team members are supervised by Administrators approved by the Wikimedia Foundation, and "Team members deal with private information, and the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy specifically prohibits release of that information without explicit permission from the original provider of that information. Therefore, when inquiring about a specific OTRS ticket, they may only be able to provide vague information (or no information) to protect the privacy of the individual submitting the request." You are also absolutely wrong that all we need to prove the full DOB for a living person is a reliable source,. wee WP:DOB which says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." You even referred to WP:DOB in your initial post, how could you not have understood it? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Horizonlove, you are lucky it was only 31 hours. You were edit-warring to include personal data, and you should have been well aware that this is controversial. Coming here with this complaint shows a striking lack of self-awareness. Guy (help!) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add a couple small points:

• @Marchjuly: surmised, and is correct that we sign something agreeing not to make the contents public. Not only are we limited to what we can say about the contents, we can't even reveal who sent it. There are times when it might be helpful to say something like "This is coming from the subject themselves", but we can't even do that without obtaining permission. If someone happened to notice the timestamps on the talk page, they would notice a seven hour delay between the removal, and the statement that it was requested by the subject. That's when I was requesting permission to mention that it came from the subject. In most cases, we act on the request in an OTRS ticket based upon whether it's verifiable, not who sent it, but when it comes to a removal of a birthdate, who is asking is relevant.
• I'll also note I am very sympathetic to the desire to include a birthdate in a biography. I see it as one of the core pieces of information that any reader would expect to see in a well-written biography. However, I am also sympathetic to the views of the subject. We, as a community, have to resolve the tension between these two conflicting views. I don't take the position that the subject can simply request removal of this (or anything else), there has to be a good rationale for exclusion of relevant information. The unfortunate problem of identity theft reluctantly convinces me that we have to take care with respect to the month and day—I'm still on the fence whether year alone qualifies for removal.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sidharth Shukla

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

---

Sidharth Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Would some kind soul please consider applying some protection to this article? It's listed at RFPP but there's a backlog of 48 items there at the moment, and this article is being deluged with derogatory "nicknames" and drivel, presumably because the guy is currently appearing on some reality show. Many thanks. -- Begoon 10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done and will work through the RFPP backlog now. Fish+Karate 10:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response. -- Begoon 10:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And backlog cleared with help from Ymblanter Fish+Karate 11:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Revert of page move needed by an admin

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

---

Please can someone move Steve Cooper (footballer, born 1979) back to Steve Cooper (football manager) - I can't move this by myself because it says the page already exists as a redirect. Most likely the redirect has been edited after the move. See User talk:Mattythewhite and the associated talk page of the article on opposing the move in the first place. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Have a nice day. --Jayron32 15:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Quick revdel needed

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

---

It seem 67.22.6.163 made a serious personal attack to fellow player and developer in they edit on the article Path of Exile. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Just a friendly reminder as per the warning at the top of the page: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs via this form or to [email protected]. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ThosLop

ThosLop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to add external links to local fire departments on several US city articles, for example [87]. I have left four warning on their talk page, referring this editor to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:LINKFARM, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#External links, "Providing links to every commercial, educational, or other entity within the city is not appropriate for this section". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Magnolia, I concur with your assessment. ThosLop is editing outside of our MOS standards and US city guidelines. I've left a message on their talk page to this effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Despite comments on his talk page asking him to stop and despite this thread here on AN/I, @ThosLop: is continuing this behavior [88]. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Ylevental probably NOTHERE

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

---

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

I have raised this issue before inTalk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders. This editor is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, he thinks this is some sort of social network site for trolling. The editor is not interested in working with other editors at all. 1- Minutes after the AfD was closed of Media bias against Bernie Sanders, he went and nominated again[89]. It was then speedy kept. He wasted a second nomination because he wanted to troll (and I will present more evidences for this). 2-After I started a RM discussion he went and made a new RM discussion which I deleted because we cant have two RM discussions and I also added his RM term in the options so he can be happy. 3-Despite the ongoing RM, today he created an article[90] which he copied the content of Media bias against Bernie Sanders to Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders (without even attribution) and went to the talk page said this Special:Diff/930027343: "Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders Enjoy."--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also note that we are trying to fix the article title by proposing multiple titles like "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns" which I support. --SharabSalam (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ylevental here. This is just a really strange situation. Why is an standalone article even needed on media coverage that Bernie Sanders faces, unless this media coverage is extraordinarily notable? It should just be merged into the Bernie Sanders article. Criticism of a candidate is not bias. That is all. I hope this blows over quickly. Ylevental (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ylevental, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate your point WP:POINTy. Ping the Admin who closed the AfD Jo-Jo Eumerus. There is no reason to stay in Wikipedia if you are not going to respect other editors opinion. Most of times I dont get what I want in Wikipedia. I dont go and troll or make disruptive edits in Wikipedia just to proof my point.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam Okay, but those issues can be really polarizing. Ylevental (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree, this user is being disruptive. He doesn't understand the wikipedia policies and is on a crusade of their own making. They aren't trying to improve Wikipedia and is intent on causing issues through trolling and other behaviors. The article they created is a perfect example of WP:POVFORK and their only response is that they believes the issue doesn't exist when that isn't even the discussion anymore. It is based on the high level of reports about whether it exists. There are currently several discussions taking place over the primarily article talk page, the closed deletion discussion, and now on the content fork talk page. The section creation on the primarily article talk page shows this is not an attempt to talk about a subject with reliable sources but in order to cause disruption and further complicate the issue. Any attempts at apologizing I feel are meant to just get away without reprisal. The editor knows better and continued to do it.--WillC 21:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) When an issue is polarizing it is even more important than otherwise to respect consensus. You appear not to be doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

True, it can just be really confusing to follow all the arguments and see what's going on. Anyways, the page I created Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders is now a redirect. Ylevental (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There isn't anything confusing about this. Your attempts to play dumb or confused aren't convincing anyone. You knew what the result of the delete discussion was and were told time and time again what was going on. You went out of your way to cause issues. There isn't any good faith here.--WillC 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am just waiting for an admin to intervene in this incident. Ylevental is trying to sabotage our attempts to improve the article because he doesn't agree with the outcome of the AfD. IMO, if this continues then I think a topic ban is the appropriate way to stop him. So far I dont think this editor needs to have access to the article because I don't think he wants to improve the article but instead waste the time of those who want to improve the article and troll them. Another note is his tone or way of talking in the article talk page when he keeps saying "Bernie supporters" when referring to those who don't agree with him.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

IamMattDavies

I'm having difficulty getting a conversation going with IamMattDavies (talk · contribs) [91] and it seems I'm not the only one ([92], [93], [94]). Can anyone else have a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Deletion of a message is acknowledgement of them. Alas, no response it would seem. Is there a specific issue that needs discussion here? I can try to have a word, if I know what needs to be talked about. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on a quick glance at the contribs I see two potential issues: (1) marking non-minor edits as minor and (2) adding some unsourced content. Both of these have been the subject of now-removed talk page posts. – Levivich 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in my case, it's because I wanted a reliable source for the unsourced claim he added on London Victoria station about a parliamentary train, which I thought "ooh interesting, is there a source?" and not finding one obviously staring out at me thought a discussion about it would be a quick way to resolve this. Then I discovered he doesn't seem to want to reply to anyone, and seems to be promoting a website called www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk, which made me think something's not quite right here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk certainly set off my spam alarms, but it appears that the content has migrated to https://www.branchline.uk/PSULintro.php; while it's debatable if that site qualifies as a WP:RS, it doesn't appear to be commercial (no adverts, etc). The psul4all site is used pretty extensively, for better or worse. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's not music genres it's trains. Always trains. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ain’t that the truth? The number of train-related disputes baffles me. 03:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hounding

How long should I be warned by HistoryofIran (1, 2,3 , 4 ) in Women's rights in Iran while I am doing all my best to improve the article? However, it seems I'm being hounded by him! --Saff V. (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How is that hounding? Believe it or not, you're not the only one who watches that article. Look at my name, which topic do you think I primarily work in? Sigh. Also, I'm not the only one in the talk page that has warned you. You have been very fortunate to not have been topic banned. HistoryofIran (talk)

HistoryofIran wasn't hounding you in that Guild of Copy Editors diff, in the sense that they followed you there - they were editing there around the same time as you. However, in the context of the talk page for Women's rights in Iran, where they responded or referred to you about ten times and every single one was a personal attack, it'd be pretty fair to describe this as bordering on harassment. Cjhard (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bordering on harrasment? Lol, not at all. If anything Saff seems to be delibrately attempting to cause me problems. If I wasn't so unbothered I would have filled a huge report against him for IRI pov pushing long ago. Heck, I am considering regardless atm. Not casting asperations, can show some evidence). EDIT: Well i didnt read your last words properly, i still disagree regarding the bordering harassment bit though, gimme a sec ill correct it, on phone atm, will come back when im on pc). HistoryofIran (talk)

It doesn't matter. That's not what the article's talk page is for, at all. If an editor bothers you to this extent, don't engage with them, or report them if they warrant it. Also, have you ever tried to engage with Saff without attacking them? I note that, in the lede discussion, where Saff attempts to talk about a content matter with you[95] and you immediately respond with personal attacks[96], it's actually resolved by the first person who properly engaged with Saff's arguments[97]. Saff doesn't wholly agree, but drops the matter.[98]. There are many difficult editors on Wikipedia. You can either deal with them, or don't, but never this. Cjhard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that I can agree with. Sure there is much more to it than just that, but you're right regardless. (Also, he never dropped the matter, instead he tried to discredit the other user who disagreed with him [99]). HistoryofIran (talk)

@Cjhard:Thanks for the response, but I can't understand leaving massage (warning) following my request in wp:GOCE doesn't mean hounding. It has nothing to do with the subject of "History of Iran".Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you alright pal? [100] You're trying so hard to get me penalized (out of nothing) and yet you've just pinged me in the very article you've talked about here? (Just noticed this is not the first time you've pinged me in specifically that article) Thought I was hounding you there? Which one is it? HistoryofIran (talk)

H-Town

• H-Town (band) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• RealDinoFan92 (talk · contribs)
• Melaninmedianetwork (talk · contribs)
• EmpressDivine04 (talk · contribs)

I would like some administrator eyes on this page, as there seems to be some shenanigans going on here.

On 8 December, Melaninmedianetwork was engaging in an edit war to add allegations of harassment against one of the band members; the edit-warring led to an indefinite block. Shortly after that, RealDinoFan makes some edits to the article, and after that, EmpressDivine04 (who, based on this edit, is a sock of Melanin) proceeds to get into a much lower-grade edit war. I make some edits to the page, removing unsourced stuff and fixing some formatting; EmpressDivine then pings me on my talk page as above.

I came into this situation only in responce to a bot on IRC and legitimately have no dog in the fight, nor do I have the inclination to do an exhaustive study of the behaviour of everyone involved here, but as Melanin/Empress is alleging that there is a harassment campaign being waged here, I'd much rather an administrator deal with things from here on out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 08:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Information is being deleted because it’s not true. This page will not be used to create and promote lies about the remaining members of H-Town, or the deceased Keven Dino Conner. There were lies on here about Dino based of speculation or what people think was going on when he was alive and surrounding his death. That is why sections are being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDinoFan92 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Melaninmedianetwork and EmpressDivine04 are  Confirmed to each other. The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Unrelated to Melanimedianetwork:
  • RealDinoFan92
  • RealDinoFan93 (talk · contribs · count)
  • LibraD89 (talk · contribs · count)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Havsjö

I am currently in the middle of a dispute with Havsjö (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding his persistent addition of unreferneced content to the Vardar Offensive and Battle of Dobro Pole articles which I had previously brought to GA status. I asked him to provide references for any content he adds 1 and that an unreferenced section of another Wikipedia article are not reliable sources 2. Instead he continued to add unreferenced content to the article 3 while blatantly denying that he made any content changes 4. When I called him out on it 5 he reinserted the unreferenced claim that Serbian armies were the size of a corps 6 and accused me of "autistically sperging" on his talkpage 7.--Catlemur (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You came to my talk page with an aggressive tone that a French flag was placed and that a unit had the wrong name. I responded in a friendly tone you can change this to what you think is more suitable. My later "reference" to the other wiki article in regards to the Serb units was not my "reference"/reason for the change, it was just to show how their size is mentioned on other pages as well (another example is the Battle of Florina). I thought your issue was with the name. Since, despite being Corps sized, they are officially named "Armies". Thus I had no problem if you thought it would be better that they be listed as "1st army" instead of "1st Corps" (since this was the official designation, after all) and I said this several times to you when you brought this up on my talk page.

I did not realize (but which seems to be the problem from what I gather from your message here?) the that the fact of them being Corps sized itself is what you have an issue with? I thought you already knew this "common fact" (since you had been involved with articles related to this, as you mentioned) and it was just regarding the official designation. The other note I added (which was also removed) regarding the German 11th Army being mostly composed on Bulgarians is already mentioned (with a source) in the article. I just added an additional note (i.e. "no new content").

I did call you a bad word, because I dont see why you couldn't have just done these minor edits with the explanations/edit-summaries you give to me after I repeatedly told you I had no objections to them if you thought it was better, yet you kept writing new messages about it. But I guess the issue of them being corps-sized or not, rather than the name(?) is an unresolved issue? In that case I can find a source for it--Havsjö (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and my "no content change" comment also refers to me making some visual edits such as making a name no-wrap, and reducing the purely visual size of the casualties sections; things which were also reverted for no reason instead of just the content-details being changed, which is what I was referring to here--Havsjö (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute regarding Serbian formations size now has a source added to the note explaining their size, while the official name is intact :) --Havsjö (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of hounding and bad faith

Krimuk2.0 and I were involved in an edit war on the Timothée Chalamet article, during which we were both warned to take our discussion to the talk page. However, now that I'm optimistic about continuing the discussion, Krimuk2.0 has repeatedly accused me of being a bad faith editor, which you can find here and here. They have also accused me of hounding them, which you can find here.

Prior to this, one of our disputes were rooted in how I've cited multiple guidelines in support of my activities, while they have suggested that I read WP:COMMONSENSE–which is not even a guideline–without even conducting themselves in accordance to the essay. Another example of this pattern would be that in one exchange, I raised a point about how a statement in the article could be in violation of WP:UNDUE, to which they replied: I'll wait for other editors to weigh in because it's impossible to engage with someone who refuses to see merit in anything that's not their own preference.

I have no personal issue with Krimuk2.0 at all, and in all of my messages to them, I have been nothing but respectful in trying to conduct the most effective discussion possible. In fact, I have utilized multiple avenues to attempt to resolve the dispute, including asking them if they had suggestions on the wording of a potential RfC, opening an actual RfC and notifying them of its creation, reaching out to the administrator who gave us the warning for assistance and information, and asking for clarification regarding their reverts. However, how are we supposed to continue the dialogue and try to achieve consensus if they refuse to engage me, especially now that our editing activities have coincided more than once?

P.S. Krimuk2.0 most recently reverted edits on another article that were explicitly supported by precedent as well as reliable sources, justifying it as undoing poor writing, even though their revert restored a factual inaccuracy that states a series has ended when in fact it has not. KyleJoan^talk 08:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which this editor is deliberately stalking my contributions and reverting them to prove a point ("our editing activities have coincided more than once", eh? Not a coincidence). I've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that I do not wish to engage with this editor, and want other editors to weigh in on the matter. I've said all I've had to, and I am not one of those who has to repeat it multiple times for dramatic effect. Move on, KyleJoan. Contribute constructively and please respect my wishes and leave me alone. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S: There has been no season 3 renewal of Big Little Lies, and any "updates" on it are pure conjecture. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which this editor is stalking my contributions and reverting them to prove a point. I'd like to see diffs of my alleged hounding, please. I've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that I do not wish to engage with this editor. Does reverting and calling my edits poor not count as engaging? Contribute constructively and please respect my wishes and leave me alone. I thought I was doing this by adding reliable sources per WP:RSP to adhere to WP:V, but apparently that was not constructive, so I might need clarification on how to do so.

P.S. You are correct that it has not been renewed. But has it ended? Has it been canceled? If so, was it canceled after the first season and then revived for the second? KyleJoan^talk 08:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I made this edit at Dern's page after our disagreement at Chalamet's page. You then went to target my contribution with this edit. That's clear WP:WIKIHOUNDING, in which an editor "edits [...] where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

BLL has ended until it gets renewed. We can't predict the future and assume that it will go on, per WP:CRYSTAL. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As for Chalamet page, I have told you that I have nothing new to say. Why can't you have patience and wait for other's opinion instead of repeatedly hounding me to explain myself? WP:CONSENSUS is reached by multiple uninvolved editors weighing in, and not by two editors fighting it out. I don't come here to fight with random editors. I come here to make constructive edits, and if there's a disagreement, I have patience and let others weigh in instead of saying the same things again and again and/or creating bad-faith ANI threads. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You then went to target my contribution with this edit. I targeted your contribution by removing an unsourced name, adding citations, removing duplicate citations, removing duplicate links, restoring the lede, adding a "needs additional citations for verification" tag, reorganizing the categories in alphabetical order, and citing WP:UNDUE as a basis for one of these changes?

BLL has ended until it gets renewed. We can't predict the future and assume that it will go on, per WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, so it has ended. Can you provide a source that states so? The one you cited only mentions that there are no plans for a new season, which they also said for almost a year after the first. Saying it has ended when no source states so does not adhere to WP:V, no? And let's be clear: I never disputed that there are no plans for more seasons.

As for Chalamet page, I have told you that I have nothing new to say. Why can't you have patience and wait for other's opinion instead of repeatedly hounding me to explain myself? I messaged you to invite you to chime in on the RfC to make sure your views are heard in that forum. If you weren't interested, all you had to do was decline, instead of making other accusations. KyleJoan^talk 09:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would have taken Bbb23's warning at AN3 as a warning not to edit war anywhere in Wikipedia. But I think it displays especially bad judgment for KyleJoan to show up at the Laura Dern article. Between that and your repeated posts to Krimuk2.0's talk page, I think it's reasonable for Krimuk2.0 to take issue.

My advice to both of your is to disengage. Stop reverting, stay away from one another, and definitely don't look at the other's contributions. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Guettarda! I have a question, however. But first, I'd like to state that I began editing the Laura Dern article because she is directly related to a lot of articles to which I have contributed (i.e., Timothée Chalamet, Big Little Lies (TV series), Twin Peaks (season 3), Reese Witherspoon, etc.), so with all due respect, it had nothing to do with Krimuk2.0's activities. I do apologize if my contributions to the article were unconstructive. Aside from that, Krimuk2.0 and I have contributed/are contributors to a lot of the same articles (i.e., Chris Evans (actor), Nicole Kidman, Cynthia Erivo, Taron Egerton, etc.), so I don't believe it's possible that we never cross paths again.

Now, after I took Bbb23's warning and tried to resolve the dispute, I reached out to Krimuk2.0, to which they replied that I had mischaracterized their statement, and when I asked them for clarification, they accused me of bad faith. Hours later, when I addressed them after they labeled my edits on the Laura Dern article as poor writing for clarification, they deleted the message and accused me of bad faith. My question is: Based on the number of articles we both enjoy editing, if we have a disagreement that does not get addressed because we don't engage each other, how do we come to a resolution? Thank you again! KyleJoan^talk 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The risk here is that if you guys aren't willing or able to avoid each other's edits or resolve disputes amicably, it could escalate into an WP:Interaction ban or even a topic ban from the same topics depending on how severe the issue is. In the mean time, though, it might be worth looking into WP:Dispute resolution if there are content disputes that are feuling the bad feelings and tension between you two. The IBan or topic ban suggestions are a last resort and something that ideally we could avoid for both KyleJoan and Krimuk2.0's sake. If dispute resolution doesn't work, maybe you guys could each commit to a 1RR rule for all of those related topics to avoid edit warring. 107.77.204.109 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't stress enough the value of stepping away from conflict. I would have burned out long ago if I hadn't learned how to walk away. You can always come back in a year, or five.

There are articles that if you want away, nothing gets done (or the other person turns it into a complete mess), but more often than not, it's a fight between two editors that keeps other people out. No one wants to read a lengthy back and forth - not only is is hard to make sense of, it also puts the third party in the middle of the fight and elevates their stress level. Trust in the community, trust in the process, and remove yourself from the fight. Or fight it out and probably end up with an iBan and enduring bad feelings towards a fellow Wikipedian. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand. In that case, I'll direct my focus toward the existing RfC and the discussion on WT:RS in hopes of generating consensuses on the issues that led to the dispute–whether they be in my favor or the opposite or a middleground between the two. Thank you again, Guettarda, for the advice and the persective. And thank you, 107.77.204.109. KyleJoan^talk 17:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User 130.85.247.90's edits on Kobo, Ethiopia

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

---

130.85.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly removing sourced content from Kobo, Ethiopia [101], [102], [103], with his only defence being his own point of view. Such behaviour breaks Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and must be dealt with. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Fully support this report. And i reported him/her here [104]. Dimitris N.anagnostou (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:77.239.73.14 and Rhea Butcher

The user's last five edits (out of eight total edits to this site, several others of which also seem like subtle vandalism, like this unsourced change to the ethnicity of someone whose parents are listed as Bosniaks) are vandalism of Rhea Butcher, changing "Butcher is" to "Butcher are" and an instance of "she is" inside a headline/quotation to "they are" (like this), and then, after I warned them on their talk page to stop and even let their change to the quoted text stand by enclosing it in brackets, they simply switched to vandalizing the pronouns in the other direction (like this). -sche (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. It's the kind of thing that initially could have been a good-faith misunderstanding, but the flipping to changing it the other way is just textbook disruptive editing. You've made an attempt to engage them and the IP has not responded, so I've blocked for 48 hours. ~ mazca ^talk 18:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ip user 180.149.241.192 appears to be doing unexplained blanking

Hey i noticed that Ip user 180.149.241.192 was blanking page Davis Chiramel. Also is this the correct place to bring this up for i am a new user. All hail Armok (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by All hail Armok (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. For future such issues, you can report vandalism, etc., at WP:AIV. Thank you for letting us know about this one. — Maile (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard jumped the gun by moving page

Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am no Wikipedia expert but this is not right. This was supposed be a non issue and supposedly doing normal changes. Anthony Appleyard jumped the gun by moving page over article event name without proper review which resulted this issue to become disruptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_Fight_Night%3A_Zabit_vs._Kattar&type=revision&diff=925928257&oldid=925622970 The user who requested a technical move review was very disruptive which was allowed through. The event name was officially named as UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar ( Requested move 25 October 2019 ) after reviewing a source that been used for a decade in these UFC event wiki pages. https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-november-9-2019

The source that been used from same website for decade to determinate the event name no questions asked.

• https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-october-26-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_Maia_vs._Askren)
• https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-boston-2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_McGregor_vs._Siver)
• https://www.ufc.com/event/FOX7#/fight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC#UFC_on_FX:_Belfort_vs._Bisping)

Anthony Appleyard should not be handling any move related requested for a long while. Regice2020 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And why bring an issue that has been discussed elsewhere, with no consensus being reached, here? All you are doing by this is making many editors even more exasperated by UFC articles than they already are. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of those editors aren't administrators and aren't involved in ANI discussions, so they have no business being here in the first place. This is the place to discuss disruptive behaviors. 2600:1003:B843:7915:C405:89D6:FBD2:F1C (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who you mean by "most of those editors", but discussions on Wikipedia are open to anyone, administrators or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am talking same editors you are talking about becoming exasperated by UFC articles. Why would they be at ANI in the first place? 2600:1003:B843:7915:C405:89D6:FBD2:F1C (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger and Regice2020: The "elsewhere" link points to Talk:UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar#Requested move 13 November 2019. At 14:20, 15 November 2019 (see this diff) I moved page Talk:UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar to Talk:UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar: Requested by User:29cwcst at WP:RM/TR: because UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar is the actual name of the event, as shown on the official poster." And after 10 days of discussion, the page has settled down at UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar anyway. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The move was skipped through. (ufc.com or ufc.com/events( website source that been used for years and years in these type UFC Events articles always to decide correct event name of the event on the wiki article no questions ask). Its not "anyway".The consensus on October 2019 was to double confirm the official event name. Less than 30 days - The chaotic November 13, 2019 consensus would not been requested if page remained official event name which is UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar

@Phil Bridger: This was really no issue if the name remained Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar, and ufc wiki users are making normal minor changes. Now it became issue when it was suddenly changed away from the official event name less than 30 days of the last request move. Regice2020 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If a technical request for an undiscussed move is made and fulfilled but then quickly disputed, the move should be reverted as with all undiscussed moves while discussion goes on as it's clearly not the stable title. It could have been listed in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section and that should have been fulfilled. I'm not sure if this actually happened. Regardless since there was an ongoing discussion which was just recently closed as no consensus, I don't think the new title can be considered the stable title. So it should still be reverted as an undiscussed move. However, it would have been better to approach Anthony Appleyard about this directly explaining the reasoning and without unnecessary accusations. It's rare that an admin who simply fulfills a technical request would be at fault IMO and even if a mistake was made here, I'm not sure this means they shouldn't make moves in the future. If all this has been politely explained to Anthony Appleyard and they refused to revert their move, I would have more concerns but I see no diffs to establish that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• A question. Why is this even notable? Is every NFL or AFL game notable? Is every Premier League game notable? Obviously, no. Yet they'd all have as much coverage as this "event". Look at it - every reference is to a MMA website (bar one, which is to the "MMA" section of ESPN). Do we need to have an RfC to decide whether we actually need these articles, which, frankly, are mostly advertising? Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: the relevant criteria are at WP:SPORTSEVENT; and, no, I don't think this particular match is notable... ——SN54129 15:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually since that Wikipedia UFC Event name changed to UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar is not notable since it does not exist in the source that been used to confrim the event name more than 5 years. It would rather be deleted from Wikipedia because it does not exist. Only event that exist is UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar (source)unless the sourced website changed the event name then it will exist. It still not acceptable that the move was soo skipped through. One of the main person that usually the one that manage these UFC pages is this user - CASSIOPEIA.Regice2020 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the event name was stable when it was named UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar as double confirmed by October 2019 no questions asked. A quote for editor " if the title really has been changed by the UFC, than moving the article should be a no brainier, especially because the Dos Santos vs Volkov fight isn't happening"Regice2020 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

While I believe, as I said above, the move should be reverted, you don't seem to be helping much. In fact, you seem to be successfully reminding us all why we never want to touch UFC articles with a 100 metre barge pole. First with the silly accusations of admin abuse without evidence. Then with silly comments like "It would rather be deleted from Wikipedia because it does not exist" when there is a poster in the article which shows that name as well as it being trivial to find stuff which mentions that name e.g. [105]. Or simply the fact that one is the subject's given name and one is their family name. And you also keep bringing up stuff which is clearly against policy like suggesting the UFC website is the be and end all site for title disputes (when it's a primary source!), or implying that one editor is the one who should manage UFC pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your assumptions, I am just keeping on topic. There is no silly accusation or else i wont even brother making ANI (The way the technical move request was handled pretty much the evidence of all). No Admin allow on UFC? Wikipedia has that five pillar thingy. Anyways, what you want me to do? You want me to do? dismiss this ANI case and put it on village pump somewhere? or proceed with the ANI?

Putting another consensus on same talk page had the chaotic ending...no thanks...i going look somewhere else for this event name issue. Regice2020 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Article move on the basis of unreliable references

Neutrale Person has made a name move three times in less than 24 hours on the basis of three unreliable references at Kalhor Kurds[106]. I have explained why I disagree with the name change(nor a rugexpert or one reference from 1925 should be used to ascertain whether the Kalhor tribe are Kurds or Lurs. I've encouraged them to use the talkpage to explain why these references are not enough but the editor ignores and keeps renaming the article. I've also requested protection for the page because of this . --Semsurî (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've moved it back with a note to discuss on the talkpage. If they continue to edit-war over it they can simply be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping block evasion

user:2606:6000:63C7:9000:B4CB:F0E7:9A76:4D96 was blocked yesterday by user:Widr for claiming that multiple actors are comedians. While some of them have been in comedies, or have briefly been comedians, it's not what they are known for. Special:Contributions/2606:6000:63C7:9000:9814:128:2871:2385 and Special:Contributions/2606:6000:63C7:9000:AD55:DDB0:A304:19E9 appear to be block evading as they are restoring the same edits previously made by the now-blocked IP. I think 2606:6000:63c7:9000::/64 covers them with no other contributions. Meters (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Plug for WP:/64. ST47 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting essay, and thanks for the quick response. Meters (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Khirurg edits on Turkey and Demography of Turkey

An user called User:Khirurg is reverting my edits where I ask citations for. first edit, and second. First he says "tendentious cn tagging; the map is clear and sourced". Yes it is sourced, but says nothing about the fertility rate of an ethnic group being more than another. This is clearly against WP:NPOV. I said that the source does not mention anything like that, then he reverted again and said "the provinces with high birthrates have Kurdish majorities, everyone can see that. Or are you denying that?". I doubt everyone can see that, plus it is unsourced. He did similar thing on Demographics of Turkey, by reverting my edit here claiming that I did not like it. However this was placed by an user which had different sockpuppets. Plus it is unsourced and the it had many error as I had mentioned here. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no attempt by Beshogur to discus this on the article talk page, which would be the next step per BRD. Beshogur appears to have "jumped the gun" by bringing this straight to a dramah board. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: You should really check out #Talkpage bullying. I guess this came up there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Saclote

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from their first block and continued the same exact vandalism and disruptive editing practices that got them blocked the first time. Many of these acts have occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Miss World 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles. Kenneth Saclote has added numerous unsourced content or has added fake sources that do not actually support the information they're adding to appear as if the information is actually sourced: Ex., Ex., Ex., Ex., amongst many other instances. Kenneth Saclote has been given many warnings, including a final warning, but has continued their editing passed each warning and seems to have no interest in following policies or talking to more experienced editors about the problems with their edits. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Whether WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR, this is a drag. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns and activism at Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children

This is a problematic article: there is way too much content in here, and some of it is clearly not neutral--here I removed some non-neutral phrasing, done in Wikipedia's voice, but there is more. In addition, editor Activist (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on inserting a gallery of culprits, which they argue is necessary and warranted because a. (they claim) it attracts readers to the article and b. these people are criminals and so is Trump etc. Maybe I'm not doing their argument justice: please see Talk:Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children, where you'll find that they've been doing this for a while, as User:GastelEtzwane can attest. I'm about to lose patience with this line of argument, and would appreciate some more eyes. Somehow Hunter Biden has something to do with it as well (seriously), and someone called Uncle Sugar. And there's something about tax payers who shouldn't allow this Wikipedia article to...I don't know.

I had posted this on the neutrality noticeboard, but no one seems to visit that; in addition, recent comments on the talk page and more reverts in the article only confirm what I suspected. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock for spam IP

This range has been spamming with inline ELs for two months now. I don't see any non-spam contributions from the /56 block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses: 2405:201:3204:7f3c:f94a:89bc:a088:1c7b 2405:201:3204:7f4e:fceb:d1f1:36b7:3da2 2405:201:3204:7fc0:129:f0d7:3846:371d 2405:201:3204:7fc0:5ce4:7f76:a869:c70a 2405:201:3204:7fc0:b9d9:c968:989:1c2c Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 256 /64 256 /64 5 2405:201:3204:7f00::/56 contribs 129 /64 128 /64 2 2405:201:3204:7f00::/57 contribs 1 /64 3 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64 contribs 3 /64 1 /64 1 2405:201:3204:7f3c::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2405:201:3204:7f4e::/64 contribs 1 /64 3 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64 contribs

I blocked 2405:201:3204:7f3c::/64 for a month to match what another admin has already done with 2405:201:3204:7f4e::/64 and 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64. Those three blocks cover all the reported edits. Let me know if you see more like that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor being abusive for those who question neutrality of Vivek Agnihotri

See this threat of ban. Abusive message here. Also, I have also requested help on the WP:BLP noticeboard but not received any response. Any help? Thanks Rabbabodrool (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider pinging @Winged Blades of Godric: since they were the one to give the warning. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, I was mistaken. You are trying to get action against a long term valued editor. Who you didn't notify. Good luck. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC) This user has been abusive in the past and had indicated that s/he is not interested in communicating on the t/p. Rabbabodrool (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have nothing much to say, except in dropping a certain guideline-supplement, that goes by the name of CIR. ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So the personal attacks continue in accordance with your agenda. I don't see how the Vivek Agnihotri article can ever reach a NPOV status while such attacks on neutrality continue. Can anyone tell me how these statements are not WP:WEASEL? Rabbabodrool (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think that nobody has even bothered to entertain your multiple threads at BLPN or the two on the article t/p or the one on the project t/p or the one unfurling over here? See WP:1AM.∯WBG^converse 08:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tae Hyun Song

• Tae Hyun Song (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly new editor, and their talk page is full of warnings for removing others' comments from talk pages and for using talk pages as a forum, including a final warning for the latter yesterday. Despite this, another similar talk page post was made this evening (diff). Other than continuing to post some rather...let's say idiosyncratic views about physics and civil forfeiture, there's been no meaningful response to the concerns raised. (Courtesy ping for Begoon who seems to have dealt with the majority of this, in case they'd like to comment). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Begoon keeps editing out "ruled unconstitutional" and replaced with "described as unconstitutional". He also editted out "by definitition unconstitutional" in the Criticims of Civil Forfeiture paragraph to artifically soften their critism and introducing inaccuracy and only grudgingly allowed the word "unconstitutional" in the paragraph. Cititations were provided. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For the constitutionality, maybe you need to read about "precedence" and how it is set in the US. When one judge rules on a law, that precedent only holds for the geographic area for which that court has jurisdiction. If appealed to that state's supreme court, AND the court accepts it for review, and then rules on it, then it sets precedent ONLY FOR THAT ONE STATE.

As I have tried to explain, in Wikipedia, we use Reliable Sources to describe things, and "by definitition unconstitutional" is YOUR OPINION, clearly not the opinion of the lawmakers who enacted it. This is the point you seem to not be understanding.

Maybe you should also read: WP:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_Earth_is_not_flat If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification.

Lastly, if you would follow normal Talk page protocol/behavior, as Begoon has tried to get you to do, we'd be having this conversation there. (See Talk:Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States, edits from 2019-12-08T05:58:58 forward. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of black holes. I asked for citations proving gravity affects light, warping space, and effecting time. How is that disruptive? All they have is a very blurry photo showing what could be a planet obscuring a star, an eclipse. There were some objections, to using the photo before, but squashed by black hole enthusists. Black holes start out as theorical and never proven. All I was asking for is cititatons which the article needs for validity. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm afraid Tae Hyun Song has proven extremely disruptive. They don't seem interested in the slightest in collaboration with others, merely arguing for their own unsupported opinions. The problems with this editor so far include:

• Edit warring over having their impenetrable wall of text with no clear article improvement purpose collapsed.
• Continually fiddling with a huge talk page diatribe that nobody will struggle through, and that, even if one did try to, seemingly contains no article improvement suggestions - or at least none have been clarified despite many requests.
• Personal attacks with accusations of "bias" - I don't particularly care if someone wants to attack me, but it doesn't make for a good environment.
• Refusal, after thousands of words to make any clear, succinct, supported, actionable suggestion for article improvement, despite many requests that they do so.
• Removing other editors' comments from talk page.
• Editing their own comments after they have been replied to, and edit-warring over it.
• Editing the article and talk page logged out and with their account.
• The post at black hole, which DV points to, while mercifully brief compared to their usual impenetrable diatribes, sums up their approach to editing here quite well: "Prove Gravity Warps Space, Prove Gravity Affects Time, Prove Gravity Affects Light." they stridently demand. This kind of ill-informed, nonsensical ranting is not how an encyclopedia is built, and extremely irritating to those of us who are here to do that when belligerently repeated (with a stomp and a pout you can almost see) in different ways and places, ad nauseam.

I've basically said that I don't wish to engage with the editor until they can follow our collaborative norms and stop causing such disruption, but, of course, that doesn't solve the root of the disruption. They ignore all warnings and requests to behave collegially.

What to do? I don't know - but I'd suggest that the sheer amount of wasted time and disruption needs to stop one way or another - either by the editor finally acknowledging concerns and adapting their behaviour (of which we've seen no sign), or by them being prevented from continuing. -- Begoon 07:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest escalating blocks, starting with the 31h I just implemented due to an edit adding yet more unsourced content at Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after the above comments were made. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

24.73.235.150

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

---

• ‎24.73.235.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can an administrator please consider blocking this IP for personal attacks? See [107] and [108]. See also the IP's block log. The IP was blocked for similar reasons last year and judging by the edits since then, it appears to be the same person; the address seems to be pretty static. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Without talk page access, given the first diff you provided and their behavior after their first block. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @ST47: Thank you for the quick response! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And I've gone through to revdel a few of the potty-mouthed edits/edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thank you for that as well! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Lost Fugitive and bad-faith WP:POINT edits

• So do this, this, and this violate WP:NPA? Insulting me with idle threats, calling my edits "bullshit", and reverting good-faith additions constitute WP:NPA? I find it extremely fishy that Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) stepped out of retirement just to come and attack me for no reason. The user has also in bad faith restored a huge crapton of WP:OR to Love & Gravity (most of which was just citations to lyric databases that have long since been taken down) which seems to be an attempt to "get back" at me for edits made years before. This all smacks of WP:NPA given that the user in question ended a nearly six-year editing hiatus just to snipe me. Call it WP:POINT or what have you, but it's clear that they're just being petty over shit from six years-plus prior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  A very immature response from LF. Upon seeing their article delisted, they should have helped to improve it, and get it back to GA status. But instead they focused on attacking TPH, for really no good reason. LF: if you're reading this, I ask that you make no further attacks, remain civil, and help to fix the article. If you cannot stay civil, you may find yourself blocked and you'll have no chance to improve the article. But if you take a moment to reflect, I hope you will find it in you to work with the good editors here and bring Roger Miller back to Good article class, or heck, even the coveted Featured article class! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for some time and I come back and find that TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has added useless trivia and unsourced content to Roger Miller and then nominated it to be delisted as a GA article last month without even notifying me on my talk page or by email. I'm not going to speculate about his motives but a reasonable person can see this action as harmful to the Wikipedia. I looked back to see what else he had done concerning articles I previously edited and discovered that in 2016 he removed sourced information we previously discussed and came to a consensus on on the talk page of Love & Gravity from years ago and called it "crap." He also delisted 2 other articles I helped to elevate to GA status: Eddie Rabbitt and Ace in the Hole Band. As a consequence of these actions, I took the reasonable step to recall the Barnstar I awarded him in 2011. I no longer believe he deserves the Barnstar and ask that he remove it from his page. I've only seen the harm TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has done to the articles I edited previously which makes me wonder how many other articles he has harmed. I do not plan to investigate further. Now that I'm back I am excited to contribute and have started research on expanding the article for the 2008 Rodney Crowell album Sex & Gasoline, which I started in 2009.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha did TenPoundHammer really add this content[109] to a GA you had worked on and then nominate it to be delisted as a GA? Diabolical, if true. Cjhard (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And he just added it again. Perhaps he just doesn't like other people editing country music articles.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

All he did was add maintenance tags.[110] Cjhard (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I see that now but in his latest edit he added back all the unsourced content and trivia, which to me means he endorses it. If he would have just removed the bad content rather than delisting and/or notified me about the delisting, the article might still be GA. I still believe his actions were harmful to Wikipedia and so I stand by my decision to re-call the 2011 Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer reverted you because they felt you made your changes to make a point, rather than to improve wikipedia. I don't know if I'll really agree but in any case, TenPoundHammer is not the reason the info was there in the first place. The fact that you're incorrectly accusing them of doing do, helps no one. And frankly the only thing withdrawing in 2019 a barnstar you gave in 2011, does is reflect very poorly on you. Except maybe in extremely exception circumstances like Edgar181 perhaps. Definitely arguing over the withdraw barnstar with dumb comments like "fraud" does not reflect well on you. I suggest you both work on improving the article and stop with this nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Also looking more carefully at some of the removals, and the edit summary, I can understand why there were concerns. For example with this edit [111], you said "remove unsourced bullshit". Yet "A main street in Erick, Oklahoma, was named Roger Miller Boulevard in his memory" and "He was posthumously inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1995" are the sort of stuff which would likely belong in a comprehensive article. The fact it's unsourced is not good, still just reading these and it sounds like the sort of thing which should be easy to source so removing it is probably not the best solution. You may next point out the info is already in the article, in a better location and sourced and you'll be right. But why then didn't you say this when removing the content? I don't see how anyone reading your edit summary is supposed to know this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Since this post was made, Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) has once again restored unsourced content and WP:TRIVIA, most of which is not reputably sourced or sourced at all. The edit summary of "unsourced BS" is misleading and WP:POINTy, as it's clear that they are the ones adding unsourced content, not removing or fixing it like I was. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ETA: @Lost Fugitive: Really? You think I'm adding trivia? I knocked out the ENTIRE "Trivia" section. You're the one putting it back in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You just did it again and then called my removal and addition of sources as vandalism. Look at the article as it stands right now. You are adding the trivia "In popular culture." You are removing sources (published Johnny Cash autobiography) and replacing them with unsourced tags. You are adding unsourced information. This is harmful to Wikipedia. You do not deserve a Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I'm very confused what you're talking about since Lost Fugitive seems to be right. They removed a trivia section. You added it back. The only thing their edit seems to have added to the article is the discography section, but I wouldn't call it a trivia section and even if it potentially could be parred down, I'm not sure if it should be removed whole sale. It seems to me you're also as guilty as what I complained about above. Using edit summaries that don't provide a real understanding of why you're doing what you're doing and that are even more perplexing when taken together with your comments above. Anyway, I've opened a discussion on the talk page which hopefully you can join and better explain what you're trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll chalk that up to editing way too early in the morning and not properly processing what I was doing. My point still stands: it's blatantly clear that LF just came out of retirement to bitch at me over stuff that happened ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: See here where LF has the audacity to call me "mentally impaired". If that's not an WP:NPA I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Well at a minimum it's uncivil language and I would suggest Lost Fugitive stop if they don't want to get themselves block. OTOH, you twice reinstated a change based on the mistaken believe you were actually undoing what you were re-doing, and then came to ANI to complain about it and when the editor pointed out that they were the one who removed trivia you still insisted you were the one who did so. So some annoyance from the editor is understandable. And User:Lost Fugitive, before you get so high and mighty about TenPoundHammer's mistake, remember what I said above. You came to ANI and falsely accused them of adding the trivia in the first place and before that withdrew a 2011 barnstar and got into a dumb argument about fraud. So I'd again suggest you both just drop this and work on improving the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Article clean up requests

Hi: It has come to my attention that there are a lot of articles on places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which use very informal and offensive language. To elaborate. This type of language includes from previously edited articles the following text which I have had to either clean up or remove as I find it offensive as a white british citizen.

Extended content

The following historical sentences are for use in my evidence: Rugeley ===Demography=== Before: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes, but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town. After: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes. Worcestershire ===Ethnicity=== Before: Though the total number of people in every ethnic group increased between 2001-11, the White British share of Worcestershire's population decreased from 95.5% to 92.4%, as did the share of White ethnic groups as whole, which went from 97.5% to 95.7%. While this change is in line with the nationwide trend of the White British share of the population shrinking, Worcestershire is still much more ethnically homogeneous than the national average. In 2011, 79.8% of the population of England identified as White British; much lower than Worcestershire's figure of 92.4%. After: Removed the entire sentence. It came over as really offensive slang and hatred towards white people. Uttoxeter Before: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with just 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> After: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with around 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> County Durham Before: County Durham has very low rates of ethnic and religious diversity. 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. After: County Durham has 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. These are examples which I have had to change as it sounds like one too many white people. There was also one on Telford too. Before: Telford's population is predominantly White, comprising 93.8% of the population as of the 2001 census. The next largest ethnic group is those of Asian descent, comprising 3.3% of the population, which is again less than the West Midlands at 8.0%, and England at 5.3%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276831&c=Telford+and+Wrekin&d=13&e=13&g=396941&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184339923&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – Telford & Wrekin|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> However, the town and borough remains comparatively more ethnically diverse than the ceremonial county, with South Shropshire for example being 97.8% white.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=277096&c=South+Shropshire&d=13&e=13&g=482771&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184344829&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – South Shropshire|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> After: Removed. As it was a brag for too many white people and not enough ethnicity. My complaint is if Wikipedia is about being formative and connecting. These types of sentences are examples of being White british is a sin and having less ethnicity is wrong. Please could some admin I request look for other pages or keep an eye of the aforementioned pages for further white hatred language. Just because somewhere has low demographic ethnicity doesnt make it a bad thing. Leicester and Slough are prodminently becoming asian but nobody has put anything negative towards the ethnicity makeup. I hope my points are taken seriously. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 23:05, 08 December 2019.

This actually does seem relevant for WP:ANI, but not in the way JoshuaIsTheFalco would've intended. The edits he mentions he has done above all seem quite disruptive and something that should he stop making - he seems to consider any sentence on the share of white people in a place to be possibly racist against white people, including perfectly factual clauses like "but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town". I also wonder if his behavior in other areas has improved since the last ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive311#User:JoshuaIsTheFalco - @Redrose64 and Nthep: on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I hadn't noticed that he'd already made some edits like this, so I've re-opened this report to consider his editing. If I have time later I may look at reverting some of it - although ironically in some cases he's removed text which is actually unsourced anyway, if for completely the wrong reason. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So his edits had already been reverted by others (although at Worcestershire he'd changed it again, leading to a sentence that made little sense). I have reverted that again, and have sourced the sections to census data both there and at Rugeley. Effectively, the answer here is that JoshuaIsTheFalco needs to stop messing about with statements of fact just because he has the bizarre idea that they are somehow offensive, and I will place a notice to that effect on their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Very strange. Your notice was promptly and angrily removed, with a note to self that they'll "stop contributing to this disease riddle site of falsehood". Well, OK. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

A threatened flounce is a fairly common reaction but as before JISF is back after a short while. Since my last interaction with him regarding the existence of a village and on this issue there has been discussion at his talk page which he seems to have taken to heart so at the moment I don't think any action is required. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Kaur.ishmeet. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit to a DYK article while on the main page, this editor removed every citation in the body along with some other mostly unnecessary changes. The edit summary was (Grammatical Errrors, Punctuation marks, Rearranged some words for better readability.)

Looking at their edit history, they have made only 7 similar edits (to 7 different articles) which aren't really improvements. Almost all have been reverted. Not sure where else to bring this. I doesn't look like actual vandalism. The edit summaries may be borderline misleading. The intent may be good (or not?) But there definitely is a low-level disruptive pattern here across several articles. MB 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Account now blocked as a sock. MB 17:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous IP engaged in automated editing

I was editing using STIKI. An anonymous IP appears to be making automated edits (see anonymous IP contributions here and scroll down on the first page). On December 11, 2019 UTC, they have made about 300 single edits on approximately 300 Wikipedia pages that describe operas. It may be more than 300 - this was the best number I came up with.

Most of these are stubs. They have placed the italic title template {{italic title}} on each page. Although, these edits appear to be correct according to WP:Italictitle and MOS:Italictitle, this seems to be disruptive if 300 articles did not have this template affixed to them in the first place.

Also, from what I know about bot editing, the editor needs to receive permission to use the bot and permission for the project they intend to engage in. And according to an answer to my query on the STIKI talk page ([112], [113])-an actual registered account is required and the bot also needs to be registered [114]. I have queried the anonymous IP on their talk page [115]. They have also been notified about this ANI [116]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes you say it's a bot? The edit rate is only about 5 per minute on average, and there are some pauses (such as around 19:12) and other irregularities in the edit rate that make it seem manual. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think the rate is, the editing is rapid on a per minute basis - very much like a bot. I don't think I do STIKI editing that fast. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, pauses in this instance, would not seem to detract from the possibility that this is bot editing. I'd like to hear some other opinions. And if this is bot editing - the editor may be using other IP addresses. They seem to be an experienced editor. I would also like them to respond here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What I "think" the rate is? Are you suggesting that it's something other than what I've stated? And what reason do you have to think the editor is using other IP addresses? Have you seen any? ST47 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the quantity of edits - 300 or more - would seem to indicate the use of a bot. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't take much more than ten seconds to press "ctrl C" then "ctrl V" and then click the save button. I see no evidence that indicates this is a bot. --Jayron32 18:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are 143 edits from 18:03 to 18:39 (= 36 min) in that IPs edit history with the edit summary of: "per WP:ITALICTITLE". That's just under 4 edits per min, which seems plausibly manual. Paul August ☎ 18:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I misspoke when I wrote "whatever you think the rate is", sorry about that. What I meant was, "whatever the rate is" - the rate appears to be rapid... and so on. Also, I didn't say the IP is using other IP addresses. I said the editor may be using other IP addresses. It's meant to be a kind of heads up. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to detect possible irregularities. It doesn't mean there is an irregularity here - it's just that it seems possible. And I think I am allowed to point them out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you for finding the irregularity. It is important that we feel open and free to share concerns when we see them. Just because myself and others disagreed after your report doesn't mean there was a problem with your report. You did nothing wrong, I just disagreed with you. --Jayron32 19:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. That is a relief. I thought I walked into a bad situation for me. Phew! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the feedback so far, it is plausible this is not a bot. To me 4 edits per minute, and 5 edits per minute seemed to be bot-like and rapid. Apparently, this is not the case, and maybe I am not that familiar with bot editing. Just want to acknowledge that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

UnknownAssassin1819

• UnknownAssassin1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

This user was blocked for one week on 10 March 2019 for trolling and personal attacks at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. They received the DS alert for AP2 on 11 Dec ([117]) after this reverted edit which was repeated the following day. The DS notice was blanked and the same edit made again today. They were previously warned by Ymblanter here for inserting contentious material here. Other highlights include "far-right Democratic" at Jim Crow laws [118]. I'd suggest a TBAN based on productive editing in other areas, but a look through the talk page history finds examples like this. You have to go through history because the user routinely blanks their talkpage when warnings pile up. The productivity to drama ratio looks poor for this user. What do people think? Guy (help!) 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I obviously think that Wikipedia would be better without this editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that they've previously been blocked for edit warring in the area of video games, I'm not seeing much of a point in just a TBAN.

Between this, this, and this, we're better off just blocking them. Anyone who thinks that black supremacists are super common and that white people are actively being exterminated falls under WP:CIR, if not WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure why my opinions mean anything here when I rarely make edits on political articles. Not that it matters, but i'm Mexican, how can I be a Nazi? I blank my pages because I don't like stuff piling up, that doesn't mean i'm hiding anything, I do it to anything that appears there. "Wikipedia would be better without this editor", yeah, i'm sure removing me will make a significant difference for this website, this will definitely end all "wrong opinions" people may have and cleanse all bad people. I don't understand that talking point, why am I being treated like some kind of menace to society? I barely even make edits here anymore. Wikipedia should have a "No Wrong Opinions" rule if i'm to be censored and have my opinions cleansed from the world. By the way, I don't "think" Black Supremacists exist, it's just what the media alludes to. I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common. You're going to have extremists from all sides, no favors are being granted by pretending there aren't any. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been, and still are, Mexican Nazis, e.g. Acción Revolucionaria Mexicana, Unión Nacional Sinarquista, etc. --Jayron32 12:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant. We do let users have a variety of opinions but we're under no obligation to waste our time with people who hold racist opinions that are contrary to our goals and methodologies.

As for I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common, either you have no fucking clue what "super common" means or you're so scared of black people asking for basic rights that you're lumping them in with the fraction of a percentage that say anything remotely comparable to inverse Nazism. Nazis just love Tu quoques these days.

That's not even touching this. @UnknownAssassin1819: would you say that the idea that white people, in general, are being actively targeted with oppression, extermination, or genocide is A) a racist conspiracy theory, B) unproven, C) debatable, D) plausible, or E) reality? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Other than the slow-moving edit war at Glenn Beck, which would be blockable unless UnknownAssassin1819 agrees to not revert anymore, I don't see anything in their recent editing history to indicate disruption. The last edits of anything political date to July, which you note above. I find them disturbing, but not sanctionable at this point. --Jayron32 12:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think the 20+ warnings that they've received on their user page in the course of fewer than 900 mainspace edits probably gives us a good idea of their general utility to the project. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think if there are other good reasons for blocking them, we should hear them; however the OP seems to focus on AP2 violations, which I don't find much of. If there's a different reason to block which is evident in recent editing history, please put it forward. --Jayron32 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, I only reverted because I found it to be disruptive to the page itself and would move readers away. I obviously wouldn't do it again because I don't want to be blocked for one minor thing. Like Jayron32 stated, I rarely ever "disrupt", it's clearly not something I do often, but i'm wanted to be banned just for having certain opinions, not because it defines my edit history (which it clearly doesn't). UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• You may have a valid argument to make on the Glenn Beck article (saying that doesn't mean you do, I'm just conceding it as a possibility. Maybe you don't...) but if you do, reverting back-and-forth is unlikely to get your point heard. Instead, you should make your case on the article talk page and try to build consensus, seeking help from the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if necessary. Just reverting to keep what you want in the article is not best practice. Start a discussion on the talk page, and lay out your case. --Jayron32 17:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Thinking that white people are being actively exterminated and that black supremacists are very common are not opinions, they're falsifiable claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that is unmitigated bullshit. It's also unmitigated bullshit from February, and the user in question seems to have taken on board prior sanctions and warnings and is not currently putting such unmitigated bullshit into Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I got a TBAN for discussing the White Genocide conspiracy theory on the talk page. There's no point in doing that anymore. I said White farmers in South Africa are being exterminated, not overall White people in the entirety of the world, and there's a difference between the terms "Supremacist" and "Supremacy", we must not mistaken the two. Racial Identity = Supremacist; Racial Authority = Supremacy. In any case, I haven't made these claims in months, why do they matter now? Perhaps because it's being used against me instead of defining my overall edit history? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not going to defend you. I find the philosophy you espouse horrifying and evil, and the previous abject lies you've attempted to spread on Wikipedia to be equally as horrifying. I was trying to give you the opportunity to reform, and I am in no way going to defend you on your prior bad acts, and I've tried to give you an out here, but if you're going to continue to spout such nonsense as you just did right now, I'm going to withdraw my objections to banning you from Wikipedia permanently. I'm disengaging now, because I find my bloodpressure rising to unhealthy levels. Please go away before you make things worse for yourself. --Jayron32 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• CBAN enough already.-- Deepfriedokra 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked the user. We have and continue to waste too much time on an editor who has nothing positive to contribute to the project and who interjects odious unsupported views into articles and onto Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Andy Dingley

I would like to request that several personal comments by Andy Dingley be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass):

- [119] - Dingley accuses me of making a "bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" and mentions a potential ANI post.

- After I politely ask Dingley to remove the comment and focus on content, not contributors, he accuses me of disruptive editing and again mentions ANI. Within minutes, two more comments appear at AfD [120][121] that focus entirely on my actions and fail to assume good faith.

I'm concerned that these remarks are derailing discussion of the actual sources and content at AfD. It seems that Dingley would prefer to discuss the situation at ANI instead of user talk, so here we are. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• You stripped most of the content of an article, and all of its sourcing, then AfDed it as "unsourced". No. We do not abuse AfD like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should sources be stripped simply for having been added by their authors? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley’s view is opposed to that of Dlthewave, and his comments are directed at Dlthewave’s actions, but I disagree with the suggestion that Dingley’s edits constitute a personal attack. Personal attack is very different. Dolphin (t) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks bad to strip sources and then AFD an article. A better option is to explain the problems with the sources in your AFD. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda - to be fair, it looks like Dlthewave removed the sources nearly a year before making the AFD nomination (the sources were removed in January 2019 as far as I can tell). The sources themselves appear to be garbage (non reliable sources) so even if they had remained then it would have been an issue. I don’t take any position as to the AFD but I’m not sure that it is fair to accuse Dlthewave of gaming the system. For the sake of putting this argfument to bed, I would encourage Andy Dingley to strike through the accusations and move on from them. They might not count as personal attacks under a legalistic definition but I think they are not really helping the discussion either. Michepman (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman: OK, yeah, I misread the history. The sources were stripped early, but the content was all deleted just before the AFD. Different details, same problem. Guettarda (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• The source stripping was done just hours after their first AfD of this article, a year ago, closed as Keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable sources nearly a year ago and explained my reasoning in the AfD after no usable replacement sources were found. In any case, AfD is not the place for comments about another editor's actions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just before the AFD you removed the entire article other than one sentence. [122] then nominated it for deletion, even taking off the categories. You previously removed a chunk of it after everyone else said KEEP the first time you sent it to AFD. Anyway, deleting an article is done by AFD not you just erasing 99% of it. Dream Focus 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have sometimes stripped the cruft out of an article and having done so, realised the topic is not notable and the article (what remains of it, anyway) should go to AfD. If this happens, my advice is to explain this in the nomination with a link to the pre-stripped version of the article, precisely to head-off this kind of drama. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, that's sound advice. "Having removed a number of sources that fail WP:RS, I was unable to replace them and find that there is in fact a lack of acceptable sources to substantiate notability" or words to that effect. Guy (help!) 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• There's an article at AfD that you'd prefer to see kept and early on the only !votes are to keep. What do you do?
  • Good idea: leave well enough alone.
  • Bad idea: Antagonise the nominator so much that they go to ANI to get you off their back, thereby bringing the AfD to the attention of people other than hyper-inclusionist AfD haunters and cryptozoology enthusiasts.
• But, but, but hurling angry mendacities at AfD nominators is fun. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't just one AfD - look at [123] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I see this editor removing trashy self-promotional sources from bad articles; and in one case has found that this leaves nothing in the article, which they therefore sent to AfD. Although I can appreciate arguments that dlthewave could have waited a week or two before pushing the AfD button, I'm not really seeing that they've done anything wrong. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"trashy sources" Which you haven't read. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AFAICS, all of the sources are cryptozoology sites or books written by cryptozoologists, and all they do is repeat the finder's claims - which, after all, since there was no physical evidence, is all they can do. As the article originally stated, some sources doubt whether it ever existed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean – it's not a notable globster after all? Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

cough non-notable partly decayed whale carcasses cough. Reyk _YO! 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's notable or not depending on whether it gets written about. It has. Now there is a broader question here, whether we cover folklore or not at all, because it is fundamentally all fantasy. But the claim being made, "There can be no reliable study made of a non-reliable topic" isn't any part of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic for this noticeboard but of course you know it's more complicated than simply whether something "gets written about". I have just reluctantly had to vote delete at WP:Articles for deletion/BEMER therapy because although this fascinating fringe topic is "written about", the sources simply aren't good enough. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

We cover notable folklore. Anyone who looks at those sources and doesn’t recognize they’re fringe has CIR concerns in my book. We should not be protesting the removal of fringe sources or hoax material, which is what this article was. – Levivich 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder, it is possible for scholarly works and reliable sources to cover mythology, folklore, pseudoscience, and even fiction. The issue here is wherher the sources in question are reliable and whether the nominator violated the rules by removing them. from my standpoint, the nominator did nothing wrong since he explained his action in the discussion. The aspersions cast on him by others should be voluntarily retracted to preserve civility. That does not mean that the article should or should not be deleted, just that the nomination was done properly and in good faith. Michepman (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it does not pass the smell test for an AfD nominator to delete the majority of the article and then nominate it for deletion. The AfD participants should be the ones to evaluate the article; if a nominator turns the article into a one sentence stub it is bad form. I have been involved in AfDs when a nominator did this and it always looks bad. The fact that numerous ANI participants have now gone from here to there to !vote delete is sad but predictable, but I digress. Can we please not do this? Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. It's not that uncommon - often an editor will find an article with few sources, or mostly unusable sources, and start removing stuff in an effort to fix it only to realize afterwards that what's left isn't really viable as an article. If you look at the recent removals, they were almost all unsourced (the one source didn't support the statement it was citing) and reasonably WP:EXCEPTIONAL material. The WP:AFD is tending overwhelmingly towards deletion even now that these objections have been raised, and anyone who wanted to try and salvage the article before it was deleted could restore the deleted material, either with or without sources, especially now that attention has been called to the removals. The fact that no one has been willing to restore the deleted material suggests that its removal was appropriate and, therefore, that it improved the article, ie. it's hard to see how having a wall of unsourced text would be helping it right now. And, I mean, in terms of people going from WP:ANI to weigh in on the WP:AFD... on the whole, heavy WP:ANI readers tend to be both a wider audience and some of the wiki's most experienced editors. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• There was nothing wrong with this edit, of course: the content was trash, and it was rightly removed. That the next step was AfD is also correct. I do not agree that Andy Dingley's following comments were personal attacks--"sheer bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" isn't much of a personal attack. It's a complete exaggeration, of course, and a meager attempt to save...a carcass? but bringing that here, meh. No one is going to block over it, and that AfD should just languish on the shore line until someone closes it. We could close it per SNOW, of course, but who wants to be yelled at? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Revdel (at least) needed - praise for Hitler and call for genocide. Ignored by OVERSIGHT

I reported 65.93.207.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to WP:OVERSIGHT before going to bed last night. I woke up this morning to find nothing done about them. There is no need whatsoever for the content to be visible in the article history. DuncanHill (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I rev-deleted the edits and blocked the IP for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Julie Bailey

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

---

This is of some urgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julie_Bailey --91.85.198.64 (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revisions deleted, article protected, user blocked for obvious BLP violations. I have no expectation that they're here to do anything but to malign the subject. Thanks for your help. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Sennen goroshi

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

---

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for edit-warring, although they refuse to accept that the block was warranted. Since the unblock, they have edit-warred to reinstate personal attacks on two talk pages: [124], [125], [126], [127]. Prior to the block, they engaged in plenty of other problematic behavior such as twisting another editor's words, moving a page in defiance of an RM from the previous month while falsely claiming that there was no consensus, refusing to indent their comments properly and removing the indentation added by another editor. They have failed to heed prior warnings about their behavior (see [128], [129], and [130]), despite being admonshied for overzealousness in issuing a warning to someone else (advice that they predictably rejected). Sennen goroshi made only a handful of edits from 2010 until this month, and their block log suggests they weren't much of a charmer in their more active days either. In light of their impressive display of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, let's deal with this WP:NOTHERE editor appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I accepted the block, removed my unblock request and stated that I considered it to be a poor block. I will stand by that statement, because I consider the block to be heavy-handed.

I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there and to repeatedly remove my comment, is a deliberate attempt to provoke an edit war.

I made a comment implying that an editor was displaying WP:OWN tendencies on an article. Again, this isn't a personal attack.

I used the (admittedly childish) title of "holy shitballs" for a discussion - this most certainly isn't a personal attack and I renamed it to " Holy Shitballs! (There was no consensus for major changes)"

Oh and an editor doesn't like my indentation style. I guess you can crucify me for that, because bad indentation = Hitler.

In summary, I see an editor who saw me getting blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and has decided to go on a personal crusade of harassment against me, in an attempt to provoke me into personal attacks and edit warring.

To be blunt, I'm happy to stay away from those two disputed articles and indent in whatever pretty style people prefer, but I'm not about to waste my time on defending myself on ANI against such petty claims. If that means that my twelve year old account is blocked, then so be it. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

From my vantage point, your response to the non-native English speak was dripping with condescension. Maybe I misinterpreted your motives, but your history of unpleasantness supports the interpretation that you were being unpleasant in that case as well. As for the rest of your post, I think it sufficiently demonstrates why you are temperamentally unsuited for this collaborative project. Sure, you could stay away from those two pages, but you'd just end up creating conflict somewhere else. This isn't the YouTube comment section and we don't need to coddle editors who can't tell the difference. Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A mild suggestion that someone was being possessive over an article, a childish discussion heading and an ugly indentation style. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, see WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (help!) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I also was surprised to see that the first thing Sennen goroshi saw fit to do after their block expired was to re-institute offensive remarks that had been removed. Apparently they are quite keen to own those. Regarding I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there: actually the full comment was, It's okay, don't feel bad about it - English isn't your native language, so there's nothing to feel ashamed about when you struggle to understand things. That's not Sennen goroshi being accommodating, that's them being a dick, and it is embedded in a variety of other battleground verbiage that makes it quite clear that the intention here was to get a quick one in below the belt.

I suggest they dial down the focus on winning arguments and showing other editors what's what. I didn't enjoy the unnecessary WP:IDHT tantrum at Talk:Askal, and if that's to be the standard modus operandi, nobody is going to be happy about the outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my fault if you put 2 and 2 together and got 5 regarding my comment about someone not being a native speaker. You can take my word for it or not, there's nothing I can do about that, but I'm not about to apologize for a comment made with good intentions, neither do I appreciate you calling my comments offensive, while in the same breath calling me a dick. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with something new, I think I've said all I have to say on this matter, I see nothing productive in a continued tit-for-tat discussion here. Either I'm blocked and don't edit, or I'm not and I do - it's really not of great importance to me at the moment. Apologies to the admin who has to waste their time on this tedious shit. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Replying to yourself after 10 minutes is not a very convincing pose of detached indifference. Just a heads up.

WP:TALK is only a guideline. Maybe a busy editor can't be arsed to format their own posts. But someone who is here to build an encyclopedia wouldn't interfere with wikignomes who fix the formatting for you. Guidelines say a valid remedy is to ignore you. Yet you demand we change your mind [131][132], and edit war claiming you have made a good faith effort to discuss and resolve the dispute.

You claimed 50% of Dodge Tomahawk is "some petty squabble over tongue in cheek comments regarding hypothetical top speeds" after blanking the entire Critical reception section that was all about design, not speed, along with a few paragraphs analyzing the speed questions. I broke down how wrong that is, and that only 23% was about speed (that includes repeating content in the lead, per MOS:LEADREL), and that your version gives over only 2% of the words to cover a claim that a motorcycle could go an astounding 420 mph. BTW, the fastest an unfaired motorcycle has ever gone is 255 mph. Chrysler repeated the absurd claim, for years, and sources debunked it many times over. It was a big deal. A good faith contributor would have read the sources and known all that, especially after others pointed it out to you several times, and asked you to read the sources, several times.I wasn't the only one saying you're off base on that issue, and you attacked them too.[133]

Someone who was here to build an encyclopedia would have acknowledged your error, not pig-headedly cary on as if you didn't hear.

Someone here to build an encyclopedia would cite sources to claim undue weight. Someone here to build an encyclopedia would not hold up a mediocrity, not even a GA, let alone a Featured Article, like the article Bugatti Veyron, as the gold standard we have to aspire to. Your entire case rests on this dubious B-grade article's coverage of a totally different top speed dispute.

Your "mild suggestion" of someone being "possessive" was in fact a serious accusation of violating the Ownership of content policy.[134]. You "mildly" repeated that accusation [135][136][137][138][139] five times, even after I warned you that casting aspersions is not acceptable and that if you think anyone is violating the ownership policy, you need to take that up in an appropriate noticeboard, not an article talk page.[140] Two additional editors[141][142] removed your "mild" WP:OWN accusations as personal attacks. It's not evidence of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia, but of someone who is only here to fight, and who refuses to get the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'll make this short and sweet. I'm tired of dealing with this person's disruptive behavior. I'll probably avoid areas which I'm usually involved in, until they go away, and I suspect there are others doing so too. If administrators see consensus that we as a community are happy with the status quo, I expect them to do nothing. But this is clearly not the case. OBTW Dennis and I have been at the core of WP: WikiProject Motorcycling for about a decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• It is clear from their block log and extensive argumentative history that they are a greater detriment to the project than the value of their contributions. They've not changed their behavior after at least 12 blocks, all for various forms of disruptive behavior. Their actions in this thread are not convincing me there will be any change in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

[removed] Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs)

Based on the reprehensible harassing comments directly above, I have indefinitely blocked Sennen goroshi. I do not believe that I have ever interacted with this editor and am therefore uninvolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree. That was so way out of order that it was over the horizon. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have redacted it. Endorse indef block. Fish+Karate 09:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User: Serial Number 54129

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

---

Take a look at edit summary here and here--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The first is an expression meaning "forget it." The second is a Blackadder quote. I don't see any "issues."-- P-K3 (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kazemita1, "this guy has issues" is a personal attack, and is not appropriate to say about another editor. I've looked at the edits you linked (and their summaries) and I don't see anything particularly concerning - there's no rule prohibiting "bad words" in this case (since they're not directed at another editor). If there's some specific action you want an administrator to take, then say as much (and provide better evidence), otherwise I'd encourage you to delete this thread (because, again, personal attacks are bad). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess I learned something new; that "F-word" is allowed on English Wikipedia. However, "a person having issues" is not tolerated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. You also don't appear to have let SN54129 know about this report; I've done that.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: (edit conflict) The use of the word "fuck" is not a particular problem, so long as you don't direct it at or about someone. "Fuck it" is fine, "This person is a fuck" is not. "This is an issue" is fine, "This person has issues" is not. It isn't the words, its the way they are directed; we strive to discuss actions and behaviors not persons themselves. --Jayron32 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. No matter how you look at it though, using F-word is an issue. It is usually a sign that you are not in control of yourself specially when you use it in a formal to semi-formal situation. Believe me, I lived in the US for more than a decade (Even though English is not my first language). Then again you guys rule this place, so nothing further from my side.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User 67.70.58.234 persistently making factual inaccuracies

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

User 67.70.58.234 has been persistently making factual inaccuracies in regards to statistical information on the 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season article. This all started on Dec. 3 when the IP started making edits to the article. So far, they have made 4 edits, and I have have had to go and correct all of them. After their third edit, I left this message on their talk page, telling them to refrain from adding incorrect information. I even provided them references to help them obtain their information from. I gave the IP editor one more chance on Dec. 10, but they somehow managed to mess up again. I'm pretty lenient when other editors make errors once or twice every so often. However, this is a fourth consecutive time in the last week that this user has made errors. Here are the 4 edits that were concerning to me, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Now, here are my edits that corrected their errors, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Any sort of help would be appreciated. Yowashi (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I please get a response from someone? Yowashi (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: Possibaly vandalism; could go to vandalism noticeboard? N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 09:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I left notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Tracking verifiability on stats leaders is a moving target when updated every game. Hockey experts can better determine if this is good-faith but inaccurate editing, a content dispute, or vandalism.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've little to no patients for such behaviour. Would recommend that the IP be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like run of the mill vandalism to me. I will watch the page if they continue I will take action, but really if you see it just revert. Changing numbers in articles of any type is a fairly common vandalism move. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone protected the page for 2 months. I assume that this case can be closed. I will file a report again if there are any issues after the page becomes unprotected. Yowashi (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Fundraiser

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

---

Hi Admins. Look, I get it, you need to raise money to keep the project going and to keep it free. Do you think you could do it in a slightly less obnoxtious way? Like, perhaps NOT putting a massive banner up on every page that gets in the way and that I have to click "X" on all the time to remove? Asking for literally everyone - I know I'm not alone in being more than a bit annoyed by this. 81.106.0.237 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not an admin—or even an English Wikipedia—issue. For your amusement, see [143] and takes yer choice  :) ——SN54129 18:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The admins don't have anything to do with the fundraiser. The fundraiser is being run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the umbrella organization that has to pay for the electricity and rent on the building and salaries of the technicians to run the computers that house all of its various projects. The admins here are just volunteer editors who have access to a few more tools than other volunteer editors. Your complaint may be valid, but there's no one here who can do anything about it. Please try https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ for information how to contact them with your concerns. --Jayron32 18:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 81. One of my favorite parts of registering an account is that you can disable fundraising banners (and other Central Notices) in your preferences. I think you'll find most admin and editors agree with you. By the way, here's a link to the WMF's most-recent annual report, where you can read about how they're bringing in over $100 million per year and have over $150 million in assets. Those banners do wonders! – Levivich 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Knights of Columbus

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

---

• Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278 § Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material

My reading of the RSN discussion was that the use of ABOUTSELF material is excessive and that the article is bloated with self-sourced promotional and trivial content.

Slugger O'Toole has been around since 2006 and has around 20,000 edits. He has been mainly active since 2018. His top edited articles are connected the Knights of Columbus: 636 edits to the KofC article (highest of any editor by a large margin), 525 to Catholic Church and homosexuality (second highest), 349 to Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (highest, again by a large margin). He refuses to state whether or not he is a member or affiliate of the KofC, but asserts that according to his own reading of COI, he has no conflict. However, according to his own reading of WP:ABOUTSELF there is no limit on the amount or type of self-sourced material that can be included in an article, so I take that with a pinch of salt.

The article is, in part thanks to his reversion of any removal, extensively sourced from KofC and affiliated websites, including much promotional material such as claims of membership numbers, revenues, charitable giving etc. When I first checked, around half the inline citations were to KofC and affiliated websites or obvious press releases, and most fo the rest from a handful of books including at least one commissioned by KofC.

This looks very much like promotional editing. I am concerned by his refusal to acknowledge whether he has any connection with the subject and much more concerned by his bloating of the article with trivia, asserting that WP:ABOUTSELF provides effectively carte blanche to include as much detail as cannot be sourced independently, from affiliated sources, and his reversion of attempts to remove excessive self-sourcing. Guy (help!) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that this has reached the stage of ANI. I've encountered Slugger O'Toole's work in the past and he seems like a solid content creator. I don't know if he has a genuine COI with the Knights or if he is just an ardent fan, but the state of that article is unconscionable. If he doesn't want to disclose his relationship with the group, that's fine, but his editing behavior is not justifiable. The Knights are a fairly high profile organization; there are reliable third-party sources out there, and there's no excuse for so much of the sourcing to be taken directly from the organization's own website. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, normally I'd support anyone on Wikipedia not wanting to reveal personal information, however, when it conflicts with that person writing an article, especially if they're connected to it, yeah, that have to disclose it. Slugger O'Toole's responses smack of literally not answering the question at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't agree. Our policy explicitly does not require people must disclose (have to) a COI unless it's WP:PAID territory. People are strongly encourage to disclose, but if they do not do so, we have to consider whether their editing is causing problems. If it is, it may very well be appropriate to block or topic ban them, but this will be based on the problems their editing is cause, not the fact they may have an undisclosed COI. Editors should be aware that failing to disclose a COI means others may be reluctant to help them with any edit suggestions, and they will be given short shrift in any discussion, but still it's not a requirement. Personally I find an editor who refuses to comment on a COI slightly better than an editor who comments but misleads, although the former doesn't seem to apply here since as I understand it, the editor has refused to comment on any connection, but says they have no COI. Whether the latter applies, I have no i dea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne actually, WP:COI actually requires those with a COI to disclose it. Up near the top it states:

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Even non-paid editors with a COI need to disclose it. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: Did you read what you quoted? It says "Expected". It does not say you are required or must do so. And later it says "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles" (emphasis mine). Notice these words. They were chosen carefully. The only parts were it says "must" is in relation to paid editing. In that case, it is indeed required, and an editor can be blocked simply for failing to disclose their paid editing. It doesn't matter if their paid editing is stellar and no one can find any problem with it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, and refusal to either confirm or deny is as good as a confirmation, as we all know. But that's not the main issue. The main problem here is a terrible article that makes a notable subject look like some crappy little group because it is mostly promotional text taken from the group's own sites and press releases. Guy (help!) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know if I'd necessarily agree on that, and I'd argue your post demonstrates why. Someone may consistently refuse to confirm or deny precisely because if they start to deny, then they also have to confirm even if they don't want to. If you ask me whether I live in Wellington, and I refuse to confirm or deny, it may be because I live in Wellington. It may be because I live in Auckland and don't want to reveal that, and so don't want to go down a path which may eventually require me to either confirm I live in Auckland, lie about it, or basically tell people I do by the one time a question which I cannot truthfully deny is asked, I have to refuse to confirm or deny thereby confirming it anyway, or point blank refusing to answer which again if I normally reply will be taken as confirm it.

Likewise if you ask me if I am a member of Knights of Columbus, maybe the reason I may refuse to confirm or deny is because I am a member of Knights of St Columba and don't want to have to effectively reveal that when I feel there is no valid reason. I'm fairly sure some politicians have such a policy of refusing to confirm or deny a lot of rumours precisely for this reason.

Undoubtedly an editor should not be allowing their COI to cause problems, and the best way they can avoid having to disclose a COI is by steering well away from any area where they have a COI. But I'm also completely sympathetic to people who want to keep their private lives private despite editing here. And so fully endorse our current policy which IMO is clear that we cannot force people to declare an ordinary COI. Only when it comes to paid editing are editors required to disclose with no ifs or butts about it and their failure to do so is completely blockable.

Hence why as I said, we need to concentrate on problems this editor may be causing, putting aside whether they may or may not have a COI, rather than making misleading claims that a COI must be disclosed (which would imply it's ultimately a blockable offence to consistently fail to do so).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, when someone is engaged in promotional editing, it's legitimate to ask if they have a conflict of interest. If they refuse to answer, then it's equally legitimate to restrict them to the talk page as if they did, because the problem is promotional editing more than it is a conflict of interest. That's what I mean here: Undisclosed COI versus non-COI promotion is a distinction without a difference as far as the content goes. Guy (help!) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne Yes, I read what I wrote. I guess it comes down to how we interpret "expected to ". We're expected to stop at red lights, but it doesn't mean it's voluntary.

I read the COI statement the same way. NO, I won't get into a discussion about semantics, I totally see how you read "expected", you read it as something voluntary, and I don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if it means "required", they need not disclose anything other than the fact that they have COI. It's usual for editors in this situation to explain what the COI consists of (a member, and officer of the association, a close friend of a member, etc. ) but this is not required. We assume good faith, and recognize that the need to disclose further may be in some way identifying DGG ( talk ) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two issues here. The first is the amount of WP:SELFSOURCE material that is appropriate and for which facts it is appropriate. The second is when a COI needs to be disclosed. I was of the opinion that a primary source was acceptable for things like membership numbers. Due to the longstanding stable nature of the article, I believe there was a consensus for it. Others have come in and started removing that material, claiming it to be promotional and not appropriate for a primary source, without changing the consensus first. I think this is inappropriate, but as a gesture of good faith have endeavored to find additional sources. I haven't seen that reciprocated on the other side, sadly, and in fact have found the tone of some other editors to be downright hostile. If the consensus changes on this, I would be happy to abide by it.

As to whether or not membership requires disclosure, this issue has arisen before on this article. Two admins, @TonyBallioni: and @SarekOfVulcan:, have both declared that we "have never interpreted the COI guideline to require disclosure for things such as" membership in a fraternal organization. I think this is a wise move for those who are not in the upper ranks or paid employees. As I said on the talk page, declaring membership in an organization like the Knights would reveal several pieces of personal information, including age, gender, and religion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my impression as well. The general rule seems to be that you don't have to declare whether you are or ever were a Boy Scout to edit articles about Boy Scouts, but you do have to declare your association if you're paid for your involvement (either on staff for the organization [at least above a trivial level; mail room staff need not bother] or it's your job to promote the org [whether for pay or as a volunteer]). The same rules that apply to members of the scouting movement ought to apply to members of other large organizations. (For the smallest clubs, the situation is more complicated, because it's less likely that someone would technically be a member but not be involved in promoting the group or its aims in some way.)

As noted above, and according to the lead of that article, it appears that for this org "please disclose that you're a member" means "please disclose your religion on wiki". I can understand someone being reluctant to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

I'm less concerned about what might constitute COI than I am about his repeated insertion of UNDUE, promotional, and weakly sourced content in the article. The article is written in a tone and with a level of detail, jargon, and admiring excess that comes off downright bizarre to an uninterested arm's-length reader. This issue has been patiently explained to him, and I am not optimistic that he will be able to collaborate constructively on this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the COI is less important than the article content and how editor Slugger O'Toole does his best to own the article. Every time any other editor changes/removes content, he quickly reinserts it, and with his promotional spin. See this example of his whitewashing. [144]

He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article, (note his comments above) and he seems to be repeatedly either failing to comprehend or INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the repeated comments by other editors to point out that unless some piece of trivia or other material is sourced in an INDEPENDENT source, than it doesn't deserve to be in the article (it is not important enough to be in Wikipedia).---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• O'Toole has made a baffling 60% of the edits to that page (75% by text), which is unacceptable for an editor who has both clear WP:DUCK WP:COI issues they've refused to clarify and who and has, more importantly, constantly refused to listen to people saying that the article has clear problems. Wikipedia has around six million articles, and this one as a reasonably high amount of attention now, so I think O'Toole ought to spend some time editing on a different subject and leave the Knights in the care of other editors for a few years. (I also think the fixation on "this is how it has always been", in the face of so many people pointing out so many problems, smacks of WP:OWN given that much of the current text was written by O'Toole with relatively minimal input from others.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have stated on multiple occasions that I think the article can use work and that I am willing to work with anyone who wants to try and improve it. My main complaint is that, instead of editing text to improve the prose, some think the best course of action is to simply delete huge sections of text. My requests to work on this collaboratively with others have largely been ignored. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Much of the content does not belong in an encyclopedia article, for reasons many several editors have explained. Much of the article is paraphrased from a few closely affiliated sources. That kind of content simply needs to be removed. It can't be "improved" by compromise or collaboration. It just doesn't belong in the article. Your talk page statements, and now this one here, just ignore that the content can't be "improved". New content from more neutral sources, some critical and others contextualizing the KofC, could be added from independent RS references. But you've shown no inclination to work on that kind of improvement. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I dispute this characterization, both of the content and my efforts. I added plenty of new sources. I could also point to a few places where you deleted content that is critical of the Knights. I haven't removed any critical content. I also haven't seen you add any neutral, critical, or contextualizing sources. Neither has anyone else, for that matter. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Q.E.D. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I have not added any--yet--is that I have been focused on finding better sources for what is already there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:OWN - proposal

This situation is becoming impossible. There's a strong consensus on the article's Talk page and in other venues where this has been discussed that the article relies too heavily on affiliated sources and contains excessive trivia, much of it serving to promote the organisation. Every time anyone tries to fix this with an edit, Slugger O'Toole piecewise reverts pretty much all of the change, restoring the text with the same or only marginally better sources. The page stats speak for themselves. Slugger O'Toole has made 795 edits, which is 62% of all the edits ever made to the article and 3/4 of all the text added.

Slugger O'Toole has stated in the past that he is a member of the organisation. He has made numerous idiosyncratic arguments in favour of his excessive self-sourcing, he does not accept that there is any problem with the content (obviously, he wrote it) and it's virtually impossible to make any progress because, as I say, virtually every removal ends up being fully or partially reverted. The current focus seems to be to replace the KofC website as source with references to a book by Kaufmann which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, and now represents fully 30% of the inline citations.

I think this is well into WP:OWN territory now. 154 of the last 200 edits are by Slugger O'Toole, often a dozen or more edits in succession. I would like to ask that, at least for a short while, he is required to gain consensus prior to any edit tot he article itself, that would make it a great deal easier for the handful of us who are trying to tone the article down. Guy (help!) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Any reason no-one's proposed a Tban...? ——SN54129 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct response: I think nobody proposed a TBAN simply because this thread hasn't gotten much participation. Of course, if it's proposed the thread might get more editors to participate and reach the right conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I don't want to be overly harsh on him. I'd be happy with a talk page restriction, I don't want him removed altogether because he is genuinely trying to help and has many other edits to other articles that are not a problem. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite a lot of his other editing is in sub-articles or other related topics. A TBAN on pages related to KofC would not unduly limit his work on unrelated topics. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation this is. Others have identified issues with the article. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. I then made efforts to correct those areas identified as needing improvement. Now I am being criticized for doing so. While I have attributed a few statements to Kauffman, there have been far more pointing to new, independent, reliable citations. With one small exception, I don't see anyone else trying to find new sources. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, no, it's a damned if you do, damned if you keep on doing despite numerous editors having obvious issues with it. Turns out most of the replaced citations are still to publications affiliated with the KofC. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Again, I dispute this. As the article stands right now, there are probably 30-40 new sources in there, all, or almost all, of which are independent of the Knights. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, except that I keep looking into them and finding they aren't, and nearly a third of all cites are to one author whose writing absolutely is affiliated. But that misses the point. The issue with your editing is your attempts to WP:OWN the article. Guy (help!) 18:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, As I mentioned in another thread, there are fewer citations to Kauffman today than there were a month ago. The reason the percentage is going up is because other content and their sources are being deleted. I am not trying to own anything. If someone would like to help find independent sources I would be not only welcome it, I would be grateful. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strikes me as odd that our article seems completely silent on the Knights' paedophile problems.[145] Probably the article needs a tap with a NPOV hammer. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also the allegations of insurance fraud and other matters. There actually is a lot of RS coverage of KofC but much of it doesn't fit the current structure of the article's admiring narrative, and it will take a lot of work over time to write a richer account of the organizations history. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You will please note that there was a paragraph arising from the insurance fraud lawsuit previously, but JzG removed it. I've been hesitant to add anything new since you are so fond of cutting "undue detail." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

But you were happy to reword someone else's addition critical of the Knights to something praising them: (which could also be called whitewashing) [146] ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, you're welcome to try but current experience indicates that Slugger will revert. Guy (help!) 23:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: SPA and OWN, here's another bizarre thread: [147]. Is all this OK with the community, or can some resolution be found? SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

TBAN for Slugger O'Toole

This thread has been up for a while now, so I think we need to resolve the matter one way or the other. There's not going to be any improvement of the many promotional articles concerning Knights of Columbus with Slugger O'Toole monitoring them virtually 24/7 to reinstate unencyclopedic, cherrypicked, and poorly-sourced content and to remove broader mainstream discussion of the organization. Either the community is OK with this situation -- and OK with WP hosting these promotional and unsourced narratives -- or else I think we need to TBAN this editor. Let's resolve the issue. If there's no appetite for a TBAN, I think the rest of us will just move on to edit in other areas and grant Slugger O'Toole complete ownership of these articles. So I propose a TBAN for Slugger O'Toole from the Knights of Columbus article and related content in other articles. @Avatar317, JzG, Alexbrn, Serial Number 54129, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, DGG, Nil Einne, Wekeepwhatwekill, Michepman, and Slugger O'Toole: SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as proposer per comments above. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, as nominee. If you read the talk pages, you will see that I have made multiple good faith efforts to work with other editors. There are multiple times when I have asked for help, but then the conversation runs dry. I have offered to work on text together on talk before moving it to the main, and no one takes me up on the offer. It is true that we have differing opinions on several issues, but I have always tried to remain civil and collaborative. I don't want SPECIFICO, or anyone else, to move on to other articles. I think sometimes he goes too far, but some of his edits are very helpful. The public thank log shows I have thanked him several times recently 1) because I appreciate his efforts and 2) in an effort to calm tensions. There is no reason we can't work on these collaboratively together. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm surprised it's taken this long, but it's time for Slugger to step away from this. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. I hate to see someone get a topic ban, but looking at the talk page, it's pretty much due at this time. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wekeepwhatwekill, Yes, let's look at it. Look at my comment of 1:39 pm, 27 November 2019 when I started a discussion about all the tags that were placed on the artle when the tagger did not. At 1:35 pm, 30 November 2019 when I asked for help understanding the concerns, but didn't get a response. At 10:01 pm, 4 December 2019 when I asked for clarification, and got nothing. Again, same thing at 8:52 pm, 9 December 2019. Again at 3:44 pm, 11 December 2019.

  See the comment of 9:35 am, Yesterday when I tried to avert an edit war, but didn't get a response, and then did so again at 10:33 am. Then I explained my edits at 11:35 am, but SPECIFICO didn't read them and started a new talk page section at 6:49 pm. At 2:33 pm, 11 December 2019 and 10:25 am, Yesterday I asked a question. The first time I got a response that didn't answer the question, and the second time was ignored. Look at the History of the Knights of Columbus talk age where I have created several sections to discuss issues but haven't gotten any responses. I have truly made an effort. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support for their own good. So'T does not seem to be taking concerns on board. ——SN54129 16:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, In response to other's concerns, I have added dozens of new sources. The article has been trimmed by more than 20% and I did not contest the vast majority of it. I even trimmed some myself. I have absolutely heard the concerns of others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, a lot of whihc are equally crappy. Your problem is simple: you are looking for sources to support The Truth™ rather than writing what the best sources actually say. Guy (help!) 19:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, They include trade publications, academic journals, major regional newspapers, regional and global Catholic publications, and more. I was not looking to support a narrative so much as I was looking to find RS to replace the primary sources previously included in the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, and affiliated sources and press releases (i.e. trade journals, I have written copy for them myself). But once again you miss the point. The issue is that you are mining the internet for sources to support what you want to say, then trying to conjure up arguments as to why they are reliable, rather than reading genuinely reliable sources and reflecting them in the article. Guy (help!) 23:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. It feels like this is fundamentally a content dispute. When the fundamental problem is "unencyclopedic, cherrypicked, and poorly-sourced content", we should be reaching for RFCs on content, not trying to get the main editor of the article out of the way. The insurance fraud lawsuit (mentioned above) is a good example: if it's WP:DUE, then there should be plenty of sources that aren't a press release from their vendor. These search results don't suggest that it's DUE at this time. (Once the lawsuit is finished, it might be a different story, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, kind of: it's a content dispute between one editor and pretty much everybody else who's looked at the article over a period of several years. Guy (help!) 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly disagreeing with your view, but content disputes get solved with RFCs. I see, for example, that the OP has posted a source on the talk page about the ongoing fraud lawsuit. But I don't see anyone else replying to it (where are those "everybody elses"?), and I don't see any further efforts from the OP to demonstrate that there is a consensus for including it. The WP:ONUS for demonstrating that there's a consensus for mentioning that lawsuit is on the editor who wants to include it, not on the one who reverts it, and that hasn't happened. It looks to me that the primary effort towards getting that information included in the article is proposing this TBAN. I think an RFC would be a more appropriate way to determine whether people want this lawsuit mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Nobody's suggested that the insurance fraud allegation is a significant matter of dispute or that it raised a significant behavioral issue. It was only raised here at ANI by Slugger as a straw man to deflect from the serious longstanding misconduct. If you want a single example to look at, consider Slugger's repeated reverts on the political activities or his repeated insistence that sources related to or published by KofC are independent RS that can be used to determine DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Before this discussion, the last time an RFC was opened on that talk page was almost two years ago. That does not sound like a bunch of editors agreeing that there are problems with the content of the article.

  (Due weight is determined by all the reliable sources, not just the independent reliable sources. The word independent does not appear in DUE at all – and with good reason, because "Alice accused Bob" should normally be followed by some indication of Bob response. We might give non-independent sources less weight, but they actually should be considered.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I fundamentally disagree with the rationale for removing sourced facts from the article, and Slugger is doing useful collaborative work. He has repeatedly expressed his willingness to collaborate if the other editors are willing. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23 per your user page are you sure you should be commenting on this issue ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what are you attempting to insinuate here? Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23 You are affiliated with the Knights of Columbus. You have a WP:COI

Actually I do not; but we are commenting about a user and not an article, in case you haven't noticed. This is AN/I. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23 I'm not aware of where it states WP:COI is restricted to just articles. Per WP:COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." - contributing to Wikipedia - ANI is a part of Wikipedia. Your comment "in case you haven't noticed." is unnecessary and hostile.   // Timothy::talk  21:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already been over this. I don't have a COI with Knights of Columbus and so I am not sure why you want to accuse me of having a COI with Slugger O'Toole? Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23 We can agree to disagree and let others judge whether you have a COI based on WP:COI and your membership in the Knights.   // Timothy::talk  21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You can debate that all you want (I guess you don't want to anymore) but I do not have a COI with Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs) (I have no idea who he is) and I will not "agree to disagree" on something that is patently false and a bad-faith accusation from you in an effort to stack the deck against Slugger. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, For the record, I don't have an off-wiki relationship with Elizium23. I also don't think Timothy's comment was made in bad faith. I don't think he is correct, but I believe his comments were made in good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I really want to see some attempt at formal dispute resolution over tbe content issues be worked out first. This editor is generally productive, engaged friendly, and while i strongly disapprove of what he did to that article I am reluctant to support a ban on him from editing that topic area unless there is proof that the dispute resolution and escalation approaches have been tried and failed. IF that does happen and the problem persists then I would change my mind but before I think we should use a topic ban as a last resort. Michepman (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Editor has known about issue with sourcing for years, doesn't seem to take advice of other editor's concerns with this ongoing issue, or we wouldn't be here at ANI today with this proposal - Too reliant on the organisation's own website...and the Kaufmann book (July 2013) - Excessive primary sourcing (January 2018) - Excessive reliance on Kauffman (December 2019). Also agree with tag on article This article contains content that is written like an advertisement - Slugger is responsible for 94.8% of major edits to the article KofC. This diff here from November 2019 shows his reliance on too many sources affiliated with KofC, and not acknowledging other editor's concerns (since at least July 2013) about independent third-party sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Isaidnoway, As pointed out on the article's talk page, there are only two sources today that point to the Knight's. Additionally, as pointed out there, the reliance on Kauffman is due in part to the massive cuts that have taken place. There are actually fewer references to him today than there were a month ago, but the percentage has gone up because the denominator has gone down. Your comment ignores the dozens of new sources I have added in the last few weeks after hearing the comments and concerns of others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, that's missing the point (again). There were always too many references to Kaufmann, a work commissioned by the KofC. It's more obvious now that more of the cruft is being removed. And you've increased the number of references to Kaufmann. I would say it could be in a "further reading" section but should not be used for more than a minimal amount of content due to lack of independence. Guy (help!) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be significant WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE / WP:UNDUE issues in these articles that have been introduced by the editor, there is no attempt at WP:IMPARTIAL. The WP:OWN issues have become WP:DE due to a lack of WP:LISTEN in any meaningful attempt to reach WP:CON. It is an entirely one-sided article and the sources used in the article are overwhelmingly biased and self-promoting. WP:BIASED states bias sources should be evaluated by issues such as "such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" The vast majority of the sources fail all these tests and should not be used. I believe the sources also fail WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SPONSORED. If the author was interested in a neutrally balanced article, they would have a balance with material from opposing viewpoints but I see no attempt at doing so, but rather the opposite - an active attempt (and at this point successful) attempt to remove opposing viewpoints. All combined I see a significant WP:COI here. I think anyone voicing an opinion on this should state if they have a WP:COI especially if they are a member of the organization (some 'oppose' votes disclose membership in KofC on their talk page, but not here).   // Timothy::talk  18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• TimothyBlue, I respectfully disagree. I think difs like these show that I have tried to work with others to gain consensus to changes. [148]. [149]. [150]. [151]. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Look to see in how many instances someone took me up on the offer to edit collaboratively. I'm not sure what more I could do in those instances. As to attempting to remove opposing viewpoints, I point you towards this dif where I inserted information critical of the Knights. I was hesitant to do it since it was previously removed as being undue, but I thought it important enough to include. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole The above examples are few compared to your massive output and insignificant attempts at WP:CON. The single "critical" sentence you added was barely critical. Can you honestly defend the sources you use in respect to WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SPONSORED? Can you honestly say you have a WP:NPOV and have no WP:COI regarding the Knights? With the overwhelming amount of content you have contributed to these articles do you not see an WP:OWN issue?

I think your comments here reflect an over-investment and possessiveness on this topic. I don't believe you can evaluate your own edits on these articles objectively. That's not intended to be an insult in any way. There are topics all of us cannot approach objectively and can become too attached to/invested in. It just mean you need to back away from articles about the Knights and find another place to make a positive contribution in another area.   // Timothy::talk  20:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Like when Slugger repeatedly removed text summarizing one aspect of the Knights' civic engagement, text that reflects statements in the cited sources, [152] and then began claiming his edits were based on a non-existent talk page consensus. [153]. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, First of all, that line did not summarize 130 years of activity. Second of all, you have been pointed to the consensus on multiple occasions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, You make some fair points, Timothy. I can't help, however, if other editors have not taken the same level of interest that I have. Before I began actively editing this article it was a featured article. Someone put a lot of work into it before me. Before the recent flurry of activity, I hadn't made a substantive edit to it in months. To your other point, yes, I will stand behind most of the sources I used. I don't see a problem with the Hartford Courant, the Journal of American Ethnic History, CNN, Pensions & Investments, Connecticut Public Broadcasting Network, etc. Finally, take a look at how much content has been cut in the last month. It's much more than 20% of the article (those doing the cutting didn't remove unused citations, or it would be even more). Look at how much of it I have contested. It's only a fraction of that, and only when I felt strongly that it was important enough to keep. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole You're a good writer and experienced editor. You will find other areas to make a valuable contribution, including areas on Catholic history and culture. The Knights are not the only Catholic organization with articles on Wikipedia. There is no harm in stepping away from a particular topic your over-invested in. Don't let all this muck and mire spoil the enjoyment you find here. I could see how this could be discouraging, but think of it as an opportunity to develop other articles.   // Timothy::talk  21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole I understand your statement "I can't help, however, if other editors have not taken the same level of interest that I have." This seems like a no-win situation you're in. I think thats all the more reason to back away and make a positive contributor in other areas of Catholic history / culture / orgs.   // Timothy::talk  21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, It sure does. People criticize me for working on it. Then they criticize they state of the article. Then they criticize my attempts to rectify the issues they identified by saying I am trying to own it. Talk about a no-win situation. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, maybe you could sort out your citation arithmetic for us? You state here [154] that you added loads of "good" new sources but that the proportion of good-ones-to-Kauffman didn't go up because "the denominator has gone down" -- ??. Wouldn't that make your ratio go up? But anyway: Then directly above you say that other editors "doing the cutting didn't remove unused citations". What? I'm only asking you this because it's an example of how much work is required of other editors to figure out your contributions. If it's even possible to figure them out. Editor time is our scarce resource around here. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Sure thing. Yesterday, there were no citation errors at the History article. Today, after you have made large cuts, there are more than 20. You deleted the text, but not the references. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That does not respond to what I wrote about the inconsistency of your statements above. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, at least until the articles can be stabilised in a non-promotional form. It's impossible right now. Guy (help!) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment In place of a ban, I would be more than glad to invite some outside voices to discuss specific areas of disagreement. I have a long history of abiding by the consensus, even when I disagree with it. To cite one recent example, when Aquillion brought a specific source to RSN, I disagreed with what the majority of outside editors said but, respecting the consensus, have not sought to reinsert it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So to paraphrase that gladness, Slugger: You would like to continue in the same manner you've established over the past dozen years as a single purpose account here. But now, you would like to assign additional work to other editors: You want them to take the time and trouble to monitor all your edits and decode the misrepresentations, omissions, and curvaceous language in hundreds of future edits. Then, when they write up the problems, you will back off and conform to policy -- but only with respect to the problems they explain to you. That's basically not how this community works. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, That's not an accurate representation of either my contributions to the project or of my comments. Like almost everyone else here, I edit where my interest lie. The Knights of Columbus happens to be one. So too is Colonial American history, to cite one example. I've made a large number of contributions there, especially recently. I have created over 300 articles and dramatically expanded even more. I edit far beyond the Knights. And, when I disagree with someone, I take the time to make my case. If the consensus moves against me, I respect it. I do expect that of others as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – No comment on the underlying sourcing debates as I haven't looked into them, but the following sentences above left this passing onlooker curious: "Before I began actively editing this article it was a featured article. Someone put a lot of work into it before me." This puzzled me at first, because I didn't remember the Knights of Columbus article ever being featured. Upon a quick check, it turns out that it did reach FA status in July 2006, so it was before I started editing on here. However, it looks like the statement that Slugger started regularly editing the article after it got the star may not be fully accurate. A look at the revision history shows that Slugger made more than 50 edits between March 2006 (before their first edit the page had reached GA despite having no inline cites at the time (!)) and June 2006. The article was subsequently delisted in 2009, and an attempt to bring it through FAC again in 2013 was unsuccessful. I don't recall either of those reviews, and certainly don't remember details from my editing a decade ago, but I'd say Slugger qualified as a regular editor at the time, especially considering their edits included major additions like this and this. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN. I'm looking at a couple of these articles (a few of the flowers in this walled garden) and I'm just baffled. Whatever the characteristics of their COI are, the editor simply should not be involved in these articles. I could list why, but I think that's already been touched upon, and really, I'm baffled. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support and hope This includes the talk pages too Not sure if non-admins get a say in such matters... and I have participated a little in editing and watched the discussion on the talk page. Slugger is wikilawyering left and right. I invite anyone who thinks a TBAN is not a good idea to go to the talk page and read over some of the dialogue, Sethie (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above. Clearly lots of POV pushing and COI issues seem evident too.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Talkpage bullying

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

---

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has been engaging in some disturbing behavior at Talk:Aegean dispute of late. Specifically, he made the demand that SilentResident (talk · contribs) not edit her own posts to the talkpage I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. SilentResident has a disability (OCD, which she reveals on her userpage, and is furthermore not a native speaker of English, so she has to edit talkpage posts to fix grammatical and spelling mistakes that make her look incompetent. Future Perfect has been interacting with SilentResident for quite some time now and surely knows this (he uses the word "obsessive" repeatedly). Incredibly, Future Perfect carries out his threat and actually reverts one of SilentResident's talkpage posts, in the process reinstating grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and typos, with a condescending edit-summary on top of that [155]. This alone constitutes bullying. When SilentResident seeks advice from another administrator [156], Future Perfect escalates further by throwing the standard Balkan topics DS warning template at her [157]. In 12 years of editing wikipedia, I have seen bullying and absurd demands, but I have never seen something like this, from an administrator no less. The demand that SilentResident not correct her own posts to a talkpage is simply ludicrous. There is nothing in WP:TALK that limits users to how many talkpage edits they can make. None of SilentResidents copyedits to her talkpage posts (the so-called "obsessive fiddling" so contemptuously described by Future Perfect) occur after Future Perfect has responded, thus they are in line with WP:REDACT. Furthermore, Future Perfect's behavior is clearly in breach of WP:TPO. Future Perfect's tone is moreover consistently condescending and derogatory, his posts and edit summaries laced throughout with hostility and derision. This user has a history of incivil, abrasive behavior and has to my knowledge been desysopped at least once, and warned several times, for precisely such behavior. This is textbook bullying and needs to stop. And then, we beat ourselves over the head and deplore the fact that we don't have enough female wikipedians. Khirurg (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about "correcting" errors in their posts, it's about their persistent habit of tinkering, rewriting, expanding and rewording the content of their postings, often in half a dozen edits in a row, every single time they post anything anywhere. This is disruptive, it messes up talkpage histories, makes it difficult to follow what was said, and makes it difficult to respond. I don't care if this behaviour is caused by some disability (they never told me about any such); the disruptive behaviour needs to stop, and if this person is too imbalanced to stop it, they should not be on Wiipedia. WP:NOTTHERAPY. I would be more patient with that user if their behaviour was otherwise okay, but it's part of a more general pattern of disruption, so well, my patience has run thin. The DS warning was for their blatant POV-pushing on Aegean dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, Khirug, you forgot to notify SR of this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tough. If you are unable to deal with it, go edit another article. The Wiki software is not the most accessible in the first place. If you continue to bully a disabled person like this I will just go straight to the WMF with a complaint you are engaging in disability discrimination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with OID, dealing with harmless habits that you find annoying is part of working in Wikipedia's editing environment. Your watchlist has an option to hide all but the latest revision if you really can't handle seeing multiple entries for the same talk page (which in this case is nothing compared to some of the heated debates I've seen). –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have in the past advised @SilentResident: to write her comments in a Word document, correct any mistake and make any other modification she thinks necessary, and when sure nothing else should be modified, post it on Wikipedia. While discussing with SilentResident in the past, it happened in some cases that I could not post my responses because of edit conflicts caused by her continuous modification of comments. It is, frankly, annoying and makes the discussion difficult. If SilentResident uses Word or Notepad or another similar software, and the editors around are patient, all of the problem can easily be solved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment People, I am very sorry my disorder is causing all this :( It is not my intention to annoy others. I am really really sorry. Yes, it is two editors who were kind enough to advice me through my issue: Tu-Nor and Ktrimi, for which I am grateful. As you probably noticed, my constant editing is limited (almost successfully overcomen) on main Articles thanks to their advices (what I do is first edit in Microsoft Word, then put it to Google Translator (english), then re-edit it back in Word, and then copy-paste it to Web Browser for use on the main Article), while I am more direct in Talk Pages due to them being a place for discussions. Again very sorry :(

Edit: I am abit confused, my Wikipedia's Notification Bell icon tells me there is someone with the IP address 86.146.197.61 who participated in this discussion and they mentioned my name repeatedly [158] Apparently they got reverted as I don't see their messages anymore, but I can't access their diffs in the History Log either. Why are their diffs unaccessible in History? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, the edits in question have been revision deleted by an admin. This means they were considered offensive or abusive, most likely. I saw the edits before they were reverted, and it was largely a personal attack on Future Perfect At Sunrise Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it was WP:LTA/VXFC, who takes every available to do so. ——SN54129 13:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the problem is. Is Future Perfect at Sunrise getting frustrated by repeated edit conflicts on talk pages after SilentResident has done some copyediting? That's about the best explanation I can think of. Would they have also complained about the large number of edits I make when adding content gradually to an article (to avoid losing it accidentally in one hit) and then fixing mistakes / typos in it (example here)? In any case, "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row." is not policy; indeed, we have a policy explicitly contradicting it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Nothing wrong with making a single edit...[159], [160], [161]...particularly [162] while up for deletion at the time...  :) ——SN54129 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the issue with someone refactoring comments frequently and creating edit conflicts to people trying to response, it’s important to remember that Wikipedia is not urgent. You don’t need to respond the very second that someone says something on a talk page — if you take a few minutes or even an hour or so to respond, that cuts down on the potential for edit conflicts. Talk pages don’t have to be treated like phone calls or instant messaging apps where you have to respond in real time. The user’s desire to update and refactor her messages should not be a problem if people would just be more patient and less amped up in discussions per WP:COOL. That’s something I myself struggle with so I’m sympathetic but the bullying behavior on the talk page is completely inappropriate and should stop. Michepman (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I understand what the problem is. The problem is the nightmare of every editor on Wikipedia. Imagine someone who reverts your talkpage post removing added thoughts and restoring typos and grammatical mistakes which you tried to remove so that you could communicate more effectively on Wikipedia and, at the same time, look more professional and organised. Also imagine that someone also told you: I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row. while also obliquely referring to your OCD: I warned you before: stop your obsessive fiddling with your own postings.. Also imagine the bullying remarks were added at the edit-summary, so that the bullying gets permanently etched at the talkpage history of the article and cannot be removed. For any other normal editor that I can imagine, such blatant bullying of a disadvantaged female editor would constitute a blockable offence. Now imagine that the bully is also an admin, who, despite being involved with you in the discussion, immediately after the bullying, comes and templates you on ARBMAC at your talkpage. Also imagine that, in addition to every injury and insult I enumerated above, you are a timid female with OCD on the receiving end of this bullying. Dr. K. 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The bullying continues. A few days ago I added a map to Turkey [163]. Today Future Perfect reverted it [164] on the grounds that the caption is WP:SYNTH. He could have edited the caption, but chose to remove the map wholesale. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the difference between bullying and a content dispute and be careful not to conflate the one with the other; one of them is far more serious than the other. ——SN54129 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not bullying. Fish+Karate 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly retaliatory [165]. I added the map days ago but he reverted it only after I reported him. Khirurg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I happened to look at your contribs history after I saw your posting here. I do look at contribs histories from time to time. There's a reason they exist, you know? I wasn't too suprised I found you editing disruptively once again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. You have the article watchlisted. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do I? You must know more about my watchlist than I do. No, I happened to see your lastest article edit in your history while I was looking it up to check whether you notified SR, which you hadn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. It's a high visibility article you've edited before. Clearly retaliatory. Khirurg (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I cant give the sufficient time to this discussion rn. But one question. @Khirurg, some days ago, minutes after an editor filed a report on you, you rv one of his edits made somewhere else [166].Was your action too "retaliatory"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider Anadolu News Agency to be a reliable source? I wasn't aware he had added btw, the article has had hundred of edits in the last few days. Khirurg (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [167], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts. The other user opposed the caption, which has since been amended, not the addition of the map. And I did not rv "several times". Now stop disrupting this thread with irrelevant stuff. Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note Khirurg added a map to Turkey some days ago, but that addition has been opposed by more than one editor. Instead of discussing on the talk page, Khirurg is reverting and reverting, and making such edit summaries as you could have just edited the caption; classic case of retaliatory behavior, WP:HOUND) [168]. I would advise editors involved calm down, apply good faith and reflect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts and stop making false statements. No other users opposed the map, and I opened a talkpage thread. Or are you considering Anadolu News Agency a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I do not know what dispute are you talking about, but everyone should be aware that Anadolu sources need to be removed. They used to meet some WP:RS criteria in the past, but not anymore due to the media situation in Turkey. In case someone has doubts, they better take the matter to WP:RSN. Now lets stick to the subject pls. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [169], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here twice? Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. I remember this clearly, and I would like to remind them to do the same here. I thought this discussion was about editing talk page comments? No? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As for SR editing comments, oddly enough I totally agree with Khirurg -- she has the absolute right to as long as semantics aren't changed after someone has replied (if so, strike deletion and underline insertions or say "EDIT"). I often have to fix my own posts, maybe I should be using nano or vim or Microsoft Office if it would ever load on my laptoposaurus, but ain't nobody got time for that shite, it's post and go before "oops, I made a typo". But to resolve that issue, this conversation should have stayed between the two parties involved. What is Khirurg doing then? Can I really believe he is that passionate about ensuring civility? Witness Exhibit B, one of the diplomatic masterpieces by Khirurg where he uses WP:CIR as a mace to bludgeon perfectly competent colleagues (the linked case is an unrelated Cyprus with Cinadon, another Greek editor). Khirurg as the defender of civility, I can't even fit that pill in my throat. Future Perfect at Sunrise, yeah, in my personal experience, patience with SR is worth it in the long run, but really, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to this headache.--Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. A CIR reference from another conversation is not equivalent in any way with the bullying Silent Resident endured. As far as calling Fut. Perf's brazen admin bullying of a disadvantaged female editor a "headache", I think you need sensitivity training. Dr. K. 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Or, maybe it's because I probably have nothing to be thankful for in life anyways. Yeah, don't buy it. If the issue is SR editing her posts and FPAS not liking that... that is between them; SR is a capable adult, what, do you think she is some frail princess needing rescue? Coming from someone also on the receiving end of Khirurg's behavior, yes, it's a headache.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well look who showed up to derail the thread. It's guy who said | Really, if there's one thing that's clear here, it is the Greek ingenuity in inventing concepts whose utility in timeless, in this case exemplified by the Greek invented concept of hypocrisy. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, like the right triangle, another useful and timeless concept, and formal debate, drama, hypothesis testing... Anyone who wants a lesson in Khirurgian diplomacy could perhaps consult [[170]] this treasure trove of a discussion where we do discuss that retort by me which, yes, came after over a year of frustration with Khirurg, the one person on Wikipedia I get along the absolute least with. That is why I am saying this should be between FPAS and SR. I respect both, and think they can better learn to get along as two adults.--Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a beef with Khirurg. But this thread is about bullying, not Khirurg. When bullying happens, we have a responsibility, as a community, to address it. Proposing that the bully and the victim talk it out actually validates the bullying because it tries to make it an issue between the perpetrator and the victim. This is not how this works. Vulnerable people, people with disabilities, must be supported by the community if it is to become thriving and healthy. Otherwise others will come and do it for us. Khirurg actually did this community a favour by bringing this sad incident to our attention. Dr. K. 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While SR may (or may not) appreciate him starting this thread, did he even ask her consent? If the motive is to help her, perhaps one should have asked. Actually, if someone is self-conscious about the fact that they often feel they need to edit their posts for typos... he just thrust that issue right into the spotlight on the dramaboards where a huge part of the editing community will see it, and that is their first acquaintance with her. There are a multitude of possible venues; ANI is known to be one for disputes where one side seeks sanctions for the other, and it also gets a lot of views; some other venues have neither characteristic. SR did not choose to take it here, Khirurg did, and he is an editor with his own conflicts with FPAS, so yes, I take issue with his behavior here, even if we ignore my own issues with Khirurg, which yes, exist.--19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calthinus (talk • contribs)

The report was not nade to help SR. It was made to alert the community about petty bullying behaviour by an admin. Base bullying has to be exposed, especially in relations of very unequal power status and involving people with disabilities. Please do not try to belittle this report further. Dr. K. 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• SR notes above that some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. This is correct. It is also correct that filers at AN/I must, whether they wish or expect it, to have their own bahviour fully investigated. This what Khirurg is expeiencing, unfortunately. In his particular case, I would recommend withdrawing from the discussion at this point, as they seem to be respnoding a trifle emotionally and this could skew their judgement. Basically: Keep Cool, Cooler Minds Prevail. ——SN54129 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Looking through the talk page history, this doesn't appear to be a rapidfire back-and-forth discussion, and SilentResident's edits don't appear to be causing edit conflicts, deceiving changes in meaning, mass confusion or any other bona fide problem. The sole issue here seems to be that Future Perfect finds it annoying (due to multiple watchlist entries, I assume) which is not a reason to compel Silent Resident to change her habits. Even if it were causing genuine problems, the correct solution would be to bring it to a noticeboard; policing another editor's talkpage edits, especially when they're not actually breaking any rule except the one that you've made up, is not okay.

Lately it seems that a lot of ANI discussions immediately devolve into who is right and who was wrong while ignoring the actual bullying or personal attacks presented in the initial complaint. It is imperative that Future Perfect's bullying be addressed, since "I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row" is utterly unacceptable and needs to be nipped in the bud immediately. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This type of bullying has to stop. We also have to demonstrate that we are capable of handling it on Wikipedia by ourselves. Dr. K. 17:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: OK, I found some courage to speak about my problem, so forgive me if it is a lengthy post, this one. I really hope it is understood by everyone that behaviors affected by disabilities and disorders, aren't made on purpose. Who we are born and what disabilities we have in this life, is not something you can go choose/remove/cure on the fly. But you can live with it and try to constraint it for the sake of improving the quality of life. I envy everyone here for not suffering from the same OCD as I do. However that doesn't mean I am not trying my best. Everyone can check my edit history and see that all of my edits are 1) grammar fixes. 2) typo fixes. 3) code fixes. 4) additional thoughts. Edits which I dont feel it is worth a separate timestamp, since my comment is the most recent/latest one in that discussion anyways. For me it is important that my comments are of good quality as to avoid ridiculing myself to the others. (i.e. fix Lame -> Late). My point is, we can't control how we are born, but we can struggle to restrain ourselves but this isn't an easy task, and requires constant effort. However when such effort is made, it takes a good ammount of energy and time, and this is one of the reasons I am not as a big contributor in Wikipedia as the most of you are. My content contributions are far minor and between, compared to yours, and for a reason. The yesterday's incident only causes discomfort and stress, which isn't helpful for my efforts. Because it is an attack which does not take in account the fact that behind every word I type, there is struggle from my part, a struggle which goes unnoticed to the rest of the community, since they can't imagine what is going on between me and my keyboard and how much time it takes. This is why I broke emotionally and went to another administrator yesterday. I know, I am supposed to be strong and not let emotional meltdowns from happening to me but at this moment, just it was too much for me to bear, especially after all these 8-year-long efforts as Wikipedian to improve myself. I really want to speak to all of you, not simply as an editor, but also as a human to human and I really hope that this was the first and last time such a thing ever happens. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

• FP@S backs off the decision to revert edits beyond the second one in a row. The world is messy, not every irritation is fixable, and sometimes the solution causes more problems than the problem. There's a spectrum of disruption, and this really isn't that big a deal. It's maybe disruption, but not disruption. An extra helping of flexibility is called for.
• SR either uses the Word document technique they've been using in articles in talk pages as well, or uses preview, in order to cut down on the number of edits. Especially for long posts. They seem to understand that this causes at least some difficulties for others; we need to understand that our general talk page preferences cause difficulties for them. I think this can be solved by everyone being slightly more accommodating.
• Everyone else stops talking about anything in this thread except this one issue. It is not a "FP@S is evil" thread. It isn't a "Solve the content dispute" thread. It isn't a "this side is morally right and this side is morally wrong" thread about the Aegean dispute, Turkish maps, or anything else.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. What they said above is what I and some others too have said in previous comments. No need for drama. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly I'd prefer to be able to take Floq's route. OP didn't seem to try addressing this issue with Fut Perf on their talk page first, which might have helped. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an editor to take a complaint about an admin saying I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row to that admin's talk page. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The way this transpired was indeed unfortunate -- perhaps it would have been better if it was taken to DA rather than ANI, or somewhere else where uninvolved parties could discuss it and hopefully get FPAS to walk back that statement; I am probably worse than her in my retroactive post fixes, actually. But to SR's credit... it wasn't her who chose to take this to ANI. All's well if it ends well, and of course content disagreements will continue, and Wikipedia can be irritating, but maybe the result of this can still be the two getting along at least marginally better, and Floq's proposal is a good means for that.--Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any solution that requires a change on SR's part to appease FP's unreasonable demands. This isn't a situation where "each side gives a little" is appropriate, and we shouldn't impose special requirements on an editor just because somebody threw a temper tantrum. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that since yesterday, SR has managed to get most of their postings written up in as few as two attempts, which I'd say is a big step forward. So she is able to do that with a bit of effort after all. Good for her. Simply asking her to do it wasn't enough apparently, but yesterday's little shot across the bow did the trick. Thanks, one problem solved. Now comes the next and bigger task, of stopping her from posting copyright violations and POV-pushing opinion pieces in article space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't know how much effort it took, nor whether the "cure" was worse than the "disease". Paul August ☎ 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This post above by FPAS is concerning. FPAS's comments were not "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". They were bullying, and abusive, which is serious, and particularly so when it's from an admin, and even more so when the admin fails to show any indication of taking this feedback on board. I hope that changes quickly. – Levivich 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Floq. FPAS needs to lighten up. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Future Perfect, you are in effect saying, "Once I, who am in a position of power, threatened the person and their disability issues were widely publicized, they managed to comply with my demands one day. This means compliance isn't impossible; therefore I'm right and compliance should be expected." That's BS. I have arthritis in both knees. I'm supposed to avoid stairs. If I had to, could I climb 200? Yep. I'd need to ice them both and stay on anti-inflammatories for 24 hours, and I would have a hard time even walking for two days afterward. You are behaving in a way that is counterproductive to collaborative work, and you're doing it from a position of unequal power. Please stop doing that. --valereee (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Let's look at this revert by Fut. Perf. of SR's edits a bit closer: They reverted the correction "covers" back to the grammatically wrong "cover". The edit changed "due" to "duue", and "developments" to "develeopments", while removing the comment "I do not want to initiate a Move Request before consulting with the editors first and make sure there wont be any problems with that." Restoring the mistakes and removing the clarification of a person with a disability, while gloating that it was a little shot across the bow did the trick, is not simple bullying. It is petty bullying that is fundamentally incompatible with civilised behaviour in a collaborative project. Dr. K. 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• What Floq said. I find that the way forward here is for BOTH sides to desist from accusing the other side of bad acting: FPAS could be a little less forceful about the editing-ones-responses issue; being mildly annoyed by something someone else does does NOT mean the other person is disruptive. SR could also tone down the "I'm being bullied" angle; people expressing annoyance with an annoying thing is not bullying, and it is annoying to have to edit conflict with someone 4-5 times in a row. If FPAS gives some allowance for SR to compose their thoughts, if SR can work on composing their thoughts using a method more forgiving (as in the "offline-copy-and-paste method") and if both sides can stop accusing the other of being evil, I think we can find a way forward that causes less problems for anyone. --Jayron32 20:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is not that FPaS is expressing annoyance. The problem is that FPaS is threatening to summarily revert SL's talk page edits. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is a distinctly concerning, if not horrible, statement by FPAS, one that makes me vastly less sympathetic for his viewpoint and my previous comment's AGF. @Leviv: is right that that only one user seems to be taking their feedback on board. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Does FPaS actually have the policy-based authority to impose such a restriction unilaterally? Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. I can't think of a policy basis for his "rule" as a unilateral action, not even if DS authority were available (FP@S has given SR a DS notice recently). It could be imposed as an editing restriction by community consensus, I suppose. I believe that FP@S's rule should be declared void as unsupported by policy and unjustified, and that FP@S should be considered WP:INVOLVED and ineligible to act administratively against SR. I have asked FP@S to comment on this below but he has not posted on WP since and so I await his return. EdChem (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't agree with FPAS' way of maneuvering 'bout this part. dispute but the grotesquely poor quality of edits by SL ought be considered as a mitigating factor. ∯WBG^converse 06:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with Floquenbeam: I was asked by User:SilentResident to advise on the conflict with FPAS, before this thread was posted. In my opinion, they are both at fault. SilentResident is not being punished for a disability, and that claim is absurd. I advised SR, both on my talk page and on her talk page, to compose her replies in Word or Notepad. I was about to write that I don't know why the copy-editing of posts is annoying FPAS. I can guess that it is, first, because the edit-conflicts make it difficult to reply, and, second, sometimes the copy-editing makes a slight change to the meaning, which interferes further with replying. So either compose in Word or Notepad, or use Preview. Also, SilentResident said that FPAS had a pro-Turkish point of view. I don't know whether that is accurate, but it is insulting to imply that another editor is non-neutral. I don't consider it a personal attack, but I can see that FPAS thinks that it rises to the status of a personal attack. So SilentResident was wrong in alleging a non-neutral POV, and is making replying difficult. and is wrong in arguing that their disability is being used against them. On the other hand, as other editors have said, FPAS is seriously over-reacting to the copy-editing on talk pages. Both editors are out of line.

So I agree with User:Floquenbeam. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have strong reservations about the advice given to SR by Robert McClenon.

- First, on McClenon's talk page: "I don't normally want to get drawn into a dispute between an administrator and a non-administrator." Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." It is absolutely appropriate for other editors to get involved in a situation like this, and reluctance to be "drawn in" essentially allows an admin to abuse their power.

- Second, on SilentResident's talk page: "It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability . . ." Nobody is requesting special treatment here; there's no rule against copyediting one's comments as many times as is necessary, and many editors do it regularly. In fact it appears that attempts are being made to impose special requirements on SR, which no other editors are expected to follow, because of their disability. This holds true even if it is presented as "advice". –dlthewave ☎ 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about that, too. It's not 'special treatment' to be asked to accommodate a disability in a way that costs us little; if we want to be inclusive, we should be accommodating them when we can. This seems to be a matter of her re-edits being nothing more than an annoyance requiring other editors to deal with edit conflicts if they're replying quickly. Couldn't FP simply wait a few minutes before replying? --valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • First, I will point out that no editor has an obligation to become involved in any dispute between two other editors. Dumping on an editor who chooses not to become involved in a particular dispute may have the unintended consequence of making editors hesitant to get involved in any dispute. Second, I agree with several other editors that FPAS is simply being wrong-headed in saying that they will revert excessive copy-editing by SR. Just because SR is making it difficult to reply to her posts by continuing to copy-edit them doesn't give FPAS an excuse for making it deliberately more difficult to reply. Third, I think that there is a consensus that FPAS should not revert copy-edits by SR, and if FPAS doesn't agree to stop, I would support a topic-ban, and will remind FPAS that an administrator should have the judgment not to make it necessary to have editing restrictions put on them. Fourth, I still think that SR should provide a more reasonable accommodation for their own disability rather than forcing the community to do so, but that is small compared to the absurdity of FPAS reverting grammar-fixes. So will FPAS agree to stop reverting SR's copy-edits, or will they need to be restricted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability Absolutley not. I am sorry if I have given you this impression. I came to you for advice because I was emotionally broken and I am fully aware that when emotions get in the way, mistakes can be made. This is why I came to you. Because I wasn't thinking clearly on what to do but I knew one thing for sure: I wanted to avoid mistakes that could escalate the incident beyond control. And a good way to prevent mistakes is to listen to a third party voice of patience and calm. You are a well-known administrator for being patient, fair and who doesn't hesitate to give an advice to editors in need. Am I wrong? If yes, then all right. My apologies for even coming to you at all. Next time something happens, I will simply leave Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I had Robert in my list of Admins to seek for help with various matters concerning Wikipedia. In that case, my apologies and thanks for the info. Still Robert has done great work in responding to me in the past, you would hardly notice that he isn't admin if you don't pay attention.

OK listen. I think it is pointless to ask from Future Perfect to lift the 1-edit limit imposed on my comments. He won't do it. But for the sake of Wikipedia's stability, if I have to be the "sheep for sacrifice", then so be it. I believe there are two ways out of this problem: 1) either I fully submit to his grievous demands and never make more than one edits to my comments and use third-party programs for every single one of my posts/replies/comments, or 2) try to avoid using Talk Pages at all, if possible. I know, this sure will seriously hamper my work as Wikipedian and jeopardize my work, but I don't know what else to do. I know however what I don't want to do: I am not here to fight with Future Perfect. Nor my intention is to turn the admins against each other because of my disorder. I hate to see all this happening because of my disorder! My only role in Wikipedia is to contribute to the project without letting my disorder get in the way. (I can't believe I am actually saying this, but looks like there is no other option. Or is there?) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: There are many other options. First, I want to say that my talk page is always open to you. I consider you a wikifriend, and the thought of you leaving Wikipedia is heartbreaking! Second, you're not alone in struggling with disorders. I suffer from clinical depression and constantly feel worthless even on-wiki.
There are various tactics I personally use to lower my talk page edit count. For example, I'll fix an earlier typo in a response to someone else. If a userscript would be of assistance to you, then we can always work on developing one for you.
Either way, don't get too worked up about this. If my sister ​(a native English speaker) can type comments like this and still be understood, I don't think people are going to judge you too hard for some semi-frequent typos. That goes the other way, too. If you're on an article's talk page and need to make 5 corrections in a row, then will people really care about long term? Ceoil has been known to do it, and he's a highly respected user.
Also, I don't think Fut. Perf. intended to make you feel upset. He seems to have just gotten frustrated in several moments in his interactions with you. Regardless, no one has "turned on" Fut. Perf.; they're just trying to make sure he lightens up more.
Tl;dr: We're all fine, and we all still love each other. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you dear! I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone too! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Dec 12

SilentResident, I am upset about the way you have been treated and felt obligated to post to this ANI. I am not an admin and have no more authority than you here on WP, but I want you to know that I believe that there are plenty of Wikipedians (beyond those who have posted here) who look at what FP@S is doing and can see it is both unacceptable / wrong and inconsistent with WP policy. Please be aware that:

• Many editors make edits in series, sometimes to correct typos and grammatical issues, sometimes making incremental changes, sometimes to add new ideas. On both talk pages and articles, these are entirely acceptable. This can lead to inconvenience for others but that is not on its own a reason to issue an ultimatum or try to impose a restriction.
• I recognise that you have tried to reduce series of edits in article space through drafting in word or notepad, etc, which is an inconvenience for you and I would like to register my appreciation for making that effort. Doing so for article space but not talk space is both a concession and a gesture of compromise on your part, one you were under no obligation to make. To me, that shows both your good faith and desire to contribute to WP positively. Others may ask that you extend that practice, but no one can reasonably demand it nor can you be obligated to do so. Floquenbeam, do you agree?
• There are many editors that leave their typos etc in place on talk pages, viewing that they are unimportant and don't reflect on our competence. There are others who feel the reverse and want to make fixes to their talk page posts. Both approaches are entirely reasonable and if you feel the need to make corrections, go for it, in full awareness that you are following policy and that you are not alone in taking your chosen path. I don't think leaving such minor mistakes in talk page posts reflects poorly on you at all, but equally choosing to correct them is perfectly justifiable and reasonable.
• Their are exceptions described at WP:TPG, like making changes that alter the meaning of a post after others have responded – in which case a separate post or a notation of the change is appropriate and a straight modification is not – but I don't see evidence here of edits of yours of that sort. Such edits would justify a warning or ultimately a restriction, however.
• FP@S's edit here that re-adds typos is an unjustified revert under WP:TPO. Describing your posts as "obsessive fiddling" is a clearly inappropriate comment given your disability. His declaration that "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row" is both unjustified by policy and beyond his authority as an administrator. In fact, it is so outrageous that I consider it an attempted misuse of administrative authority that renders him WP:INVOLVED and prohibits his use of any administrative tools against you in the future. FP@S, are you willing to post accepting that you are involved with respect to SilentResident and that you will not take any administrative action against this editor?
• Many editors have disabilities that place them in an (at times misunderstood) minority. WP:NOTTHERAPY suggests that editors may be restricted when their editing interferes with building the encyclopaedia. However, the edits discussed here are not frustrating that goal. They are constructive, not disruptive, and applying your skills at correcting typos and minor grammatical errors in article space would be making helpful and necessary contributions in the style of WP:WikiGnomes.
• In response to your proposal above, I disagree that those are thew only two options available. A far-superior alternative, in my view, would be:
  • FP@S accepts that referring to your condition in the way that he did (possibly inadvertently, WP:AGFing) is inappropriate and offensive and will not be repeated.
  • FP@S accepts that he is INVOLVED with respect to you, admits that his "rule" with respect to your edits has no validity, and declares that he will not act against you in an administrative capacity.
  • You recognise that serial edits can be an irritant and consider when you are about to make one whether the change you wish to make is one you see as necessary. Preparing edits in Word or Notepad, etc, is appreciated when you feel able to do so for larger edits but is not a requirement.
  • You continue editing WP in good faith and continue to ensure your talk page edits follow WP:TPG. Try not to blame yourself for this escalating from the talk page to ANI, it happens regularly that issues are brought here and that is what should happen when a discussion has not resolved an issue. Khirurg acted appropriately in opening this thread and it is in your interests and FP@S's to reach a resolution.
  • Nothing here restricts either you or FP@S in relation to the usual rights and privileges and policy restrictions of editing WP. Any areas of disagreement about article content are unaffected by the resolution of this ANI thread.
• This is not about your disorder, SilentResident, nor are you required to be a "sheep for sacrifice" – and please don't leave Wikipedia. It is about an inappropriate action by FP@S in response to what he sees as an irritation, and one that also arises in many other circumstances. I suspect and hope that FP@S has over-reacted based on other circumstances in his on- or off-wiki life. He can be a hardliner at times, but he is a bright and generally reasonable admin, and I hope he can see that he's gone too far in your case. If not, this thread can consider imposing a restriction on him by community consensus that will override his threatened "rule" on your edits. I hope that will not be necessary. Just as you become obsessive at times, so too do other editors for reasons other than your condition. Sometimes, a reminder or intervention is needed for us to stop / step back and reflect to recognise that we have made a mistake – hopefully that can happen here. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @EdChecm: What?! "Referring to [SR's] condition in the way that [I] did"? What on earth are you on about? I never once referred to any condition of hers (other than her general WP:CIR incompetence, which is a different matter). Why would I? I wasn't aware of any "condition" of hers, since she never mentioned one to me I was criticizing and describing, accurately and appropriately, a pattern of disruptive behaviour she was displaying, nothing more. I never cared a bit, nor do I care now, what "condition" that behaviour might be caused by. She has now shown some willingness to curb that disruptive behaviour, so that's fine with me.
  • About being "involved": dude, seriously. Of course I'm involved; how stupid do you think I am? I've had the misfortune of encountering that editor wrecking articles I'm interested in with her single-minded, naively incompetent tendentious editing for years. If I was free to act as an administrator, I would have indef-blocked her years ago, but of course I'm not. Of course she knows that perfectly well.
  • As I said earlier, I'm satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts. So, that's settled. Now, when you'all are done cuddling her, you're quite welcome to join me in trying to do something for the quality of the encyclopedia and prevent SilentResident from continuing to post copyright violations and tendentious opinion pieces in article space. Will you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    "CIR" stands for "competency is required", but we also have a rule that "communication is required", which is a part of competency because you can’t competently edit the encyclopedia if you can't competently communicate. "CIR" could also stand for "civility is required", because you can’t communicate competently if you can’t communicate civilly. So I do view an editor who is persistently uncivil as lacking the competency necessary to collaborate on building an encyclopedia, and thus as having a CIR problem. – Levivich 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    Her edits have been of consistently poor quality, in a domain where there (as demonstrated) exists extensive scope for POV pushing. Considering that as a mitigating factor, serial edits can indeed be an irritant. Whilst I don't agree with FPAS' behaviour, we need to get away from considering WP to be a tea-party and realise that competency is the most-desired trait when writing in controversial domains. I have seen some of the stuff, that FPAS has been routinely subject to, in his editorial activities and strongly disagree that he is anywhere near persistently uncivil. ∯WBG^converse 08:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    @Winged Blades of Godric: Even though her edits are argueably 'poor quality', it still does not justify FP@S's actions. Even though it is not persistantly uncivil, its still uncivil. I would advise both FP@A and SR to stay away from eachother if they cannot have contructive debate (even if heated) without resorting to incivility and borderline WP:Bullying. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves. Even more so female editors with disabilities. And even more so when a recent case when WMF was involved highlighted how female editors are having a hard time within male-dominated Wikipedia. Dr. K. 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Never bring 'gender' into a discussion, concerning editor identity. It is & always will be a divisive topic. Best to adopt the idea that all editors are gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My comment had three distinct stages. Casual cruelty and gloating should never be used against any editor of any gender, especially as a teaching tool. But ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women is an ostrich-type approach. Dr. K. 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the most unfriendly, unwelcoming, actively repelling thing any of us can do is using another individual's gender as an argument on their behalf – I can't see where SR has said that she have felt unwelcome because of her gender, and unless you know for certain that gender has ever been a factor in anybody's comments to or about her (outside this discussion where it has been waved as a banner), it has zero relevance. If people have been using her gender as a grounds for bullying her, then those people should be blocked, of course, but that's not because of her gender but because that's unacceptable behaviour. And going from one individual's potential experience (which again I would like to see some evidence of) to saying "Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women" – I don't have words for how inappropriate that is. Unless you claim that your experience as a woman (which I won't pretend to understand) means that you know exactly how every single female-identifying contributor from a hundred different nations feel about contributing here. If so, I admit that I am wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my argument. As I said, my response had three stages: The first stage addressed that all editors of any gender should be free from casual cruelty in this environment. So the root of my argument was not based on gender. The second stage referred to gender, because SR is a female editor, and a minority within Wikipedia. I think treating a minority with respect and not with casual cruelty is a worthwhile goal, especially in situations where there is also a power imbalance with their detractors. That was the point I was trying to make. Dr. K. 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to refer to gender here. Doing so creates an unfriendly atmosphere for female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I can see your point and I agree with it on a theoretical basis. Women can take care of themselves like everyone else and they don't need champions. However, in practice, there are two problems. The first problem is the perception by others that Wikipedia is unfriendly to women, as discussed during Framgate. The second problem is that minorities on Wikipedia, including women, should be encouraged to edit here, not treated badly. It's the old affirmative action dilemma. Dr. K. 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be that the fact that SilentResident is a woman may not have been a factor in this bullying, but bullying someone because of their disability is just as bad. I held off commenting in this discussion here because I felt pretty sure that after sleeping on this Future Perfect at Sunrise would have realised that such behaviour is unacceptable and offered a full apology, but it seems that I was wrong. Can we take appropriate action within the English Wikipedia or do we demonstrate that the "trust and safety" team at Wikimedia needs to intervene again? As someone with my own, but different, mental health issues the fact that we have an administrator here who acts in such a way frightens me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Bullying someone because of their disability"? What a f..ing joke. How often do I have to repeat that I didn't even f...ing know about any disability? How was I supposed to guess? When I first asked her to curb her habit of tinkering with her posts, she could easily have told me: "I'm sorry if this annoyed you, but I have a condition that makes this more difficult for me than for most people, so I have to ask for a bit of patience". There wouldn't have been any problem, as far as that talk page habit was concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe yesterday such action could be forgiven as a simple mistake resulting from your not reading SilentResident's user page fully, but the fact that today, after this has been pointed out to you, you are still refusing to apologise is completely indefensible. I don't know anything about SilentResident's condition other than that she has it, but friends of mine with OCD have made far more serious errors than hers, such as missing job interviews or flights, because of their condition. Can't you see that your behaviour yeaterday was wrong, and that your behaviour today is totally indefensible? Having OCD is not a fucking joke. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Yesterday, I asked a person to stop a certain annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that. Today, I commended her for having mustered the strength to curb that annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that either. Everything else I said about her – and yes, a lot of it was not very flattering – wasn't related to that particular habit, but her general pattern of disruptive editing. I haven't seen her argue that her habits of pushing POV, edit-warring, violating copyrights and making talkpages unreadable by flooding them with IDHT drivel are also to be excused for being caused by her OCD, so I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologise for expecting a disabled person, who declared her disability on her user page, to edit in a way that her disability does not allow her to, because, however many times a person with OCD checks what they have done, another check is still needed. This is about your response to that behaviour, rather than anything else that you have brought up here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Who declared her disability on her user page"? Dude, seriously? That disclosure is somewhere on number 86 in her list of userboxes. A couple screenfuls below the one that says she plays Elder Scrolls games or whatever it was. Are you now blaming me for not having studied that list before interacting with her? You are getting bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And, as I have already said, that initial failure to spot this on her talk page can be forgiven, but you have done nothing since it was pointed out to you apart from defending the indefensible. Do we really have to put up with editors, let alone administrators, who behave like this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

...and for multiple threats to revert talk page edits and purporting to impose a one-edit rule, and for characterizing those threats as "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". For my part, I don't really care much whether or not FP@S says "sorry", or whether or not they agree this behavior was inappropriate, but I do care that they commit to not repeating it again. WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINCOND document broad consensus about behavior expectations, and they were not met by FP@S here. – Levivich 22:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, so I'm just another second-class citizen around here too. But I know behaviour that is unacceptable, inconsistent with WP policy and just plain wrong, and I want to say that I agree with EdChem completely. I'm something of a perfectionist myself, and I frequently work and re-work what I have to say. (The spell checker doesn't work on long sections like this one.) If you get an edit conflict, blame the software, not your fellow editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem and Hawkeye7: I concour. Thank you very much. and if you allow me, even though your words on me are very kind, I don't want to rest when it comes to myself: I would like to keep my efforts and try to improve my edit account in talk pages by reducing their ammount. There is a room for improvement, even for a person with Obsessive–compulsive disorder and I can't see why I shouldn't take the opportunity. After all, that's what we live for: to improve and adapt in life (and Wikipedia). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hi SilentResident, I've seen editors write their talk-page posts, especially anything lengthy, in their sandbox before copying them to the talk page once they're satisfied with them. When they're done, they remove the comment from the sandbox and periodically request that the sandbox be deleted. That would keep your talk-page edit count down without your having to compose things off-wiki, and it would reduce or eradicate edit conflicts. Just a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): SilentResident, you don't need permission from me or Hawkeye7 or anyone else to try to improve your editing... and I agree that striving to improve is a worthy WP and life goal. My point was that requiring you to change to adapt to FP@S's (or anyone else's) preference is unreasonable, just as would requiring FP@S to adopt your approach and preferences. Taking the argument to its extreme, I might like it if all talk posts agreed with me all the time, that all article space edits were flawless in content and referencing, and that no one with harmful intent contribute to WP – but trying to require that would be absurd. Compromise to accommodate each other's needs is desirable and I welcome your willingness to try to adapt and develop. Seeing this discussion as an opportunity for self-discovery and personal growth is both helpful and wise, and I hope that others reading this can adopt a similarly forward-looking approach. EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's proven that SilentResident's mental condition OCD & lack of some english skills is effecting his/her performance on Wikipedia? Then WP:CIR should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an unfair comment about SR. She has no "mental condition" other than OCD. If you use this criterion on her, you would eliminate a large percentage of wiki editors. Also her English skills are excellent. Please rescind this crappy comment. Dr. K. 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Was going by the opening comments of the report. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, there has been no evidence offered that I've noticed to support the proposition that there are any WP:CIR issues. OCD may have consequences for editing style but do you have any evidence of this affecting the quality of encyclopaedic content? EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have ADD, I can appreciate how one might have trouble on article or talkpages, due to a real-life condition. If it's not a CIR issue, then perhaps some of you can help SR? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that conditions can lead to problems with editing article or talk pages, but I have seen no evidence that it is happening here. I think several people are helping SR and her posts above suggest that she is trying to help herself. Further, I believe that this ANI thread making clear that the "rule" that FP@S devised is unsupported by policy, void, and that FP@S is involved with respect to SR, is also helping SR. What I do not see as helpful is you (or anyone else) suggesting that there is a CIR issue without evidence. Jumping from someone having a medical condition to being unable to constructively edit WP while skipping over the quality of the editor's contributions is unfair and arguably uncivil. SR does not deserve to have aspersions about her competence made without evidence. I am happy to WP:AGF and believe you intended no slight against SR, but I encourage you to look for evidence and present it or note where you have seen it in cases like this where the thread does not already contain diffs pointing to a CIR issue. SR is clearly distressed by events and feeling responsible for or in some way having invited the bullying she perceives from FP@S. I believe it is desirable for us to avoid adding to her distress, and I fear that your CIR comments could do just that. EdChem (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you & others, to decide what's best. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• +1 to EdChem. Here's what the closing statement should be here: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• In support of the comments made by Only in death, Michepman, Dr.K., EdChem. SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us. As long as an editor's contributions have a net position value to the project, the community should, and should be able to accommodate them. As no diffs have been presented to the contrary, this should be treated as a case of harassment and abuse of administerial powers. François Robere (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Which "administerial powers" have been (ab)used? ——SN54129 13:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: and @François Robere:, Admin powers have not been abused, however I would not expect this from an admin. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike "regular" users, when an admin repeatedly warns a editor against a certain behavior, their ability to sanction that editor is implicit in the warning. If the warning is not policy-based, and constitutes harassment in the "regular" case, than for an admin it would also constitute an abuse of administerial powers, because of the implied threat. In others words, an admin doesn't need to eg. block a user to abuse their power; it's enough that they harass them from their position of power. François Robere (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thank you for expaining in more detail. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: You said: "SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us." Well, to be honest: My condition was well-known since November 2015: [171] Today we have almost reached the new year 2020. FP@S has been interacting with me for ages. His claim that "he didn't knew" my condition, is not exactly very convincing. I never have heard before of admins who do not check on Users before putting restrictions on them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; To be honest, I did have to look quite hard to find the OCD userbox. But the wording of his 'warnings' was an attempt at making you feel bad about something your can't control. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem:; This is true, He indeed wanted to make me feel bad. But it is my fault that I felt bad too. I mean, I am a grown woman now, not a little child that would go crying around just because of an insult. I was supposed to contain myself and prevent the emotional meltdown. I believe I am at a fault too, for showing weakness to his actions. Wikipedia is not a friendly club, is a project, and I wasn't supposed to let my feelings surface. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; Even though I agree with , it should not allow this. People should not attack eachother when we are supposed to be collaborating together. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Sigh... I have to say, although I've long respected your good work here, I find your remarks above repulsive. Whatever problems SilentResident may have as an editor (I have no opinion on that), your treatment of her, and your responses here, as many of your fellow editors have indicated, has been very inappropriate. It would be good if you could take that on board. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't read all posts, but the very first post of Khirurg strikes me. It was because recently, it was Khrirg who said to me "competence is required" after some spelling mistakes.[172]. He also was aggressive at my Talk Page [173] (I can find much more in the same line) This is not an "appeal to hypocrisy" by Khirurg. We should all realize that civility is a requirement and should refrain for using inappropriate language. I also had a look at Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I find them mostly constrictive- his remarks towards SilentResident should have been better worded. Your comments were borderline. But I also agree with Ktrimi991 words: No drama needed. Cinadon36 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. wrote: "We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves." Exactly. The comments of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise resemble a victory dance, which is disapproved of even in American football, which is a rough game, and are not any better in Wikipedia, in which civility is the fourth pillar. I haven't looked into whether the edits by User:SilentResident are of poor quality. It doesn't matter. After a cleanly scored touchdown, a touchdown celebration can still incur a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff. If there is an issue about the quality of SR's edits, raise it on an article talk page, or raise it on her talk page, or if it rises to the level of a competency issue, raise it here, but don't rub it in or gloat. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus, is this still going on? Aren't we all repeating ourselves or others by now? Could someone who hasn't commented yet please close it exactly (well, OK, I made a tiny 2 word editorial tweak) as User:Rhododendrites suggests above: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as you are acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I'd do it myself, except it's very close to what I suggested a day ago. I really don't see this closing any other way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Not certain if this is the case. But, what if one's making changes to one's own posts & it thus confuses the responding posts, that were already made? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think this should close with either FP@S voluntarily agreeing to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior, or with FP@S being warned to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior. – Levivich 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

+ Consider EdChem's recommendations above in closing this properly.

Also, I would appreciate if someone is kind enough to update me about the current status of the restrictions/sanctions FP@S had imposed on me? Are these restrictions lifted? if not, will they be?

These restrictions are counterproductive. While I am struggling to limit my edit count, having these unfair and inhumane restrictions hovering above my head like a threat, is a form of discrimination and is bound to stress me and stress complicates my OCD situation. Special administrative restrictions on OCD people go against the ideals of dignity and equality in our community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no restriction. There never was. It was a personal thing I said. I'm not in any position to "impose" formal restrictions on you, as I'm sure you know. As I said above, I appreciate your willingness to make an effort about your edit pattern, and I've already said I won't be making reverts again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Levivich. While it is understandable that FPaS might not have been aware of SilentResident's OCD (although he did use "obsessively" in two edit summaries...), the little shot across the bows did the trick needs to be addressed. Btw SilentResident, there are absolutely no restrictions on you whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• SilentResident, the "rule" that Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared to impose is void. FP@S has stated that he is WP:INVOLVED with regard to you and so is prohibited by policy from acting in his administrative capacity with regard to you, and I am glad to see that he has said so. Basically, FP@S and you have exactly the same authority and editing rights. I took his edit summary stating a "rule" as an overreach of admin authority but, WP:AGFing, he was engaging in hyperbole and expressing his views of your editing and nothing more. This is good news, that FP@S recognises that he is involved and so if either of you seeks any administrative intervention, it will need to be requested of an uninvolved administrator.
• I find it very surprising that FP@S was unaware of your OCD given the extent of your interactions, but WP:AGF requires accepting his statement that he did not in the absence of evidence to the contrary. His use of the term "obsessive" in describing you could be an unfortunate coincidence, though I don't doubt that it felt cruel and abusive to you. FP@S, SR has addressed you directly on her user talk page following your DS notification, which might give you some idea about the experience from her perspective. SR has been hurt by your actions, even if they were inadvertent, and I ask you to reflect on that fact.
• FP@S, your behaviour here has been well below that expected for a Wikipedia editor, including your refusal to recognise your inappropriate actions and statements. I join others in expressing surprise and disappointment that you have not acknowledged and reflected on the feedback you have received.
• FP@S has also raised issues of allegedly problematic editing from SR, such as copyright violations. I have not looked at SR's article space editing as it was irrelevant to the issue of FP@S's "rule" and the policy compliance of her manner of talk page edits. I am not going to wade into the article space issues as I know very little about the topic. However, SR, I will say that nothing in this thread demonstrates that your article space editing is unproblematic. I ask that you reflect carefully on any problems that might be raised about your article space contributions and to focus on the issues raised rather than the manner in which they are raised. Equally, I ask that others focus comments on the issues rather than on personalities or disabilities. As a community of Wikipedians, we are united by a common goal to build and improve the encyclopaedia, which we can work towards cooperatively and in an atmosphere of acceptance and mutual respect. That does require that article space work is policy compliant and those who don't have regard to our content rules are likely to find their contributions reverted and to face sanctions. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• When Fut. Perf. made the comment: little shot across the bow did the trick he knew full well that SR had OCD. Is Fut. Perf. sorry for uttering this insensitive remark about a person he knew at the time was suffering from OCD, or does he still think he can teach OCD victims how to improve by using forceful methods against their will? Dr. K. 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 EdChem expresses things well above. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I know it is difficult to admit to being less than perfect, but it would really be helpful—especially as you are an admin—if you could accept and acknowledge some of the well intentioned feedback you've been given above. Paul August ☎ 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:: I urge you to give close attention to the concerns expressed in EdChem's last point above. Paul August ☎ 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August and EdChem:: first of all, let me be clear regarding my work: I am not a perfect editor. Nor I claimed/pretended to be. In fact, I have been telling everyone that their contributions/fixes/adjustments/rewordings on content that was added by me, are far more than just welcome: they are appreciated, as I am aware that they may find issues which I do not realize at the time of the input. Doing the work of adding content all by myself and without real help by anyone else (none else is updating the article, I am the only one to do so, unfortunately, and the article was very outdated), is bound to have issues which at the time of the input, may escape my awareness, and when I say that, I mean for example that copyright-violating literal translation which EdChem mentioned, which can be found here: [174]. The important thing here is, that at least someone, in this case FP@S, is watching the article and reverted my additions, as you see in the diff. For which I am grateful and, as a matter of fact, I didn't revert back nor I questioned/disputed the admin's revert of this problematic addition. And this shows that I have acknowledged it and accepted it. While I may be kinda lonely in adding new content to the article, at least I am glad that I am not completely alone: someone else is watching my back there, even if that person is FP@S.

My only gripe with this is that, FP@S does never appreciate my work and is constantly focusing on my shortcomings as an editor. Criticism comes after criticism. Criticism for my poor english language, criticism for my OCD, criticism for violating Wikipedia's rules, criticism for adding content that is on the lines of WP:NOTNEWS. While FP@S has some very valid points (and I have been telling him that I do recognize his valid points) however there is a very negative environment between me and him that I can't help but note it here to help you realize how big discrepancy there is in the environment between the articles FP@S is watching and the articles he is not watching: I have contributed to hundred articles across Wikipedia in my 8-year long presence as Wikipedian. But in the articles where FP@S wasn't monitoring, i.e. Prespa Agreement, LGBT rights in Greece, and more, my work has been respected by everyone and there had been far more limited criticism to no criticism at all, and had there been any issues with my contributions, these were swiftly addressed by fellow editors who are kind in doing the necessary fixes without actually complaining about me as a person. To conclude: sure, there were issues such as a copyright-violating literal translation as EdChem mentioned and that FP@S has valid points, but it is important that he assumes WP:AssumeGoodFaith and understand that my mistakes aren't made on purpose nor are the result of CIR as FP@S keeps repeatedly saying about me for years. Everyday the editors are learning something new, and so do I. However constant criticism, and harsh language towards my shortcomings, are counterproductive and doesn't generate an atmosphere of cooperation which is the foundation Wikipedia is build on. I am not perfect, but that doesn't mean I haven't improved over the course of 8 years. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure review

Added 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC) My original close:

I think we can close this discussion now. Future Perfect at Sunrise could have conducted themselves with greater sensitivity, true. And for that lapse they have been admonished by many here. I do note, though, that they were unaware of SilentResident's disability at the time, which they should not be forced to constantly repeat for those not reading closely enough. *** That said, SilentResident's editing does, indeed, invoke competency issues. I just looked at one, single addition of theirs at random (latest edit at Aegean dispute) and found I had no choice but to revert it entirely because it was simply too poorly-written. I would suggest that, for some more substantive edits, they make use of the draft and sandbox spaces instead of editing the mainspace directly. Sorry, SilentResident, but although we are an inclusive project, the aim of our interactions (the alpha and omega) is about improving the encyclopedia. If one constantly needs cleaning up after (of the sort I just had to apply to your addition), that then becomes a problem. I'm not saying there are no solutions to that problem, but it also needs calling attention to and for it to be addressed head on. Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Amendment: I take everyone's concerns seriously. Especially the ones that point out that I devoted more time to SR than to FP. To be clear, I found FP's conduct to have been troubling and I thought that my closing admonished him for their lack of sensitivity. It appears this was not phrased as strongly as many participants wished. I see that now. As for the disproportionate space given to SR's pressing issues (and I do find them pressing) —I did so with the intent to offer helpful counsel rather than admonish— I now realize that this is a product of machine translation (the result of which is often awkward and unwieldy), which I advise them to not make use of anymore. Their own English language, as seen in their comments, are fine, so I would encourage them to be confident with those, instead. Finally, I'm sorry my close contributed rather than ameliorated the dispute. That was obviously not my intent. But I don't think perpetuating the discussion further serves a productive purpose, either. El_C 22:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C 22:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed three times ([175], [176], [177]) and those closures have been challenged three times ([178], [179], [180]). It's time to either reach consensus on the consensus or possibly open a Closure Review. In my opinion, the initial closure by Valeince nicely sums up the discussion using text that was supported by several editors. I also feel that El_C's closure fails to accurately assess consensus. Reading through the discussion, there seems to be clear consensus that Future Perfect's actions were unacceptable regardless of any mitigating factors. Rather than pointing out that Future Perfect has already been admonished within the discussion, an accurate summary would include an admonishment as part of the closure. Several editors mentioned possible CIR or other issues on SilentResident's part, however there is clear consensus that this is a separate issue from FP's harassment. El C seems to ignore this consensus and instead focus on Silent Resident's behavior which is not an accurate summary of the discussion and borders on WP:SUPERVOTE territory. –dlthewave ☎ 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Dlthewave, it could be argued that there have only been two closures and challenges...I mean, one of each was by me so I guess they cancel each other out? But, yes, I confess to blatant indecision  :) ——SN54129 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Dlthewave, there is no "separate issue." This dispute encompasses overacrhing components. It is also ought not to be an indictment, of either editor. My closure was not a supervote —I reject that premise— but rather assessed the views expressed by various participants. I stand by my closure and I think it is time to move on. El_C 20:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that there is a problem here with regard to the multiple closures, and closure summaries, some seem to have better summarized the discussion than others, perhaps all three closure summaries can be included in any subsequent closure? Paul August ☎ 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus against my closure, so be it. But the issues I identified with both editors are ones that I, as an uninvolved administrator, will continue to keep an eye on. El_C 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how these comments were allowed to stand, but my comment was removed by El_C after I challenged his comment about SR's CIR. Also, I think El_C made a grave error in describing SR's edit at the Aegean dispute as "incoherent" on my talk and CIR in this closure. Dr. K. 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because we were still discussing the matter elsewhere, so I was hoping not to split that discussion. El_C 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Dr. K. 20:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The ANI has closed without reflecting properly on consensus, and, El C implied that I am incompetent. On top of that, User:Ktrimi991 endorsed El C by giving them a barnstar and calling El C's problematic wording used in that ANI Closure as "perfectly worded". [181]. I find this unfortunate and put me into bigger chagrin. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I think you put more care and attention into your comments than do your mainspace submissions. I stand by that assessment. El_C 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you on that. There is always room for improvement. Just I disagree with you putting the label "Incompetence" on my language skills just because they don't seem perfect to you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If I offended, I, of course, apologize. Such was not my intent. I think your language skills are a match with mine, but again, that you need to give as much attention to the mainspace —what we are here for— as you do your comments. El_C 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C, if you think SilentResident's language skills are a match with yours, please modify or undo your close accordingly. As you can see, your close was quite contentious. Khirurg (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: On the Mainspace, I am using Microsoft Word -> Google Translator -> Microsoft Word -> Web Browser to prepare my texts. In the Talk Pages, on the other hand, I don't use this route and I simply use my own english skills (I type straight on the web browser without using third-party programs)

You say that my Talk Page comments are better quality than my main space contributions? I don't have idea why this happens. For the Main Space I use Google Translate which, albeit not perfect, helps avoiding translation errors. Perhaps this is the discrepancy of english language quality you are talking about?. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I had been trying very hard to avoid commenting here, but as another uninvolved sysop I will note that I cannot imagine having closed this thread devoting more than 5.5 times as much weight to SR's issues as FPAS' issues. I do defend El C's right to close this thread using his discretion and judgement even if that goes against the majority of participants. If he wants to admonish SR at length, well ANI is a place where that is appropriate, in the closing of a thread and after having assessed some evidence. However, as I noted at the start of this comment I will suggest that we seem to be coming down incredibly hard on SR, an editor who is making an effort to engage and improve, rather than FPAS who has chosen to largely not engage (and to the extent that they have engaged have done so in ways multiple editors have taken issue with) and who, as a sysop, has a higher standard of expectations for their actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you! I feel some admins do not appreciate my afforts. The reason I am using Microsoft Word -> Google Translator -> Microsoft Word -> Web Browser for the mainspace is because Future Perfect was complaining about my mainspace edits for years. And now El C complaining of my use of Google Translator and calling me Incompetent editor just because I was trying to satisfy Future Perfect's demands, is just too much for me. No matter what effort I put, there seems to be always an unhappy admin at the end of the road. @El C: please correct the ANI closure or at least reword it because this is insulting and unfair and not reflective of my complicated situation. You should understand the effort I am putting. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, I do recognize the effort you've put in. However, in assessing the situation El C is OK, at least in my book, to look at product not process. I know he didn't want to be insulting, and has apologized as that was not his intent. But it is not unfair, in my mind, to point out areas for growth and to suggest ways you can improve as an editor and I don't think he needs to necessarily change his close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed comment restored

• The following comment was removed by the closing admin after I added it at a separate section after their closure:

As I noted in my edit-summary at the article El_C used as an example for CIR issues with SR: I have to strongly disagree this is a WP:CIR issue. This is just a run of the mill mild language issue very common amongst many editors on English Wikipedia, including those for whom English is their mother tongue.". Dr. K. 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is far from mild and, basically, had to be totally rewritten. El_C 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are an experienced content editor El_C, as am I. What are we discussing here? You know that this was a no brainer rewrite in terms of difficulty. Dr. K. 21:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but, I disagree. In any case, it comes nowhere close to CIR. Dr. K. 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that — likewise. But obviously, we are at an impasse. El_C 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I won't argue about what level of fluency is required to be considered 'competent', it's just too subjective. But honestly the closing statement about FP doesn't feel strong enough to reflect how many concerns were expressed about the 'shot across the bow' comment, which came after FP knew about the disability. --valereee (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Don't you think enough vitriol has been expended already? El_C 20:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So that is how you see it? A vitriolic battle of some sort? Wrong. Editors, myself included, are just asking for the obvious here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That was the central question of this thread. It cannot/should not be ignored. Dr. K. 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, El C, to say that, but as the closing party, you ought to reflect on the consensus, otherwise it sends the wrong message about the mistreatment of people with disabilities across Wikipedia bearing no consequences and sends the message that it is ok as an Admin to behave like that, and this is very worrisome. The closure comment must make sure that such incidents are unacceptable. Please this time, close the ANI properly, otherwise I will have no option but include your name in the WMF filling. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I welcome anyone's input, including but not limited to members of the Foundation. El_C 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• This ANI thread has gone on too long for any positive outcome to come out of it and as it stands, there is no third-party who read this wall of text and make a conclusive call to fix things (kudos to El_C to attempt a bold close), as there is no close that will majorly satisfy all parties of this dispute. The secondary and only other possibility is to punt this to the Arbitration Committee, who I am not sure will even take up this case, but till then, I say all parties here make a compromise, drop the stick and get back to editing articles. I doubt this closure review will come to fruition and I doubt this ANI thread will result in a resolution at all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

At a minimum the closing statement needs to be amended. Khirurg (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that it's been undone, the closure review probably can be suspended and the matter can resume being discussed, although my opinion on its resolution remains intact. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly there didn't seem to be substantial opposition to the initial closure. It's not clear to me exactly why it was reverted, perhaps Phil Bridger could weigh in? –dlthewave ☎ 22:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• El C, I don't want vitriol, and I also don't want to pile on to you or to FP. Dealing well with people with a disability is really important to me, and I believe we need to be willing to reasonably accommodate, even when it's kind of annoying or causes us a little extra work, if for no other reason than because the diversity of viewpoint that contributions from people with disabilities give us makes the project stronger. What concerned me was Future Perfect at Sunrise could have conducted themselves with greater sensitivity, true. And for that lapse they have been admonished by many here. I do note, though, that they were unaware of SilentResident's disability at the time, which they should not be forced to constantly repeat for those not reading closely enough. FP did know of SR's disability when they made the shot across the bow comment. FP could have conducted themselves with profoundly greater sensitivity, at that point. --valereee (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I take your point to heart, Valereee. Perhaps I was simply too understated. I have added an amendment to my close, which I hope addresses the concerns brought fourth by many here. El_C 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your amendment doesn't cut it. At this point, please undo your close and let someone else close it. Thank you, Khirurg (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What were expecting the close to state, Khirurg? El_C 22:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, if there is still consensus that a different close is needed, I would not insist. But I would like some input first. El_C 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The little shot across the bow did the trick comment at this thread was very disturbing and needs to be addressed head-on. This is not an instance of "not being sensitive enough", it is a clear cut instance of gloating that the bullying of SR "did the trick". This is extremely unbecoming conduct from an admin, and many users have pointed this out. Please also take into account what DIthewave and valeree said. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Please also note, FPaS has a history of such abrasive behavior, and was desysopped once and admonished multiple times for exactly such behavior. There is a history here, this is not an isolated incident. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have undone my close. Sorry to have failed you all. El_C 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate that. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Closure review 2

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

---

I think choosing the very first closure review, was done too fast, and ignores all the subsequent discussions and recommendations. As Valereee and Paul August mentioned, there should be a merging of all the previous closures, an admonishment of Fut. Perf., as well as the "shot across the bow" remark. Dr. K. 23:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interim, a "closed, awaiting closing statement" placeholder could help keep things stable while we discuss. –dlthewave ☎ 23:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A placeholder is a great idea. Regarding the close itself, at a minimum FPaS should be admonished for incivility and conduct unbecoming of an admin. There is a clear consensus for this. Khirurg (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a reason I avoided commenting on FP@S's notorious "little shot across the bow did the trick" statement. Because it hurted and insulted me alot as an OCD person.

However I want to be straightforward with you all: In my opinion the thread cannot be closed properly if the "little shot across the bow did the trick" isn't included. FP@S's statement came after I tried explaining to him that a person's health problems don't go away with little shots across the bow: [182]. Otherwise it sends the wrong message across Wikipedia, that bullying of people with health problems is a toleratable act in our community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am OK with the wording of @Barkeep49:. I am also OK with any other closure as long as Fut Perf is able to keep his admin status and Silent Resident is able to edit. A closure wording is not even necessary as long as Fut Perf does not rv again comments made by other editors and SilentResident takes her continous modification of edits more seriously. If she uses Notepad, she can avoid the mess. A closure that acknowledges that the two editors need to reflect would be perfect. The history of their interactions shows that there is room for improvement for both of them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take it that it is an improvement from your previous statement (and barnstar) on El C's talk page. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

First off, I am happy you are not modifying your comments. It seems that this thread has improved your editing. The barnstar was given to the closing admin, @El C:, by @Serial Number 54129:, not by me. Be more careful next time. I thanked the closing admin as he closed a discussion that was going to nowhere. And I continue to think that the wording made by El_C was perfect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh my apologies about the barnstar. Somehow had the impression the stylized name was part of it. As for the rest, this is unfortunate but I won't try to change your mind, nor it matters much, since it is ammended. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a good thing you understand that you can not change my mind. I do not have any problem with having a closure ammended. As I said, I am OK as long as Fut Perf does not have his admin status removed and you are able to edit. After all, you have already learnt to edit carefully. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

None is asking to strip FP@S of his admin rights. Please read carefully what this is about. He made some remarks that violence can cure people with health problems. El C's's closure didn't tackle on the root of the whole problem for which this ANI report was made in the first place. What you think of it as well-balanced, doesn't even come close to it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We have given Fut. Perf. all the time in the world to explain what he meant by little shot across the bow did the trick concerning his attitude toward a person he knew full well had OCD when he made that remark. Fut. Perf. regularly participated in the original thread defending his actions, and pleading ignorance of the OCD of SR. We AGF'ed that he did not know SR had OCD when he reverted SR's edits on the article talkpage. But when it was pointed to him that the little shot across the bow did the trick comment was made when he was already informed of SR's OCD, Fut. Perf. disappeared from sight. There has been no explanation or clarification from him as to what he meant by that remark, in full knowledge of SR's condition. We need clarity on that, because violence should never be considered a therapeutic means for OCD. If Fut. Perf. meant something else, I think he should inform the community about it. Dr. K. 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Violence"??? WTF? Is this about the "a little shot across the bow" comment? If so then... come off it! If you're really trying to pretend that using this expression is advocating "violence as a therapeutic means for OCD" then that just shows how bad faith your approach here is. Look. We're not stupid here. Nobody is going to take you seriously when you make these kinds of hysterical, hyperbolic claims. Gawd. Typical AN/I Wikipedia. Exaggerate, scream, stomp one's feet and pretend that someone's frown is same as murder and act outraged that you're not being taken seriously.

Now, if there is some OTHER comment that I'm unaware of which actually references violence that's a different matter. But I figure if there was you'd be talking about that one, not this sorry excuse for pearl clutching. Volunteer Marek 02:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This review has all the potential to reach the ad nauseam point as the previous discussion did. El_C's closing remarks were well balanced.Cinadon36 00:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Like how many editors have pointed out: the closing remarks weren't balanced due to ignoring completing the post-report WP:BULLYING remarks of a person who was reported for WP:BULLYING. No editor would call it "balanced" unless they do agree in ignoring/tolerating such forms of violence/indimitation in Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone still linedancing on the horse carcass? Good, good. I trust that after the weekend we'll be up to five closure reviews, and demands that single adverbs be rephrased for the salvation of various shattered souls. - Seriously; Barkeep's close is about as collegial and Good Faith All Around as is possible. Please give it a rest now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is your privilege to ignore comments advocating violence against people with OCD as a teaching tool, but please don't be so brazen about it. Dr. K. 00:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"comments advocating violence against people with OCD as a teaching tool" <-- can you be specific as to what "comments" you are actually referring to? Please quote them in response below without polemics or commentary. Thank you. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as some insist on beating a WP:DEADHORSE, has anyone here considered that this is a "content dispute"/grudge being disguised and presented as a "behavioral problem"? I'm not seeing anyone actually raising the possibility that this is just a way for some editors to try and sideline an admin whose presence has hindered their POV on Balkan articles for many many many years. There's a ton of Wikipedia history that is being ignored here me thinks. Volunteer Marek 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad-faith comment, no one is trying to "sideline" anyone. However that's pretty rich from someone who has a "ton" of history himself. WP:EEML, anyone? Khirurg (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... you accuse me of "bad faith" for pointing out the obvious, then YOU bring up "EEML" which is 100% irrelevant here, an obvious effort at intimidation, and immediately attack me even though I did not mention you specifically "Khirurg"? The fact that you feel compelled to do so kind of betrays the fact that my observation was on point, particularly since, you know, I didn't actually mention YOU *specifically* as having your POV hindered. But hey, thanks for speaking up and making it clear for others. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The original closure was fine. At some point a WP:BOOMERANG needs to be considered for Dr. K and Khirurg for not being able to WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:TEND, particularly since I do think this whole report wasn't made in good faith and with clean hands. It's a POV content dispute fellas, not really about anyone being rude or anything except as an excuse, don't be fooled. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't speak about things you don't know about. FPaS and I generally have few interactions. On the other hand, you and I have had quite a few disputes, haven't we? So, yeah, don't be fooled. Khirurg (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't attack, try to intimidate and lecture others. Oh, and if you didn't file BS reports under false pretenses. You know... I watched this for awhile and wasn't going to comment. But the sheer amount of blustering and bad faith and BS just got to be too much. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were blocked a while back for making exactly these kinds of obnoxious, bad-faith, mud-slinging accusations. It would be best if you did not forget that. Khirurg (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you remember correctly. But your continued accusations about irrelevancies speak quite clearly - you're implicitly acknowledging that my observation was correct. I didn't mention YOU when I brought up POV issues, yet you automatically popped up and started... well, flinging mud, being obnoxious and making bad faith accusations. It would be best if you didn't adopt this WP:BATTLEGROUND condescending tone where you tell others what's best for them. And did we have prior disputes? I'm not recognizing the username "Khirurg". Perhaps I've forgotten. Volunteer Marek 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't mention me directly, you just used the cowardly "some users", but it was pretty obvious who you meant. Don't think you're fooling anyone. And oh yes, I do remember correctly [183]. Khirurg (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh!!! "Cowardly" is it? Wait wait wait! You forgot to accuse me of making personal attacks in the same sentence, like you usually do. I don't think it was obvious at all. And hey, a diff from 3 years ago for completely unrelated stuff. You want to get User:Drmies here? Keep going man, please, keep going. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It was 3 years ago, but nothing's changed. The same bad-faith accusations, mud-slinging and outright falsehoods, laced with plenty of exclamation points. Exhibit A:I'm not recognizing the username "Khirurg" but I got this username in early 2017, and since then, we have tangled at White Helmets [184], Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [185], just to name a few. But, yeah, you "don't recognize" my username. Complete and total bull. Khirurg (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Save your AGF-defying wisdom to yourself. Noone advocates that the admin involved be removed from the Balkans. It has not even come up as a subject. Plus, I haven't discussed anything with this guy since a long time ago. If you think he has not mistreated SR, you are entitled to your opinion. But you cannot cast WP:ASPERSIONS against the editors who disagree with you and who include several admins and many good faith editors. As far as BOOMERANG, continue on that bad-faith tirade and see who gets blocked for disruption and WP:NPA violations. Dr. K. 01:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No... I think I'll share my wisdom with others. There's definitely an underlying POV content dispute here and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The best outcome here hasn't changed since I originally proposed the closure way up there, which was then supported/modified by floq, implemented by Valeince, then undone and implemented again by SN, and then modified/implemented again by barkeep. There seem to be a small number of people here looking for blood. That's not a great reason to repeatedly open the discussion. If the behavior continues, come back. If you're after FPaS's bit, go to arbcom (but probably not a good use of time). The longer this goes the more side beefs are going to appear and the less clarity there will be for anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a clarification to a simple question is not "asking for blood". Noone is asking for the admin's bit. Just for a clarification. Dr. K. 01:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a second closure review. It's not asking for "clarification". It's not a "simple question", but a bad faithed one. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Leave the brazen attacks to yourself. You can obviously have the last word. I will not try to outcompete your attempts at derailing this discussion. Dr. K. 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me have the last word. Here it is: I'm not making any brazen attacks, just pointing out that this whole report is based on an underlying, long term content dispute about POV in Balkan articles and that context seems to have been ignored, but it shouldn't. Volunteer Marek 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:@Volunteer Marek: This ANI report is about behavioral issues, not content issues. Coming here and saying "bullied? Lets look on content differences!" - as if it is justifiable to bully someone because of content differences. This leaves a souring impression.

@Everyone else: This is over for me. The story started and ended like this: Someone bullied me. A report is filled against him. He showed no remorse for his actions. Not even apologized. Contrary, during the discussion, he expressed satisfaction for his bullying methods working on his victim. Then he disappears entirely from the discussion, never to be seen again. And the ANI isn't closed properly. He wasn't even given a simple formal warning. Once the dust settles down, the bully will be free to reign over their next victim since the report against them concluded without dealing with their behavioral problem. Congratulations to all.

Despite the honest efforts of many editors here, bullying is tolerated in Wikipedia and this is an alarming failure for us all. But while you may continue you wikipedic lifes, I am no longer wishing to be part of this. I am too tired and excausted emotionally and this filling is dragging indefinitely. It is just too much. PS: To those who supported me: thank you all for your support. To those who showed insensitivity and indifference to my situation, wish you good luck in dealing with your own future bullies. Because you will be alone on this like I was. It doesn't matter if the community sides with you, because, at the end of the day, what counts is that there is a precedence. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I am really disappointed to see how this has developed. FP@S has not responded to requests for reflection nor acknowledged the comments from numerous uninvolved editors. An ArbCom case is the only way to seek a desysop and I doubt such a case would be taken, but this incident could be presented as evidence in a future case. SR has acknowledged editing problems and indicated a willingness to address them, and it now seems feels unwilling or unable to remain at WP. That is very sad on an individual level and an indictment of us as Wikipedians on an overall level, that we are unable to address harassment of an editor with a disability. FP@S, your behaviour towards SR has been unacceptable, and in the time since you must have known of her condition, has been appalling. To those who view FP@S's actions as justified by alleged shortcomings in SR's article space editing, I ask you to reflect on the inhumanity of your position. SR is a living, breathing human being who has contributed to this project for years. She has a disability that leads to an editing style that FP@S finds irritating, but has contributed in numerous areas in collaboration with other editors despite this. She is clearly in pain, upset, distressed, and exhausted by our inability to declare that FP@S's actions are unacceptable to us as a community, and I am ashamed that we have failed to make this simple and (what should be) uncontroversial statement. No circumstances described here go even close to justifying FP@S's behaviour. Those who have tried to divert this thread onto other issues, you should also feel ashamed that your eagerness to pursue personal issues has blinded you to the pain and plight of SR.

Constructing a close that accurately reflects the seriousness and unacceptable nature of FP@S's conduct should have been easy given the volume of comments. Recognising that SR being harassed is not justified by her editing while recognising editing problems may exist, should have been equally easy. FP@S is a respected but also controversial admin and his ongoing good work should not make us blind to his failures in this case. His failure to admit to any fault and his gloating response that he had succeeded in forcing SR to overcome OCD (as if that were realistically possible) have seriously damaged his reputation in my eyes, and I suspect in the views of others as well. However, this is also something we have failed to include in a closure. In short, it is circumstances like this that led the WMF into starting the FRAM debacle and we must learn that self-governance comes with it responsibility to stand up against bullying, to adhere to principles of inclusion and acceptance in practice as well as in principle, and to demonstrate that we are a community that respects its members and behaves as mature adults.

I doubt that any balanced and respectful close is now possible that reflects our principles and our better natures. Some will no doubt view SR's departure as a triumph or vindication, and anyone who feels that way should take a long hard look at themselves and ask how her pain can be a reason for celebration. This thread will die, as many other ANI threads do, without addressing the underlying issues. That is sad, as is SR's departure, as is FP@S's inability to acknowledge mistakes, as are the contributions that have sought to divert this discussion from the core issues. I was motivated to enter this thread by what I saw as unfair treatment of a disabled person, believing that the Wikipedia community is better than that. I am now doubting that the decency and humanity of the Wikipedia editing community exists as it once did. EdChem (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: I was trying to find words that express my shock that anyone in the 21st century could behave in such a way, but am finding it very difficult without it looking like a rant, so will do no more than say that I share the disillusionment that you express in your last sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I watched this whole thread evolve over the days. Didn't want to say something, but I have a few words. I edit mainly Balkan related topics and at times its no easy thing neither for editors or administrators due topics that are of a contested nature. Sometimes they cause disagreements and yes sadly it can get nasty. Administrators dealing in this field have no easy ride. They have to constantly deal with IP disruption, editors pushing POV in unconstructive ways, trolling and sock accounts. As such it can induce a stressful environment. Few Wikipedia administrators have the grit to deal in this field like @Future Perfect at Sunrise:. Now sure, in my interactions with @Future Perfect we have had our few moments of strong disagreement. He can definitely attest to that. However @Future Perfect has also given the Balkan topics area a degree of order. The administrator has given me helpful advice on article talkpages in relation to improving my editing and i want others to be aware that the administrator does take the time to also do that. @Volunteer Marek: is spot on all counts in what he said. SilentResident looking at your situation, if health is a prolonged and possibly permanent issue, editing articles where stress and so on might occur due to the topic's contested nature, then maybe refrain from editing them. I had a health scare mid year after i did something very foolish. The doctor said to me to stay away from environments that might incur stress and one of those spaces for me was not touching Wikipedia for a long while to aid my recovery. That said, admins like @Future Perfect have made Wikipedia a better place and that should be taken into account. @El C:’s initial closure was spot on and I support it.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for SR, but, as I understand it, the issue here is SR's OCD. SR does not suffer from a stress disorder. She suffers from OCD. That means she is not incapacitated under stressful wiki conditions. She can handle that. The problem is created when her OCD-driven multiple grammatical incremental talkpage posts are undone or she is under threat that they will be undone now and in the future for no other reason than because they upset an admin who doesn't like multiple grammatical incremental posts. The problem is exacerbated when the admin actually reverts her grammatical incremental talkpage posts back to a grammatically incorrect state and then states after the fact that his revert of her multiple grammatical incremental posts may have helped overcome her OCD fidgeting with her multiple grammatical incremental posts and caused her to cut down the number of her multiple grammatical incremental posts. I am certain that everyone in this thread, is a great editor who has contributed great things to this project. The same goes for the admin who doesn't like the multiple grammatical incremental posts of SR and likes to revert them. But our encyclopædic record does not make us infallible neither does it absolve us from the responsibility of acknowledging our errors. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 16:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a platform that aims to be inclusive as possible of people of all walks of life and that should be encouraged further going forward. That said, I never said that OCD is a stress disorder. In medicine, the role stress plays in enhancing or making the symptoms of OCD worse is noted [186]. My point was, if an editor has a health condition and then they engage in an environment where stress might occur, it could affect their editing, especially if their editing competencies are not up to scratch, then situations such as this could be a possible result. A course of action would be to refrain from activities like editing certain articles, topic areas or even Wikipedia altogether, due to the nature of some content on articles being contested and all that it entails in dealing with WP:BRD, talkpage discussions etc because the end result is that it can be harmful to a particular editor's health. I still agree with El_C’s initial closure.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, SR has not reported that she cannot handle stressful conditions. The only complaint SR has made concerns the reverts of her multiple grammatical incremental talkpage posts by the admin involved. When you mentioned: ... then situations such as this could be a possible result, what situation did you have in mind? Dr. K. 16:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, El_C’s initial closure, missed to tackle on the disrespectful remarks (which are a form of violence) towards my health problem. Agreeing with El_C’s initial closure "as is", means you are agreeing in not tackling these forms of violence against disabled people. Looking at your past, this isnt surprising of you, Resnjari. Let me by honest to you. You are a capable contributor and I respect your work. But we do not share the same human values. Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy, and now this support of closures which leave Bullying remarks by FP@S unadressed, are a worrissome trend I do not agree with nor I can be part of, no matter what. The universal human rights are very important to me as a person, and uphold them to my heart and are part of who I am. To me, your indifference to the bullying that happened here (your comments avoided tackling this and instead focused on FP@S's contribs and on my OCD) is disturbing. Please now lets leave this discussion, as there is no point talking about this anymore. FP@S is a great editor and none, incl. me has doubts about that. However this filling wasn't about his great contributions to the community, is about a behavioral issue and we failed to addres it. He showed no remorse for his actions. Nor even apologized. He escaped and the damage to the Wikipedia community is already done, be it with El_C’s initial closure or not. If you re happy, good. If not, again good. Just let it go. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy @SilentResident:, diffs? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy ... I am dying to know if this was all in one diff. – Levivich 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I am dying to know if this was all in one diff. You better get used to that. Wikipedia is a collective project drawing people from all corners of the world. People with all the sorts of different views and beliefs, different religions and most certainly -as you see in this thread- people with all sorts of health problems. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why bother, Ktrimi? You weren't even here to read these remarks with your own eyes. You are new in Wikipedia and this happened before you joined us. If you really want that much to read about it, go dig into the archives my disputes with him and you will find everything you seek there. However, I am having the impression here you are missing the point of my comment above. Please read carefully what I have said about sensitivity here. My message is meant for you as well. Your passionate support to the Closing Remarks which avoided alltogether FP@S's remarks that violence works on curing disabilities, was very unfortunate of you. You already made your points very loud and clear and there is nothing I want to discuss with you.

Contact is made with the legal department of the WMF. It is recommended that this thread is closed and be kept for the records since there is nothing useful to be said here, just unprofessional advices of how to deal with my health problems. This discussion has come to a natural end and if people are kind enough, they ought to stop giving me advices about my health. I said I will work on improving my issues, but I expected more from you. If you can't, just let it go. I want to recover from my emotional distress this has caused, be done with the legal procedures, and move on. Good day to everyone. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can people just stop offering unsolicited, amateur, medical advice here? You wouldn't (I hope) tell someone who was blind that they shouldn't be editing certain articles for their own good, so why do people feel qualified to tell someone with OCD the same? Those of us with mental conditions can decide for ourselves whether editing in particular areas is good for us. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and harm threat ?

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

---

Resolved

Pls look at this page....will need revision to hide all the emails.--Moxy 🍁 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User indeffed, edit revdeled, WMF notified. Thanks for the alert. (Though as an fyi it's usually better to try to alert an admin privately in these situations.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do.. thank you for the advice and fast action.--Moxy 🍁 01:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

NP -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits to Furry Vengeance

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

---

@Binksternet: has repeatedly removed information from a production notes source in the article Furry Vengeance for the blatantly invalid rationale that it's an "unpublished source." To know what I'm talking about, it's this one that HAS been published on an official Australian film site. He's just made a page protection request under his false rationale, and decided to bring up an unrelated incident that occurred a while ago only for defamatory reasons. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:2836:E38E:4ADB:8B5 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, the discussion has been moved from RFPP to the talk page, continue discussing there and don't edit war over it. Also while a ping is usually adequate, in this circumstance you are specifically instructed to put an ANI notice on the talk page of the user you are reporting. Luckily @C.Fred: has already done that for you but in the future keep in mind the notification requirement at the top of the page is not a suggestion, it's mandatory. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind me of the policy link for situations where there are links to sites that are hosting material in violation of copyright? I can never remember what it is: WP:VIOLINK or something like that. Thanks. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Your probably thinking of either WP:COPYVIO where the end of the lead says Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to, or possibly to WP:COPYVIOEL which is equally explicit, generally the appropriate forum would be WP:ELN however since a thread already exists and this is not a bureaucracy, we can discuss it here. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, which demand that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The contested source is a Word document hosted on a website; the doc has no connection to a good reputation for fact checks or accuracy. It is not reliable. See WP:SOURCES. Binksternet (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the source would have been usable as a WP:PRIMARY because it contains a lot of out-of-universe information about the character development and casting and so forth. There is no need to worry about fact-checking and editorial oversight for a primary document drawn up by the very people who produced the film. But if it is indeed a copyvio (and it seems so) then it's unusable by us because it hasn't actually been published somewhere and it would be condoning illegal activity to link to it so that others would download it (like I did, out of purely academic interest :) Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shirt58: WP:LINKVIO (aka WP:COPYLINK) for that section of the policy, WP:ELNEVER (aka WP:COPYVIOEL) for the guideline for external links and citations. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Careless warning

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

---

Yesterday I removed an unsourced WP:PEACOCK term, which is unencyclopedic in nature. User Dey subrata not only reinstated it but also straightaway posted a level 3 warning at my talk page for supposedly continuous use of misleading edit summaries. They didn't bother to discuss once with me or even revert my edit before posting that template. I always explain my edits clearly in edit summaries and have never been warned in that regard. Even in the aforementioned edit, I not only cited the relevant guideline but also explained my edit in plain language as many editors aren't that much familiar with badminton. So I consider that warning as an abuse of warning templates and believe that they should be warned against such careless templating. Note that I have neither ever indulged in disruption at P. V. Sindhu nor have any prior interaction with the concerned user.

PS: Unfortunately, news media often use this project as their reference in developing countries like India & Pakistan. Some outlets just copy the unsourced facts, whereas others copy-paste whole paragraphs from here. This is not directly related to the issue at hand, but I am pointing it out here to give some idea of the damage done by the misinformation or the promotional content of WP in such countries, e.g., there is already a WP:MIRROR of the content in question:

Plagiarism by Mint (newspaper)

Here's a quote from WP's P. V. Sindhu (dated 2 September 2019): Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit, including a silver medal at the 2016 Olympics ... She is the recipient of the sports honour Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri. And here's a quote from a Mint's article (dated 25 September 2019): Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments including a silver medal at the 2016. Sindhu is the recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri. So careless was the copy-paste by the Mint (newspaper) that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016".

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note that my only concern here is regarding their warning, as I am discussing regarding the content at Talk:P. V. Sindhu#Recent revert. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is warning carelessly.

• You have been warned for your inappropriate edit summaries. Your exact quote in edit summary, "...won only a handful of titles, and has a long way to go before becoming Lin Dan of badminton". The edit that you made has nothing to do with Lin Dan or any badmintton players. You could have said "won only handful of titles". Secondly, comparing one world class player with another is utterly bullshit. Sindhu does not want to be a Lin Dan. no players wants to become another player, they want to be established & to be recognized by their name and she already did. Neither a player is less than any other player, even if the player does not win a title. Various players go through various circumstances in their life and career. Bringing such a nonsense comparison in edit summary is demeaning publicly and disrespect to the personality in the article. Keep your opinion to your self, no need to throw mud here and there no one asked you. Write that much in summary which is necessary enough.
• Coming to your point of "numerous" and "multiple". The line exactly written, "Pusarla has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit including a gold at the 2019 World Championships..." And in your edit summary you've written.. "won only handful of titles". The word numerous is not used for titles but for tournaments. She won medals at 1 Olympics, 1 A.Games, 2 S.A Games, 5 BWF World Cmship, 4 BWF World Tour, 7 BWF Superseries, 9 BWF Grand Prix. So you can't call it a "multiple" which is used for more the once used most in case of twice or thrice not for 30 tournaments. Secondly, you have considered "numerous titles" instead of "numerous tournament" by your edit summaries. So before doing edit please open eyes and see exactly what you are editing. Thus "won handful of titles" and "comparison with Lin Dan" both are misleading edit summary per WP:SUMMARYNO.
• Be careful while playing victim card. Dey subrata (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Why is this at ANI? Yes, it a level three warning by Dey subrata seems inappropriate to me. But opening an ANI thread about this by NitinMlk also seems inappropriate to me, particularly when done so less than 10 minutes after explaining the edit to Dey subrata. This isn't an urgent matter, or chronic or intractable behaviour. Give them a chance to discuss, explain, retract, or apologize next time. The edit has already been undone by another editor. Just remove the warning with a suitable summary and let it be. There's a warning template for having used inappropriate warning templates, but there's no use using it now that this is already at ANI. Meters (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it might belong here - @Dey subrata: - yours was a rather unpleasant reply, and an unfortunate one, considering that you're completely wrong. (1) You don't give out level 3 warnings unless the edit is clearly vandalistic - this one wasn't. (2) the warning wasn't required at all, because the edit was correct (or at least more correct than the previous text) . (3) You didn't sign it, either. I was surprised to see this behaviour from an editor with nearly 10,000 edits - well, until I looked back through your contributions - you gave User_talk:Abhishe78 a Level4im (final warning) message two days ago for this completely good-faith edit. Meanwhile this warning had a totally unnecessary rude comment attached to it. How many more am I going to find if I continue back through your contributions? Simply - don't misuse the warning templates, or you may find yourself blocked yourself. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite Abhishe was warned after a level three warning for the same article. He was well addressed in edit summaries in many articles not to add un-official, misleading and inaccuarte materials in the articles. But he seems to have ignored and did same msitakes. He has been blocked before such kind of edit. Thus I don't see any point of not warning him of a level 4. Anyway concerning this, I have explained the two point and both the part in the edit summary is misleading, "edit for tournamnet and put summary for title" and "unnecessarily comparing a established player, the personality in the article with another established player to show one inferior to other or in achievement is not in anyway good taste. Dey subrata (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a level 3 warning which was also incorrect, as it was for a good-faith edit which was even explained in a note in the article. You should not be giving out high-level warnings to editors making good-faith edits unless they are being deliberately disruptive, vandalising or edit-warring. In this case, you explained why you reverted in the edit-summary and that should have been enough - and the same should have been done for Abishe78. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Dey subrata, First, as far as edit summary was concerned, as I've already mentioned here, "I not only cited the relevant guideline but also explained my edit in plain language as many editors aren't that much familiar with badminton." So the purpose of it was to clarify my edit, not to demean anyone.

Second, being a runner-up is not same as being a winner. For the rest please see Talk:P. V. Sindhu#Recent revert. BTW, Asian Games, South Asian Games, etc. aren't even BWF events. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Read again, I can't teach you now what is difference between, won medals at, and winner. Thats why said, read between line what the line si saying.Dey subrata (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Good point, Black Kite. And "Are you out of your brain !!!"[187] is a completely inappropriate talk page post. NitinMlk, if you are making a complaint about long-term behaviour please state that you are doing so and provide diffs in the future. Meters (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, neither medals are awarded in open tournaments nor many of the events are listed under BWF. But please keep content-related comments to the relevant talk page, and clarify the reason for level 3 warning to me.

Meters, I did notice their aggressive templating to others, but I thought behaviour against me was bad enough to report here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

neither medals are awarded in open tournaments....Is this reflecting from your edit, "numerous tournament" to "multiple tournament", or does your edit summary, "won handful of titles" reflects such. Here you are commenting what it is or what not, you could have properly done that at edit summary without bringing a unnecessary comparison of two established players which is in bad taste and is undoubtedly a misleading edit summary. Secondly, again you are saying "many of the events are listed under BWF.", now I can't help you. All of those tournaments are under BWF. Are you serious?? Check this- BWF World Tour#Tournaments. I think you don't seem someone who wants to learn from mistakes, you again making false claim by saying the above comment that many of thse tournament are not listed under BWF. I am sorry, you have very less knowledge of BWF tours. Dey subrata (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You are aggressively posting lengthy comments rather than discussing the matter. I am repeating again that please keep the content-related discussion to Talk:P._V._Sindhu#Recent_revert, where I have already posted a comment. And explain here the reason for level 3 warning. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And straightaway posting level 4 warning for a single edit isn't good either: [188] - NitinMlk (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor incommunicado (for 7 years)

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

Hi, I am a little reluctant to take this to ANI right now, feeling like a pre-emptive strike, or is it? The above editor has hundreds of edits over 7 years, pretty constructive and positive contributor. But he has never once communicated in any language. He has zero talk page postings. He has zero edit summaries. His user page was a bio for a dead man, so I guess not an autobio? He edits on zero other langauge Wikis, although he appears to be Filipino from his chosen topic areas. So today I am raising a minor dispute with him and it's the umpteenth time I've revered him on List of people beatified by Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but revert and protest is all I can do, because he won't speak and won't act on our notices. He was blocked about five years ago by ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs), and I raise the question here whether a second short block may be in order, with an "or-else". It's a shame to throw away a positive contributor, but editors who won't communicate are flirting with WP:CIR. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t see the required ANI notice on his page (my apologies if you posted one and I missed it) so I have posted one on his talk page as a courtesy just in case he does opt to participate here. Michepman (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I posted it to the bottom two minutes after yours was posted... to the top for some reason. Fat lot of good it'll do, anyway? Elizium23 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC

Hey, he may eventually break his vow of silence. Some monastic orders allow that under certain circumstances. Michepman (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

He would need to petition Abbot Jimmy for permission. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The edits are tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit". How do notifications appear in that case? What if they are using an old version of the app? It might not be easy for such a user to find their talk. Even if my speculation is correct, a non-collaborative editor is a net drain on the community and a block might be required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If the 2015 block didn't have any effect, why would we think that doing it again would have a different result?

Let's try having an administrator email them. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn’t rush to a block. We don’t want to bite an otherwise constructive user unless that’s the only alternative to halt ongoing disruption. Michepman (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, email away. The mobile edit tags began consistently in February 2017. When was the edit filter established? Is it possible he was using the mobile app in 2015 during the first block? What about 2013 when he began editing oblivious to such things as ClueBot? Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Very little is more frustrating, then an editor who refuses to communicate with other editors. It smacks of arrogance. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(I think it's more WP:CIR, per Hanlon's Razor.) I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joloimpat, sock's IP address is blocked for disruptive editing, so he's committing block evasion. Let's rush to a block. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My 14 years on 'pedia, tells me this isn't an CIR issue. It's a "I'll do whatever I want" issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See my comment on that SPI. Any block here should come from ANI, not an SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that a currently-blocked editor is allowed to continue. What happened to WP:Block evasion?? Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor likely just forgot to log into their account because the mobile interface sucks and it's extremely easy to edit logged out. Editing in mainspace as an IP isn't socking unless there is intentional deception.

I get the block evasion concern, but I don't think you'll find many admins who are active in the SPI space who want to block an account with 4,000 edits based on a disruptive editing block from an IP that may be them. Most admins are block happy on IPs, and are significantly less likely to block accounts at all for stuff they would give lengthy blocks to IPs for. If there are issues, deal with it on the account that has a 4,000 edit record. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

To put his 4,000 edit record in perspective, he has thirty-eight unresponded warnings or errors listed on his page (I counted BracketBot). That's a rate of approximately 1% disruptive edits. Also his edit count is inflated due to his neglect of any "Preview" function that may or may not be available and multiple minor trivial edits each time he puts something in. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So you want to block an account with 99% good edits is what you're saying? I like the email idea better. – Levivich 03:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems ridiculous on its face. For perspective, if I had the same disruption rate, I'd have 400 warnings on my page (that's 100x what it takes for a block; Joloimpat already has been warned plenty of times over before a block would normally be imposed). Some years ago Shawn Nelson (American rampager) stole a tank and drove it through the streets of San Diego. I am not sure that the police would have stopped to consider if he only destroyed 1 in 100 cars he passed. The point was that a man in a tank is nigh unstoppable by civilian forces, and he's making his way through the city... Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with the analogy, but I think it is also crucial to look at what the warnings are for. Some of the early warnings (in 2013) are indeed serious such as copyright violation but many of the later ones are not really that big of a deal and could easily be honest mistakes (formatting issues, typos, mistakes with markup). It may end up being a competence issue, but I wouldn’t look at the sheer number of warnings (incl. minor automated notices) and compare that to the wiki-equivalent a maniac plowing through Main Street in a tank. Michepman (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As a member of the maniacs who plow through Main Street in a tank community (one of the most misunderstood groups in existence) I take offense to your analogy. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then, you can fully appreciate an unstoppable force that can't be signaled and doesn't talk back, and does what it wants to do while plowing through/over/around obstacles. Elizium23 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So, who emailed him? How is that going? Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

He just made another pointless edit. How's that email going?

I have a feeling that many of the edits he's made are being ignored because they're pointless and/or completely minor. It seems all he does all day is changing numbers of the SEA games page or some political chart. Like has he ever made an edit of consequence? Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit seemed constructive. At least, it is actually improving the article and it appears to be sourced adequately. Michepman (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess if you say it is sourced, but Joloimpat himself did not actually add a source, which is something I have never seen him to do. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Three more objectionable edits: 1, 2, 3. How much longer do I put up with this before just going back to WP:AIV where he was blocked in the first place? Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Remind me what's objectionable about those? The IP

• added a section heading that will presumably become relevant in a few weeks;
• linked the name of a notable person; and
• piped the "formal" name to that link.

What exactly is the problem with adding a section heading and a link? Sure, the section heading won't be needed for a few more weeks, and the new link is a red link, but the odds of a person being on this list and not meeting WP:GNG is basically zero. The list could just as accurately be titled "List of dead people that Pope Francis guaranteed that multiple reliable sources would write stories about". WP:Red link begins by telling us "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Why are you complaining here about these good-faith and apparently competent edits? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: in December 2014: Elizium23, BoBoMisiu, John Carter, let me know if Joloimpat starts edit warring again. I'm leaving him one last warning about not communicating with others and I've told him that if he does any of this again without actually participating in a discussion, he will receive a temporary block. The only thing I can figure (out of good faith) is that he may not be proficient enough in English to converse with others on talk pages. The other option is that he does not want to discuss anything, which can make his edits disruptive by large since he doesn't seem to want to discuss anything with anyone. I can understand not being a big fan of talking on Wikipedia, but at some point you have to do it or it's seen as disruptive. For five more years Joloimpat has run roughshod over other editors attempting to communicate with him. It makes no difference now if some of his edits are superficially not disruptive, he is not communicating and we are unable to reach him with talk page messages and he is out of control. That is not Wikipedia. We are not a solo project. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's your claim that he's "out of control" that I'm not buying. It was appropriate to add that link. It is not proof of any kind of bad behavior. It looks like you've reverted that same link three times, in noticeably less than 24 hours, and in contravention of the guideline on red links. Maybe you should stop edit warring? Or at least go to the article talk page and explain why you think that this link should be removed even though the guideline says not to do that normally? You're here complaining that the other guy isn't talking, after all, so it's kind of noticeable that you seem to be guilty of the exact failing that you accuse him of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I have ceased attempting to communicate with him because it doesn't make any impression or change anything he's doing. I have ceased considering his edits constructive - the ones I cited have no purpose and he's often adding stuff in contravention of WP:CRYSTAL. Why should I use the talk page and attempt to contact him if he won't listen? It's a waste of time. Nobody else is involved. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:REDLINK, the link you've been reverting do have a purpose. I think you should leave them alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ali Shariati

I wonder if anyone punishes the IP for bad behavior and writing offensive words in the Ali Shariati?Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: "Punishment" sounds a rather extreme measure! I have however, left a first level notice about their two unhelpful edits, both of which have been reverted. This is something you could have done yourself - the easiest way being to enable Twinkle and use its 'warn' function. Only after they've reached a level four warning and show no signs of discontinuing might you then report them to WP:AIV. Again, there's a Twinkle tool to help you do this. There's no need to raise such a minor bit of petty vandalism at ANI for something you could have easily dealt yourself. Their contribution history shows there's no long term story of this IP causing any problems at all, thus far. Probably just a kid messing around, and easily reverted. Hoping this makes sense, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jkg1997 is doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

Jkg1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Jkg1997#Please don't remove images from articles (where I asked Jkg1997 to stop) and User talk:Alexis Jazz#December 2019 where Jkg1997 gave me a warning, which is just hilarious.

Jkg1997 removes images from articles both to try and beat CommonsDelinker/Filedelinkerbot and while a deletion discussion is still ongoing. This is sometimes appropriate. Mostly when you have a better alternative, or when the image is so obviously copyvio there is a snowball's chance in hell of it being restored and it wasn't tagged for speedy deletion. Neither is generally the case with Jkg1997's removals.

When CommonsDelinker removes a file from an article, we have a delinker log to help in case an image is undeleted. We also have a log to prove the image was actually in use. (which can be an argument for undeletion) When Filedelinker bot removes a file from an article, it will try to revert itself upon undeletion. When Jkg1997 removes a file from an article and it is either undeleted or (when he removes live images) ḱept, we're just plain screwed. I'd like to use this opportunity to thank L235 for granting me rollback, it saved me a lot of time here. Courtesy ping for GreenMeansGo who got involved on my talk page. - Alexis Jazz 01:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I wondered about that activity at a couple of articles on my watchlist. @Jkg1997: Why are you doing Filedelinkerbot's work? Has there been a discussion somewhere (here or at Commons) suggesting that Filedelinkerbot needs help? If there is no compelling reason supported by a positive consensus, I suggest you stop. For one thing, when I see a bot make an edit, I can assume that the basic facts are as stated in the edit summary. When a random person does it, anything might be going on and that causes extra trouble for onlookers who might want to check the details. That's before we get to the points made by Alexis Jazz. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: your concern is not unfounded:

• Admitted mistake
• Broken file link in summary
• Wrong extension
• Removed fair use image

I cleaned up a lot of this mess, but I probably missed things as I relied on the edit summaries. While most of them had the correct filenames, some of them did not. - Alexis Jazz 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jkg1997 has not edited since this opened. If there is no convincing explanation within another 24 hours I believe a topic ban would be the best approach. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: He's back. Block I guess? - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Alexis Jazz was targeted article: Louis A. Waldman because of reverted again. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 11:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jkg1997: yes, thanks to my rollback it was now removed by the bot. Because that's how we like it. With reliable edit summaries, no removal until an admin has actually deleted the file and automatic undeletion. (or a log in case of CommonsDelinker) You are running out of time to make a statement that you will cease removing files from articles. - Alexis Jazz 12:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this isn't just an en.wiki thing it seems [189] [190] GMG^talk 12:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh joy.. time to request rollbacker right on Wikidata. - Alexis Jazz 12:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably worse than that. This may make up the lion's share of their xwiki contributions. GMG^talk 12:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Are you trying to say I should apply for global rollback? I don't think I fight enough vandalism to be granted that. - Alexis Jazz 13:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, no. GR is mostly reserved for the small wiki monitoring team. The more immediate question is how we address a fundamentally xwiki behavioral problem. I think we need a native ceb speaker to try to explain the issue more clearly. Unfortunately, Category:User ceb-N is pretty barren, and c:COM:ABL isn't any help either. GMG^talk 13:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, Pinging @Mclovin'tosh, Bernejay, KylaH. - Alexis Jazz 13:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Since Jkg1997 is continuing to revert while this complaint is open, I think a block should be considered. If they are unable to grasp normal English-language explanations of the problem with their edits, they shouldn't continue this type of work. It has the potential to make a mess. If this is a multi-wiki problem, we probably need to go the route of blocks rather than topic ban, since a ban could only be enacted here on enwiki. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That editor's most recent edit here was a self-revert of one of the bad edits, and, at the time of writing, he hasn't edited any other project since apart from a comment in a discussion at Commons, so it seems that the message might be getting through. It would be nice to get confirmation of that from the horse's mouth. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Extreme personal abuse

This:

• [191]

Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Seems to be an isolated incident with the IP in question only making that edit. Highly suspicious due to the fact it is indeed the only edit the IP has made, which likely means its a sockpuppet. Going to put down a 4im. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Finney Boylan; article deleted

I was looking for an author who's book I had just finished. I found the article wasn't there. I undid the edit by one " Jemccabe1145 " and that restored the article. I thought it would be nice if someone in responsible position might look at this. I have editing rights, like so many, but no expertise. Thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanieW (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article Jennifer Finney Boylan hasn't been deleted; Jemccabe1145 (talk · contribs) accidentally commented out the article. Your reversion of that edit made it visible again. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

This is a proposal for a formal logged warning against Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (FP@S) for his behavior leading up to, and during, the recent ANI thread (permalink) involving SilentResident (SR). What follows are background diffs and quotes, relevant December 2019 diffs and quotes, a proposal, and survey and discussion sections. – Levivich 22:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Background

2008 RFU, 2009, 2016 & 2018 Arbcom, problems between FP@S and SR leading up to 2017 ANI, and incivility earlier in 2019

Concerns about FP@S's civility go back over ten years. There was a 2008 RFU that, according to Arbcom (link below), "primarily focused on concerns about incivility, assuming good faith, how he handled images, and tendentious editing". The closing admin wrote, "just because one works in a difficult area does not give a user the right to attack another. As a result, I caution FPS to be more civil and to avoid personal attacks, on the image front as well as off". Arbcom pointed out that FP@S said about the RFU, "I mean, does anybody seriously expect I'm still reading it?" In 2009, FP@S was temporarily desysoped for 3 months by Arbcom for bullying, threatening, and harassment. FP@S's incivility, threats, and bullying towards SR have been going on for a long time. For example: In 2014, FP@S wrote to SR: "Oh for chrissake. I just gave you a reason ... that is not misleading (as each of your attempts so far have been) ... That's just the problem with you, again and again: you fail to even notice people are explaining things to you, and then you complain they aren't giving you explanations. Just read what I'm saying, will you." and "Your argumentation now begins to reek of WP:righting great wrongs crackpottery, so it's probably about time to stop taking it at all seriously ... Dude, that's been done millions of time here; everybody is tired of that idiotic debate. It's WP:COMMONNAME, period." In 2016, FP@S wrote to SR: "I'll be removing that passage again. SilentResident: if you reinsert it once more, this goes straight into your current section at WP:AE with a request for wide-scope topic ban for long-term agenda edit-warring." [192] The AE against SR that FP@S is referring to was a retaliatory filing (for [193] and [194]). That AE against SR was closed with the comment "Had this been brought to ANI (the more logical choice) it probably would have ended up in a boomerang block." 2016 Arbcom motion: FP@S "has used uncivil and inflammatory language and made personal attacks during the course of this dispute", "blocked two editors ... without sufficiently clear communication about his reasoning for removing the posts", "was previously admonished for uncivil behavior in a 2009 case", and "is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions, which may include a desysop". [195] (the strikethrough is the result of an unclosed tag in an earlier edit [196]) In 2017, things escalated to ANI: FP@S to SR: "No. Just no. Stop butchering this article." [197] FP@S to SR: "This is getting too idiotic to respond to. No, I'm reverting again, and I will continue to do so until you go away and stop butchering this article with your incompetence. I have no hope to reason with you, so I won't further try." [198] FP@S to SR: "you evidently like to trumpet things out to the reader at maximum volume if they are sympathetic to your POV" [199] FP@S to SR: "that' not "more precise", it's merely more pompous and more cumbersome. Learn to write lean and efficient prose" [200] SR politely raised it on FPAS's talk page: "Nothing justifies such impoliteness and abusive behavior towards other editors, no matter the disagreements you may be having with them. I am asking very kindly as per Wikipedia:Civility that you strike or remove your latest uncivil response to me. Once this is done, we can sit down and work to see where the problem is exactly for you and find a compromise." [201] FPAS's responses: "Well, if you want to be treated with respect as an editor, you will need to learn to respect the work of others, at least to the point of making a serious attempt at understanding and responding to their arguments, which – like so often before – you again failed to do. If you truly can't do better, you should have the honesty to take the logical step and withdraw from editorial issues like these." [202] and "...I have no patience left to try to "work with you", and I will refuse to treat you as a bona fide contributor to be taken seriously in discussion from now on." [203] SR filed an ANI against FP@S [204], which was quickly dismissed, with SR withdrawing after having the spotlight turned on her rather than on FP@S. After the 2017 ANI, incivility continued: "What a braindead argument." [205] The incivility wasn't limited to SR. In an RSN thread arising out of a content dispute involving FP@S and SR, FP@S made this comment to another editor: "I could accuse you of falsification of data, but it doesn't really matter." And to another: "You display a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:OR. WP:V is not a suicide pact." And to another: "Yet another person too lazy to read. Next?" 2018 Arbcom motion: FP@S "admonished for edit-warring" and "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions." [206] Earlier in 2019: To SR: "Learn to read." [207], followed by this sarcastic edit summary and comment. Edit summaries to various editors in 2019: "will clueless editors please go to the freaking talkpage to get a clue FIRST before messing things up" [208], "rv tendentious editor who keeps going round to multiple articles slowly edit-warring but refuses to discuss once challenged" [209], "rv yet another sneaky edit by disruptive editor who refuses discussion" [210], "reverting one year back. Utterly chaotic tendentious editing on this article" [211], "the entire section is unsourced and self-contradictory junk, out it goes" [212], "rm garbled and unsourced section" [213], "what a horribly ugly and useless map" [214], "rv, ugly POV editorializing" [215], "rv, somebody is back at obsessively messing up intro sentences" [216]

Dec. 2019 diffs

• At Talk:Aegean dispute in Dec. 2019 between FP@S and SR:
  • "As was to be expected: massively bad ... will take a lot of work to cut through all the dross ... usual general symptoms of low-quality and tendentious editing ... I'm not sure I have the strength to deal with the inevitable disruption from the usual suspects, so maybe the article is indeed irretrievably lost and on the way down the drain now."
  • FP@S reverted SR's article edits, including this revert with the edit summary "yet more ungrammatical gibberish" (the so-called "ungrammatical gibberish" was the phrase "and has caused discomfort in the West").
  • FP@S posted on the talk page: "First, cut out your personal attacks ... You made bold additions, I reverted parts of them – and will continue reverting other parts too, not because I disagree with their POV but because they are of horrible quality ... Third, make some effort at last to learn some talk page discipline. I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. Fourth, cut out the false 'Sorry but's and 'kindly ask you's. We are not friends. I'm not going to be friendly with you, and I have no interest in you being friendly with me. And in fact you are being neither friendly, nor polite, nor civil. You are stonewalling and edit-warring, as always, which is as impolite as it gets, and sugering it over with phrases like that doesn't make you come across as more civil, but only as more passive-aggressive. Spare us that."
  • SR's response: "First of all, you have my apologies for my rather harsh tone against you ..."
  • Two days later, FP@S reverts one of SR's talk page edits with this edit summary: "I warned you before: stop your obsessive fiddling with your own postings. I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row."
  • When Khirurg said to FP@S that this edit summary "is extremely rude and uncool behavior towards a non-native speaker of English, bordering on bullying. Users can 'fiddle' with their own talkpage posts as much as they like, especially to correct grammatical and spelling mistakes that make them look incompetent and unprofessional.", FP@S's response was "Let's keep the threads sorted properly. If you want to discuss that person's behaviour and how to respond or not to respond to it, let's do that somewhere else." The response shows no indication or even acknowledgment that it was FP@S's behavior, and not "that person's" behavior, that was a problem.
  • FP@S posted yet another reply to SR describing SR's post as "waffle, as usual"
  • After SR asked another editor for help, FP@S posted a DS notice on SR's talk page.
• The Dec. 2019 Talk:Aegean dispute interactions were brought to ANI (permalink) by Khirurg, who noted, SilentResident has a disability (OCD, which she reveals on her userpage, and is furthermore not a native speaker of English...
  • FP@S's first response: "I don't care if this behaviour is caused by some disability (they never told me about any such); the disruptive behaviour needs to stop, and if this person is too imbalanced to stop it, they should not be on Wiipedia. WP:NOTTHERAPY."
  • (FP@S at least had the wherewithal to remove "SilentResident is one of the most persistently incompetent POV-pushers, most obstinate edit-warriors and most stubbornly obtuse participants in discussion I've had the misfortune of encountering on Wikipedia")
  • FP@S attacked the filer of the report, Khirurg: "Well, I happened to look at your contribs history after I saw your posting here. I do look at contribs histories from time to time. There's a reason they exist, you know? I wasn't too suprised I found you editing disruptively once again."
  • FP@S wrote about his own threats: "yesterday's little shot across the bow did the trick. Thanks, one problem solved."
  • FP@S wrote further: "...I was criticizing and describing, accurately and appropriately, a pattern of disruptive behaviour she was displaying, nothing more. I never cared a bit, nor do I care now, what "condition" that behaviour might be caused by. She has now shown some willingness to curb that disruptive behaviour, so that's fine with me ... I've had the misfortune of encountering that editor wrecking articles I'm interested in with her single-minded, naively incompetent tendentious editing for years. If I was free to act as an administrator, I would have indef-blocked her years ago, but of course I'm not. Of course she knows that perfectly well. As I said earlier, I'm satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts. So, that's settled. Now, when you'all are done cuddling her, you're quite welcome to join me in trying to do something for the quality of the encyclopedia and prevent SilentResident from continuing to post copyright violations and tendentious opinion pieces in article space. Will you?"
  • FP@S wrote further: "Bullying someone because of their disability"? What a f..ing joke. How often do I have to repeat that I didn't even f...ing know about any disability? How was I supposed to guess? When I first asked her to curb her habit of tinkering with her posts, she could easily have told me: 'I'm sorry if this annoyed you, but I have a condition that makes this more difficult for me than for most people, so I have to ask for a bit of patience'. There wouldn't have been any problem, as far as that talk page habit was concerned." FP@S wrote this a day after SR wrote, in her very first post in the ANI thread, "I am very sorry my disorder is causing all this..."
  • FP@S wrote further: "Apologize for what? Yesterday, I asked a person to stop a certain annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that. Today, I commended her for having mustered the strength to curb that annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that either. Everything else I said about her – and yes, a lot of it was not very flattering – wasn't related to that particular habit, but her general pattern of disruptive editing. I haven't seen her argue that her habits of pushing POV, edit-warring, violating copyrights and making talkpages unreadable by flooding them with IDHT drivel are also to be excused for being caused by her OCD, so I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant."
  • FP@S wrote to Phil Bridger: "Who declared her disability on her user page"? Dude, seriously? That disclosure is somewhere on number 86 in her list of userboxes. A couple screenfuls below the one that says she plays Elder Scrolls games or whatever it was. Are you now blaming me for not having studied that list before interacting with her? You are getting bizarre."
  • FP@S's final post at ANI: "There's no restriction. There never was. It was a personal thing I said. I'm not in any position to "impose" formal restrictions on you, as I'm sure you know. As I said above, I appreciate your willingness to make an effort about your edit pattern, and I've already said I won't be making reverts again."

Proposal: FP@S warned

Proposal: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is warned that insults, threats, intimidation, bullying, and other breaches of WP:CIVIL are not tolerated by the Wikipedia community, and fall below the WP:ADMINCOND behavior standards expected of administrators. Future breaches of WP:CIVIL may result in blocks, bans, or other sanctions, imposed by an uninvolved administrator, the community, and/or Arbcom. This warning shall be logged at WP:ER/UC and posted at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise.

Survey (FP@S warned)

• Support, as proposer. A community-issued warning is an appropriate shot across the bow; bullying is not. FP@S has completely failed to acknowledge the community's concerns. Instead of recognizing that his behavior was unacceptable, FP@S has said that his "shot across the bow ... did the trick". While FP@S has agreed not to revert SR's talk page posts, that's only because, in FP@S's words, FP@S is "satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts". However, FP@S has further said, "I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her ... as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant". Clearly, FP@S hasn't "gotten the message" that bullying is not an acceptable response to disruption, nor an acceptable way to get an editor to change their editing behavior. FP@S also hasn't gotten the message that ignoring community feedback is not acceptable. FP@S's incivility towards SR has been going on for years. Additionally, FP@S has been uncivil to other editors, besides SR; a type of "collateral damage". Unfortunately, this seems similar to the issues that were raised over a decade ago in the 2008 RFU and 2009 Arbcom case. If the 2017 ANI hadn't been dismissed, I think the problematic behavior may have ended then, and we wouldn't be here now. Let's not make the same mistake again in 2019. Hopefully, a formal, logged warning will do the trick. – Levivich 22:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unguided wall-of-text foray into a massively disruptive area of Wikipedia inhabited by very few NPOV editors. FPaS's sin was to become irritated by someone who routinely made several edits to post a comment without knowing that the user had an OCD userbox in their large user page. That does not warrant a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: John, you know how much I respect you, but you are missing the part that FP knew about SR's OCD when he made the comment ...a little shot across the bow did the trick. FP, pointedly broke WP:TPO just to teach someone a lesson by intimidation. FP is an admin. Do you approve of admins breaking wiki rules to intimidate editors? I know you don't because I know you and I know you are a man of principle. John, this petty and cruel behaviour brutalises the discourse on Wikipedia. They don't have to do this to me personally, but I would feel brutalised if admins can behave this way toward any editor. This type of behaviour has to be stopped in its tracks. Dr. K. 04:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• The sequence of events follows. First, an editor was in the habit of making many edits to their comments in a contentious area. Then FPaS expressed his irritation by reverting the most recent of such edits and declared he would repeat that. After some back-and-forth, ANI occurred where it was revealed that the editor has an OCD userbox. Then FPaS described his expression of irritation as a "little shot across the bow". The talk page reverts occurred before the OCD userbox was revealed. There was no intimidation—while it may be unwise, people revert talk page edits every day without others calling it intimidation. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• People revert comments on talkpages, as you say, all the time when they disagree with comments or when they think they are irrelevant. But normal editors never revert talkpage edits to a worse grammatical version just to teach other editors not to make grammatical corrections to their posts. That's what FP did to SR. He reverted to a bad grammatical version of SR's post just to teach her a lesson and then gloated after the fact. That behaviour is brutal, OCD or no OCD. Dr. K. 04:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"That behaviour is brutal" Please. Stop. It. With. The. Ridiculous. Overblown. Hyperbolic. Hysterical. False. Exaggerated. Bombastic. Tumescent. Bad faithed. Rhetoric. At some point repeating the false accusation that another editor "advocated violence" or "was brutal" becomes itself block worthy. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop the circus act. It is obvious from the tone you have adopted and the visual theatrics you employ in your posts that you want to imitate the scary clown of It. It won't work. Dr. K. 15:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose "This waning shall be logged at WP:ER/UC" - so it's a final warning? That should really be a lot clearer in this proposal. I read the close of the previous ANI thread as being an admonishment of FP@S's behaviour, and an appropriately balanced one at that. There's no clearly articulated purpose for this warning proposal, all it is doing is exhuming the horse that took so long to bury in the first place. Cjhard (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. See my comments below. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - at this point we're just seriously beating a dead horse. Let it go already. Reading the thread, it doesn't look like FP did anything besides get frustrated with a person for excessively re-editing their comments, which is understandable due to the minor practical issues it can cause (which was happening, something that is not in dispute). It appeared that everyone pretty much agreed on the facts, that FP was too harsh and should back off, and that SR should simply use a method that didn't require excessive editspam, which they had already been doing but were not utilizing on talk pages. FP is not wrong: the normal expectations for competent editing and communication apply to everyone, including disabled editors, mentally ill editors, and ESL speakers. And SR even responded amicably to this suggestion, stating that they will work on resolving the issue, and apparently doing so in a positive way. One editor received feedback about their conduct and another improved the quality of their edits. The project was better for it. But, apparently because FP defended their criticisms of the user, and did not go groveling simply because he found out they were disabled, a reactionary pitchfork mob is quite excessively trying to crucify him for the perceived offense of "bullying a disabled editor". While FP may have been too harsh towards a user with a disability that he didn't know about, the allegations of bullying or maliciousness do not appear to be credible, and the backlash does not appear to be in response to his conduct being extraordinarily problematic, but merely because people feel bad for the disabled female editor who he deigned to treat as if they are a real human and not something to be pitied. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: You know I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, but I do want to clarify and put on the record, that absolutely 0% of my decision to file this has to do with SR being disabled. I want to go on the record as saying that I also find SR's editing to be problematic. But I think that each and every single diff I posted above is an example of "conduct being extraordinarily problematic" by FP@S, regardless of whether the target of his conduct is disabled or not. You'll note not all of the diffs are targeted at SR, for example. Each and every one of those statements is uncivil in my eyes, and the sum total–the volume and duration of incivility–is worth a logged warning. I understand other editors don't agree, but please don't misunderstand me: I am saying FP@S's statements were way out of bounds, mostly his statements in the ANI thread, and that's irrespective of who those statements are aimed at. – Levivich 02:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• • @Swarm: I echo Levivich's respect for you, but I want to clarify a few things for you. FP knew about SR's OCD when he made the comment ...a little shot across the bow did the trick. That is a particularly callous and cruel comment. Imagine someone who kept building their response small edit by small edit, only to have it arbitrarily reverted by an admin just because the admin got frustrated and wanted to teach her a lesson. How would you feel if someone did this to you? Forget about OCD or gender or anything like that. This is just cruel and childish behaviour. FP, pointedly broke WP:TPO just to teach someone a lesson by intimidation. He then gloated after the fact and while knowing that SR suffered from OCD that [his] ... little shot across the bow did the trick. How can you defend such actions? Dr. K. 03:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Make no mistake: I very genuinely respect you both in your own right. However I fail to see how you can interpret the "shot across the bow" comment as ableist bullying. The user was aware of the problem, they failed to rectify it when asked, and once a certain amount of pressure was applied, they rectified it. I'm not saying the comment is not insensitive and callous, it's downright unsympathetic and it does not try to pretend otherwise. However it makes no comment on the user's disability. If harsh and uncivil, I still fail to see how it's unfair to the user, or even untrue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
      • So that is the environment we want to cultivate and promote here? PackMecEng (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
        • What is the environment we want to cultivate and promote here? WP:CIR? WP:NOTTHERAPY? Not allowing disruptive editing? Yeah man, that's what we're going for. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) Swarm, it's not only the comment. It is also the reversion of her multiple posts back to a bad grammatical state. To do these posts she tried for a long time. To have them reverted to an incorrect grammatical state was cruel under universal conditions, OCD or no OCD. This is not what any editor ever did on this project. Only FP was capable of that. Both the comment and the reversion were cruel in their own right, OCD or no OCD, CIR or no CIR. Noone is supposed to be treated with such cruelty. Surely, as educated people on Wikipedia we can find less cruel ways to communicate with other people. Indeffing SR would have been a far better option than being subjected to FP's cruel treatment. Dr. K. 05:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
          • That is easy, not be a dick. My read of the situation as uninvolved as you are is this. Fut. Per. disliked the way they edited on talk paged so they disruptively reverted them to make a point. Multiple edits and CE to your comments while they can be annoying is not against policy or even disruptive. Reverting someone else and introducing errors back in to make a point, that is disruptive. It comes down to someone was disruptive to make a point about something that annoyed them. Then when told by many people that was the wrong thing to do they doubled down with but it worked didn't it? That kind of behavior is clearly unacceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
            • So FP violated "don't be a dick". I'm pretty sure everyone is on the same page regarding this. He was pretty much unanimously called out. Sometimes people act like a dick. I don't think that's okay. I myself am a victim of slander and bullying for advocating for civility enforcement. However there's a large difference between incivility and ableist bullying, and this is being treated as a case of the latter, which it's clearly not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
              • I am going to have to disagree with you. Especially given the evidence above of a history of this kind of long term on going behavior that past corrective actions have failed up to this point. Repeatedly excusing it as you are doing now is clearly the wrong directions to improve the toxic atmosphere they are creating. I see the proposal above as basically the minimum action to help curb their disruption. PackMecEng (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
                • FP is not a "long term" offender who is "creating a toxic atmosphere" that "past corrective actions have failed" to resolve, because it's been "repeatedly excused". That's ridiculous on its face. You're literally slandering an editor. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Enough is enough. This is bordering on harassment. Wait... no, it's already crossed that border. Volunteer Marek 23:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is trying to put a "scarlet letter" on admin because they disagreed with a particular POV on Balkan articles, all dressed up to make it look like a behavioral issue. We've been over this in the last ANI thread. It doesn't fly. Volunteer Marek 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC) striking duplicate !vote –dlthewave ☎ 23:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Unambiguous oppose mostly per Swarm (but I feel Marek too). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Swarm said it very well. This new thread is pointless, as what was to be said has already been said. The closure wording made by Barkeep49 is perfect. Future Perfect at Sunrise in one of his posts at the other thread made it clear that his intention was not to keep rv SilentResident's comments. After all, what he did has already helped SilentResident be more careful while editing. Everyone should be happy, and not seek further frivolous drama. I wonder whether many of those who have given opinions on the issue would ever have the guts to do the good work Fut Perf has done in very difficult Balkan topics, especially rv POV pushing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm and this cogent statement from VM. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle what is effectively "Closure review 3". But procedure aside, this is a proposal to take FPAS' admittedly unfortunate statements out of their WP:ARBMAC context, willfully ignore that that was ever part of the issue, and slam a humiliating warning on him. Meanwhile, the context of the dispute -- i.e. the concurrent (and now resumed by the filer) content dispute on Talk:Aegean dispute which featured statements like "[Future Perfect's] classic pro-Turkish POV" [[217]], "Future Perfect, your pro-Turkish POV is hard to swallow." [[218]], etc. I would not have reacted the same way (I hope), but it feels wrong to admonish him for bullying while not also acknowledging that right before he made those statements, he was labeled a "Pro-Turkish POV editor" and "warned". If anything, the admonishment should have been to everyone -- maybe me included on that thread at ANI, I can get heated too -- to take a chill pill. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Moral support I admire Levivich's tenacity and vision, but the current climate is obviously not in his/her favour. I find it hard to believe that people cannot see the basic cruelty of FP's actions against SR and have to dress it up on all kinds of innuendo and other unrelated context. But I am not going to relitigate this sad affair. However, this sad incident demonstrates that WMF and T&S may have some future role to play on English Wikipedia. It is clear that there are cases that this community is unwilling or unable to handle effectively. Dr. K. 01:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Can we send him electric shocks through his keyboard too? —Cryptic 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, as per User:Dr.K., out of resignation that this is a situation where the community is demonstrating that it cannot or will not resolve a wrong. For whatever reason, FPAS has gotten off with less than a slap on the wrist for demonstrated, apparently malicious, calculated cruelty, and the community has shown, in the above closure reviews, that it will not acknowledge the scope of the wrong. It is quite true that User:SilentResident made a personal attack on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. That doesn't justify the gloating. Both editors were wrong, and the admin should be held to an administrative standard of conduct. I am aware that I am in a minority along with User:Levivich and with Dr.K. Either ArbCom can take up the matter, or it simply will not be righted. The community and ArbCom should be aware that failure to address this sort of harassment by an administrator may indeed, as Dr.K. implies, result in WMF and T&S intervention again -- and T&S has demonstrated that they are also incompetent to address this sort of wrong. Justice has not been done in this case, and apparently will not be done by the community. Either go to ArbCom, or don't go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral; this bullying by FP@S should not be tolerated here. It is best resolved via both parties trying to interact only when required. If that doesn't work then there is a case for an IBAN. Basically, per Dr.K and Robert McClenon. J947 ^(c), at 02:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Criticizing an editor because they have a disability is bullying. Criticizing an editor in spite of the fact that they have a disability is not. The latter is what happened here. Disruptive editing can occur in good faith, and it can occur due to mental illness or disability. This, per our own policies, does not get a free pass. This is a serious academic project, where competence is required. We're not required to tolerate disruption, no matter how petty. Your attempt to slander an editor who's behaving in line with this fundamental norm, as a "bully", simply because he did not turn a blind eye to disruption, is not only downright dystopian and insane, but genuinely insulting to the mentally ill, equating them with fundamental incompetence that cannot be helped and must be respected as a defining feature. Shame on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• The word 'bullying' has far more meanings than discriminating against a person with a (slight) disability (which I agree is not the case here). There was absolutely no need for FP@S to revert SR's edit to their comment. I do not believe that original edit by SR was in any shape or form disruptive. Even if it was unnecessary, reverting it has nil positive effect and would be the equivalent of reverting a purely cosmetic edit. At best FP@S was as wrong as SR, and given that I do not think it was unnecessary FP@S was behaving worse than SR. Edit conflicts are fairly easy to overcome. Similar things apply to other things like the personal attack issue. I think that these editors just simply do not get along. J947 ^(c), at 02:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, words have more than one meaning, how very impressive of you to point that out. One meaning, specifically, is being invoked here, and is being invoked disingenuously. There was, actually, a very straightforward reason to revert SR's edit, and that reason was not related to individual "cosmetic improvements", but disruption caused by an excessive degree of editspam. SR failed to understand and resolve the issue when asked, despite having the competence and capability to do so, so FP tried to enforce the warning. FP may have been too harsh but they were reacting to an actual issue propagated by SR. This unhinged smear campaign, trying to label SR as an innocent victim and FP as a bully, is nothing short of slander. SR was a disruptive editor, and FP was an admin trying to stop the disruption. This reactionary backlash appears to be an emotional reaction by those who instinctually want to defend an editor who happens to be "disabled" and "female". I'm a strong proponent of civility enforcement but it's a dark day when blind reactionism overwhelms objective fact-finding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't matter if you're involved in a content dispute or annoyed by another editor's actions or burned out or whatever, making up a rule that another editor can't copyedit their own comments and then reverting when they do so is a bright-line violation that needs to be addressed. FutPerf has not acknowledged that this behavior is unacceptable; he only stopped enforcing his "rule" because it had "done the trick". I believe that FutPerf may have been overwhelmed by a difficult topic area and needs to take a step back, which is why I support letting him off with a formal warning instead of going straight for a iban or tban. Our community's inability to stay on topic and address a blatant conduct issue head-on is disappointing. –dlthewave ☎ 03:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• From my uninvolved reading, this is a downright misleading comment. Nowhere was FP trying to implement an arbitrary rule that an editor "can't copyedit their own comments", and to even suggest that is embarrassing to you. Spamming edits in any capacity is disruptive, particularly on talk pages that other editors are trying to use. It shouldn't need to be explained to you that edit conflicts are a common occurrence in any moderately populated thread, and very quickly become disruptive to communication if one editor is endlessly spamming copyedits to their own post. Copyediting is obviously allowed, but competent communication is required. Obstructing effective communication is not only disruptive editing, but it's frustrating on a human level. Acting like a mental disorder should be a free pass for disrupting the project is so out of whack it's unbelievable that people would even suggest it. Competence is required. This isn't a playground for those who are a net negative. The user themselves acknowledged that they have trouble communicating and as such can't contribute as much as the average editor. This literally doesn't matter. No one cares how much they can contribute. We appreciate anything anyone can give. But that goes out the window once you exceed your own bounds. You're not a saint because you "can't contribute that much" and in what little you do contribute, you cause disruption. We're not here to pity you. This project is not meant for you to work out your issues. And when someone calls you out on being a problem, we should not fucking reactionarily crucify them for being a bully. I can't believe we're even having this debate right now. We indef block users who cannot competently comply with our mainstream standards. That's the community's policy. Period. This smear campaign is not going to help the mentally ill, it's just going to make us err on the side of CIR blocks rather than directing problematic users to change their approach. And in doing so, you're dehumanizing the mentally ill. What a joke. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fine, FP didn't TRY to implement a copyediting ban. FP DID implement it. Repeated talk page edits are not "spammy" and there's no rule against them. If SR was causing disruption (which I've seen no evidence of), the proper response would have been to ask for help from uninvolved editors, not take matters into one's own hands. My comment made no mention of a mental disorder, and SR's reported OCD played no role in my evaluation of the situation. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikt:Spam#Verb: "To post the same text repeatedly with disruptive effect; to flood." Uh, based on this objective definition, I'm going to stand behind my characterization of this behavior as "spammy". And, as for "there's no rule against them", if WP:COMMONSENSE is not a good enough rule, then WP:COMMUNICATE should be. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per earlier statements. Please drop it already. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Some editors (especially @Calthinus and Robert McClenon: are eager to lambast at me because I called FP@S a "Pro-Turkish POV editor" without even asking for the whole truth on the matter. This is unfortunate of their part, because this is just half the truth. My "Pro-Turkish POV editor" was merely a retaliation to his "incompetent POV editor" thing, just a while back: [219] on his talk page (on a subject related to Aegean Dispute, again). I was using his own wording against him out of frustration for his long-term incivility. I am not proud for calling him like that, I really regret it. But, had he not called me an Incompetent POV editor and spoke to me more nicely, things would have been totally different now and such mistakes would have been avoided. I absolutely believe this.

Sure, I am at fault for such descriptions (among others), and ofc I do recognize my mistake to call him like that. And I won't hesitate to apologize to him for that. However these mistakes do not justify his mistreations of me due to my health problems. If everyone wants really to emphasize at my "Pro-Turkish POV", then it would be fair of my part to expect from them first to look at the whole picture, and then make a statement. This whole thing started from his side, and it is unfair to look at one tree and ignore the forest. That being said, I shall not help but note how, contrary to my apologetic and remorseful mood, he showed and still shows no remorse for that -even right now. This is worrisome for someone who is Administrator, a position which requires a higher responsibility than that. I am a faulty editor, I should have resisted retaliating to his personal attacks but I didn't, and this is exactly one of the main reasons I never wish to become Administrator myself.

PS: I am very sorry this whole thing with FP@S is dragging that much. Levivich, I appreciate your efforts to do something about FP@S's invicility but let me be honest: Wikipedia is no longer what it used to be. If you hoped for justice, you won't find here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment. I am rather concerned with admin abuse, but I am not sure if it is what happened here (through we have to remember that admins can be intimidating, even unintentionally, to regular editors), nor do I see the need for a warning as worded, through a polite reminder that users can edit their talk messages per talk page guidelines might be fine (through I don't think it is needed per [220], aren't we beating a dead horse here?). Would be nice if both parties apologized to one another per AGF, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't especially care if we log a warning or not; but as far as I can see, SR has taken aboard concerns with their approach, and FPAS has not, and this is a problem. If an editor is indeed a long-term POV warrior, they need to be brought to the community's attention; behavioral problems should be dealt with by uninvolved admins, not used as a stick to beat the offending editor, and certainly not as the basis for an ad-hoc response by an involved admin that has no basis in policy. This shouldn't be about ableism in the least, because that response isn't appropriate regardless of who the editor in question is. Swarm, I acknowledge that the invocation of ableism has gotten a little out of hand here, but I'm surprised you think FPAS was correct to act as they did instead of bringing the issue to the community's attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Literally no where did I say FP handled the situation ideally. I pointed out that a) the community agreed with FP and redirected the user, which resulted in the issue being resolved. b) the community uncontentiously criticized FP's behavior, and c) the community response quickly degenerated into a reactionary lynch mob, which discredits and destroys the actual legitimate response criticizing and redirecting FP's subpar reaction here, instead putting him on the defensive as to why he doesn't hate the disabled. It's ridiculous, and it far overshadows the fairly mild issue of an editor getting pissed off and acting like it. We're all human, and I am not immune to being uncivil when I get frustrated and angry. Some of us are not immune to this flaw. However a mob mentality making this about character assassination is just insane. I'm not attempting to bury FP's human incivility. It is the reactionary mob that has already done so. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Swarm: I do apologize, I mixed up a ping to you with your signature (the script I have highlights pings to admins as well as signatures, which is a possible issue, I suppose...) Amended: I hadn't misremembered; I'm referring specifically to your reply to J947 above. I don't think FPAS is behaving within community norms even purely with respect to how to handle such disruption, as I've explained above. A user being disruptive needs either a sanction or a calm explanation, from uninvolved folks. FPAS chose a third, unproductive, approach. I agree entirely that the "how dare you criticize an editor with a disability" response is a serious problem. As such, I oppose any formal warning or restriction, per this discussion and per Cullen below, and explicitly not per the many comments suggesting that FPAS's comments were not so bad. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm/VM. Robust commentary != bullying, which is to important to be diluted in this way. ——SN54129 07:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but not per others. I think that FPAS's remarks in question were wrong, ill-advised and offensive. I could write at length about why I feel that way, but others have already beaten that matter like a rented mule. There has been an excess of stridency and vehemence in this discussion that cannot possibly be productive. FPAS has been warned or criticized by many. If this discussion pulls some brave neutral uninvolved editors into working on Balkans topics, that would be a good thing, but I truly doubt that will be the result. This controversy has gone on far too long and trying to formalize and log a warning at this point amounts to just more unneeded divisiveness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"beaten that matter like a rented mule" <-- careful! Someone might use that to accuse you of "advocating violence" against ... someone or other, and demand your head on a platter... ooops! Maybe I just advocated beheading people... Volunteer Marek 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I have respected your contributions to this encylopedia for more years than I can remember accurately, but this is a time to dial back the devisiveness instead cranking up the divisiveness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The previous ANI was closed like four times. What's divisive is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and starting a whole another thread about the same thing. How many times is this one going to get closed? Are we going for a new record here? Volunteer Marek 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Swarm/@Volunteer Marek. A few words on @Future Perfect at Sunrise as an administrator. Sure differences over certain things have arisen over the years, however the administrator has proven capable and able to keep order in the Balkan topics area when few other administrators dare delve into that arena. A case and point is the whole Macedonia naming dispute. It was @Future Perfect at Sunrise who brought a degree of sanity by getting a the first MOSMAC into existence for the whole thing after numerous editors would constantly POV push like denying the existence of Macedonians as a people, their language etc a decade ago. And when the issue arose again recently due to the name matter being solved politically, it was @Future Perfect at Sunrise who once again took a large role in mediating the process [221] of how it would be implemented resulting in an updated WP:MOSMAC. As for SilentResident, i am disappointed that at the report about claims of bullying against you, that you yourself would cast the following WP:ASPERSIONS against me [222]: "But we do not share the same human values. Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy, and now this support of closures which leave Bullying remarks by FP@S unadressed," This is none other than a WP:PERSONALATTACK. You can disagree with someone, but going down that road, jeez. Just when the low bar couldn’t get lower, it goes down another notch.Resnjari (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – FPaS's comments were ill-advised, but this is completely out of proportion. Since FPaS has declared their intention to avoid the same behaviour, there is no need for any sanction (they are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). SR admits above to reacting with frustration to FPaS, and if that is understandable, so is FPaS' frustrated reaction to SR. Both parties reacted in less than ideal ways. We all do at times. Please put this to rest now. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Since FPaS has declared their intention to avoid the same behaviour... If he had done that, I wouldn't have filed this report. But he didn't do that, he did the exact opposite. First, he gloated that his behavior "did the trick", then he declared his intention to continue the same behavior. That's the whole reason we're here. – Levivich 15:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterisation of that as "gloating", and with your interpretation; FPaS simply said they would criticise SR if they (SR) were to engage in seriously disruptive behaviour (as described by FPaS). Nobody expects that to happen, given that SR is presumably more aware of what constitutes disruptive behaviour, but if it did, it would need to be pointed out. My point was that the "I'll revert all your changes" approach was inappropriate, and FPaS has said they won't do that again. --bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

But FP@S didn't say he wouldn't do that again because it was inappropriate, he said he wouldn't do that again because he feels it was effective! It's opposite–literally the exact opposite–of saying "I won't do that again". He's saying he will do that again. As I said earlier, I'm satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts. [223] That, and the comment I quoted just below about "I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forecfully and as often as the circumstances warrant" entirely disproves the notion that FPAS won't do that again. Remember, these are his response to the last ANI: he's saying he was right, what he did worked, and he will do it again. Look how easily FPAS could put this to bed by clarifying, "I shouldn't have done that and I won't do that again". But he won't say that. And a bunch of editors here are endorsing FPAS's response. It's an old story on Wikipedia. – Levivich 17:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

And if you think I'm misunderstanding, just ask him. Ask FPAS: "Do you think your actions were appropriate?" – Levivich 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:[224]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, in that diff, he's says he'll stop "making reverts". As explained above: (1) "making reverts" wasn't the problematic behavior, bullying was, and making reverts was just one part of it; (2) he only said he'd stop reverting because his bullying got her to stop making serial edits, not because he feels there was anything problematic about his behavior [225], and (3) he explicitly said "I haven't seen her argue that her habits of pushing POV, edit-warring, violating copyrights and making talkpages unreadable by flooding them with IDHT drivel are also to be excused for being caused by her OCD, so I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant." [226] I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant == bullying == the problematic behavior == what he won't stop. – Levivich 15:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - per VM and Swarm, and especially Swarm's replies to J947 and dlthewave. Y'know, if there's one phrase I hate it's "virtue signalling". Quite apart from its association with the more unpleasant parts of the political right, it regularly seems as if it's used to criticise people who have genuinely expressed a positive idea or action. However, if I was ever to use it, it would have been about the original ANI thread that led to this one, which led to, as Swarm says, a character-assassinating lynch mob. FPAS's actions may have been subpar, but what followed on that thread (and to an extent this one) was even more unpleasant, and included outright slander and falsehoods. It's time to put the whole sorry affair away now. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• No opinion on the question of formality, but I agree with comments of Vanamonde and Cullen that the behavior under discussion here was bad and there is no sign the actor recognizes that, and that is troubling. --JBL (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Admins are held to a higher standard, one which FPAS fell short of. I realize we're all human, and sometimes we have bad days, but if you want to be an admin and know you'll be held to a higher standard you need to act like it. FPAS didn't. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support an editor has behaved in a deeply inappropriate manner and fails to fully recognize the problematic nature of their actions. Why are so many editors eager to brush this under the rug and move on? Is it because FPaS is an admin? Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support – FPAS's actions were wrong, and their conduct in the ANI thread was unacceptable. There seems to be broad consensus that, at very least, they should have handled the situation better, especially given their admin status. I firmly believe that admins should be held to high behavioral standards, and as such, I support this formal warning. It has no practical implications except acknowledging that FPAS's actions were misguided. If this proposal was to desysop or cban FPAS, my view might be different and I would understand the opposition, but it isn't. What is being proposed is just a well-deserved formal slap on the wrist for conduct unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin. WMSR (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no "broad consensus". The community is split as is shown in the votes and comments.Resnjari (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WMSR, who articulates the admin behavior issues important to me personally. Admins have got to take extra care in their disagreements with rank and file users not to come off as bullying and contemptuous. That said, I must add that Future’s work in this challenging topic area is difficult and should be taken into consideration, along with years of service here. A formal warning is a relatively mild step that acknowledges the concerns of those members of the community regarding the diffs presented above. Admins can, and should, do better than this. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral - I don't know what a warning coming out this new thread would do that the previous thread doesn't already do. It was already pretty obvious from the previous thread, I thought, that FPaS's actions were problematic. Yes, it would've been nicer to see more acknowledgment of that, but I think the record is pretty clear. Certainly, if the behavior continues, the previous thread will have the same function as a warning should we find ourselves back here. While I appreciate the intent and effort behind this new section, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as opposing a warning, I think reopening the thread for a warning is unnecessary, delays healing, and may muddy the water for a future report if the behavior does continue. FWIW I think that there's generally not a lot of appetite for newly formed proposals on the same issues, without new evidence (granted, more cleanly presented evidence here), once a previous thread on it has been closed multiple times. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - We're not just talking about typical incivility here, we're talking about reverting an editor's talkpage edit to reinstate typos and grammar errors [227] to teach them a lesson (that little shot across the bows), and then gloating that it did the trick. In 12 years editing wikipedia, I have never seen anything like that. I've seen a lot, but not that. Also note, we are not talking about a topic ban or desysopping or anything crazy like that, only an admonishment. So much for that straw man. Khirurg (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

They were attempting to enforce a warning once it went ignored. Sure, the optics of reinstating errors is not good, but in context it's not actually that unreasonable. I have yet to see anyone even try to argue that the underlying point they were making, the line they were drawing, was not legitimate. The issue at hand was not "fixing typos", it was "disruptive editing". And FP was obviously not reverting typo fixes, they were reverting the disruptive editing that they had already warned the user about to try to get them to stop. And they did stop. FP is not wrong, a "shot across the bow" resolved the issue, while simply asking them did not. I don't see that as being cruel, I see that as an unfortunate observation, which is not on FP, but on the user who did not resolve a legitimate issue until it had escalated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This "warning" by Future Perfect does not refer to mainspace edits, but to talkpage edits [228]. The revert by Future Perfect is to talkpage edits [229], not mainspace edits. Future Perfect criticized SilentResident's mainspace edits, but he did not revert them. He only reverted her talkpage posts. This is crystal clear. If you feel that it's "not actually that unreasonable", I have nothing to say to that. Khirurg (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Uh... Yeah. You're right. The user was moderating their editspam in the article space, but was not doing so in the talk space. These are the facts. That's literally the issue we're all discussing. I'm not sure what you though was going on, but if you're confused as to what exactly is even happening, that's a bit concerning, as you're the supposed mastermind behind this smear campaign. What the actual fuck man? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please close this This is generating far more heat than light, and is not accomplishing anything. There are more than enough oppose votes. Neither editor who were involved want this to continue. Please close this. Can I close it? I would close it if I felt that it would stay closed. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• FP@S probably deserves a warning, at least. I have no view whether it should be logged, or where. I thank Levivich for trying to do something when I agree that FP@S does not seem to recognise any problems. I am distressed at how many commenters seem to deny that there are problems or that FP@S has refused to respond reasonably. FP@S, while recognising (now) that he's an involved admin, imposed a rule unsupported by policy with the strong impression of using admin authority to which he was not entitled. That he did so by deliberately re-introducing errors in talk space (and with no support from WP:TPG or WP:TPO) against an editor he was already in dispute with who he had known for years makes his implying a power to use admin authority worse. That he has defended actions that would obviously distress an editor with OCD even knowing SR has the condition shows a startling inability to see a fellow editor as a person first. That he claims vindication by SR's disillusionment and disengagement from WP adds to the unflattering picture. SR is not the only one feeling disappointed and distressed by all of this. EdChem (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EdChem: Again, what.the.fuck are you on about? "That he claims vindication by SR's disillusionment and disengagement from WP" – Diff please? You are engaging in personal attacks here now, stop that at once. "with the strong impression of using admin authority"?! I never once did anything at all to suggest I was acting with admin authority. I had interacted with SR in the role of a normal editor for years; she knew perfectly well I was doing just that. If anybody here is too clueless to recognize that as long as I don't say I'm acting as an admin I am in fact not acting as an admin, that's really not my problem. For all those who still didn't get it, I clarified that, immediately, once you brought it up [230], and again once SR brought it up again [231]. I shouldn't have had to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (FP@S warned)

@Levivich: What are the implications of such a warning? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: It would give solid grounds for anyone imposing sanctions for a future violation, and thus hopefully act as a wake up call/deterrent. It would formally document where the community consensus is at this time regarding this issue. It would do what the 2017 ANI did not do. – Levivich 22:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Personally, I find Fut. Perf.'s actions concerning SR much less than ideal. I am also largely in favor of the community taking a more active role in holding admins to a higher standard.
However, while Fut. Perf.'s actions were not justifiable, I do find them understandable. He's a bit jaded and might be suffering from some burnout after years of editing in Eastern European disputes. He does a lot of unforgiving work for the project in this regard.
So then you have the recent incident where a bunch of people piled on to criticize him because he started lashing out at another user, and I don't think any of that was exactly productive. The same way I don't think it was fair (nor helpful) of him to demand/request Silent Resident change her behavoir through threats, I don't think the community will get much farther by issuing a strong warning to him. If anything, it'll just have him become more bitter.
Most people know that I have been critical of a particular controversial figure on this project, and I argued that such user had not changed after years of misbehavior. I wouldn't say Fut. Perf. is exactly like that, and his history here actually portrays a lot of positive growth outside these issues he's had with SR.
If Fut. Perf. apologized to her, then I think that would really be all that is needed here even at this late stage. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree an apology would always be welcome, at any stage. – Levivich 02:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure, you really want to re-open this wound? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I see it not as re-opening a wound, but as trying to close a wound that has remained open (for years). – Levivich 22:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"For years"? You've only been here for a year so you might want to omit the use of the plural in "years" unless there's something I don't know about. Can you point to other instances of this "wound" being "opened" in many many many years? Also, why are you canvassing only people who agreed with you in the last ANI discussion [232] [233] [234]? Come on. A little bit more non-bad-faith in your actions please. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: re. for years, yes, others have wondered that as well [235]. ——SN54129 07:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, those three are editors named in this filing because they were the targets of incivility by FP@S in the last ANI report. I'm required to post notices on their talk page. Aren't I? As for other instances of the wound remaining open, see the multiple closure review threads following the last ANI report, for example. For another example, the prior ANI report in 2017, which obviously didn't improve matters at all. – Levivich 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another example of why trying to use consensus in a large group doesn't work: when there isn't a strong alignment in opinions, reaching a decision that everyone can live with increases in difficulty exponentially as the group grows. I am confident, though, that anyone reading the previous discussion will appreciate the expressed opinions and be able to take them into consideration in the future, regardless of any summary statement in any location. Thus, leaving my own personal opinion aside, I don't feel there is a great deal of upside in trying to pursue the matter further at this time. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident I'm replying here, because this is the section for discussion. The "whole picture" is, he's not a "pro-Turkish editor". But even if he was, that was not okay to say (@Robert McClenon to be clear, yes, I was not saying PA one makes subsequent PA number two less bad). It also didn't make him calling you incompetent or etc okay to say -- sorry FP, you do need to cut that out, if its a pain, then just look at how much a headache this has been. SR, I'm not sure what you once thought Wikipedia was, but actually, justice was never part of the job description, it's always been about working together (or trying to) on an encyclopedia.

And Levivich some of these are pretty bad but some are talk that's so normalized in ARBMAC it's like "hi", like your 2017 diff for "what a braindead argument". If that's heart breaking, then the fault lies with the administration for allowing it, plus a ton of way worse crap. For some reason WP:CIR gets often misinterpreted to mean you can use the word "incompetent" or synonyms to say things that will be interpreted as attacking people's mental facilities. Is FP the only one, or even the most common offender here? Hmm, no, and I could summon a deluge of the ASPERSION/PA diffs, they'd be multiplying like bunnies, but then we'd derail this to the bottom of the sea. --Calthinus (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Yuck. Sometimes trying to argue for the fourth pillar of Wikipedia gets only criticism, but I will continue to try to state the truth if there are wrongs by two editors. User:SilentResident writes: 'Some editors (especially User:Calthinus and Robert McClenon: are eager to lambast at me because I called FP@S a "Pro-Turkish POV editor" without even asking for the whole truth on the matter.' If SR thinks that being cautioned about replying to a personal attack with a personal attack is a 'lambasting', maybe they don't understand. Maybe SR hasn't noticed that I am even harsher in my criticism of FPAS than of SR, or maybe she thinks that she is exempt from commentary. Maybe SR hasn't seen that I am agreeing with User:Vanamonde93 and User:Cullen328. It is unfortunate that SR thinks that I am lambasting her when I was criticizing FPAS even more harshly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: this has nothing to do with being "harsher" towards the one or the other, but, like I said in my above comment, about ignoring facts about the one side when commenting about the other side. And last, coming to conclusions which are not even the case here.

First of all: The POV accusations begun from FP@S's side, with the famous "SilentResident, the notorious POV agenda editor" thing, years ago, around 2015 or so (someone pls correct me if I am mistaken). Which unfortunately continues to this day, with the most recent incident being his "Incompetent POV editor", at Octomber 2019. Yet, somehow you have focused only on my December reactions but not on what happened before them. (note: ofc I am not defending my reactions, nor I am happy about responding in kin, but my point is: you gotta understand that when someone is uncivil for entire years against you, soon or later, your patience breaks, as you probably know already).

And last: you have concluded (both on my Talk Page and here), that 1) I might be thinking I am excempt from commentary, or that 2) I may be demanding special treatment because of a disability. I never asked that, and even the others told you this isn't the case here. If you want to make a point, you are welcome. And you can criticize me as much as you want - and you are right to do so, as I am at fault. But at least, I am asking that you check your facts beforehand. Simple as that. Because it may seem what it seemed to you at first glance but there is always more to it that you missed. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident I agree with McClenon that we are not "lambasting" you. You are not in serious danger of being sanctioned or warned at the moment (however I do strongly advise you to strike out that polygamy comment, frankly I don't think that one was like the SR I usually know). What you have demonstrated here is that there is a long term dispute between and you and FP, that is visible for all to see -- as should have been clear from Levivich's use of diffs from two years ago as well. Who "started" this particular spat on Talk:Aegean dispute is not really important. Actually I don't even think the discord between you two has much to do with content/POV at all -- you treat Wiki as a hybrid social/academic venture, whereas he treats it as purely academic. You want his respect, he does not give you what you want, this frustrates you. And then I often see you try to defend your point of view to him, as if he will read it and come to realize you are an intelligent and reasonable equal; this usually backfires, I think because he's just here to edit, not to maintain social relationships. Also, another thing you do when you're self conscious is edit your talk page posts, a lot. I'm a motherfucking hypocrite on this because I'm always in a rush, but that doesn't mean I don't also find it annoying. And voila, here we are. Frankly, I don't want an official I-ban for either of you, since FP is frankly just necessary in the topic area, and an I-ban basically removes you from your main editing interest here. But, preferably disengage, for your own sake (and his), you two just don't mix.--Calthinus (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't an I-BAN between FPAS & SR, suffice? That way, we could avoid other editors attacking each other, over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, though I proposed this warning as a less severe sanction, and that's not going too well so far. – Levivich 18:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Let us be honest here: Indeed it does not go too well.

Had FP@S apologized or acknowledged his behavior, things now would have been over already, and everyone moved on with their Wikipedic lives. However just like I said in the past: I do not expect him to ever apologize for show remorse for his actions. he simply won't. Not because I know him too well, but due to his long record of behavioral issues, which existed for a long time, even before I even join the Project. But beside his behavioral issues, FP@S has proven his skills, bravery and courage in editing Eastern European/Balkan articles where many other admins (and editors) didn't have the courage to do so. So, from a positive side, this isn't the end of the world. Nor has everything been wasted or lost. However, excuse me, but, even if FP@S doesn't want to apologize for his own behavior, I do feel the need to apologize to everyone for my loss of patience towards him. Plus I am sorry this escalated beyond control and is even rattling the ANI even after so many debates - only few days before the New Year! Sorry for that. Have a happy new year everyone! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: you may or may not have plenty of things to apologise for, but please don't apologise for having an illness or disability that might cause some intolerant people to be be mildly irritated. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

An IP made a post here critical of FP@S. 15 minutes later FP@S reverted and blocked the IP. Assuming the IP was WP:EVADEing, it's still WP:INVOLVED. And within 15 minutes shows how closely FP@S is watching this thread (but so far hasn't post anything like "Yeah I shouldn't have done that"). Could have waited more than 15 minutes for an uninvolved admin. FP@S has also blocked another IP and revdel'd the edits they made at User talk:SilentResident a couple days ago (apparently the same ban evading editor). – Levivich 18:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

All block-evaders' accounts should be blocked & their posts revdel, by any administrator. Regardless of involved or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator..." – Levivich 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That particular person has been harassing Future Perfect at Sunrise for many years, at every conceivable place and opportunity on WP. Some editors recognise him immediately, and revert, plus block if they're admins. In this particular case, "involved" does not apply, in my view. The sooner this one's posts are removed, the better. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a banned editor who repeatedly harrases FPAS and other admins. There isn't an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, if FPAS is "involved" when they block VXFC, then every admin is involved. A banned user doesn't get to immunize themselves against being blocked by harassing admins. Levivich, if you think that particular exchange shows that FPAS did anything wrong, you should stop trying to insert yourself into situations where you don't know the particulars or history. You're embarrassing yourself, and need to stop speaking out from a place of ignorance. As noted, you have only been here a year or so, and while you do have every right to be involved in discussions, please don't try to overreach where you clearly are ignorant of the deeper history. Yes, FPAS did, in the interaction with SR, go over the line in his responses to them. No, his blocking of VXFC do not show anything resembling a pattern of such behavior. FPAS did exactly what any admin should do every time VXFC comes around, and they are not "involved". You are conflating two very different and unrelated things. --Jayron32 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe in a few years, I'll be allowed to have a different opinion without being being told I'm ignorant, embarrassing myself, etc. – Levivich 01:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered the idea that you could possibly just be wrong about this? 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Having an ill-informed opinion does not make you immune from correction. This isn't talking about your preferred pizza toppings here. When you speak from a place of ignorance you will be corrected. If you don't want to be corrected, educate yourself before you speak or be OK with others doing it for you after your have spoken.--Jayron32 10:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

DROPTHEFUCKINGSTICK ALREADY

Freakin' a. Enough already. There were like eighty five closures of the previous ANI so why the hell did you think it was a good idea to bring it up again? Volunteer Marek 23:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is the "Balkans" topic area which is under discretionary sanctions. WP:AE is over that way -->> (But watch out for those WP:BOOMERANGS!) Volunteer Marek 23:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Question: Did anything happen post the ANI thread that would need an ANI thread created? Is this all related to the prior closed ANI thread? If nothing of note has occurred since that closed thread, then this one should be closed right now and archived. There is absolutely no reason to re-litigate this, especially from a user who was not either of the people involved. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, nothing new happened. Previous thread was repeatedly closed. People edit warred over it. When they didn't get the outcome they wanted (in like a fourth close or so), and were warned about reverting the closes, they (meaning User:Levivich, but with the others like Dr. K showing up to support) just started another freakin' thread! I guess that's one way of getting around admin closes. Just start new threads about the exact same thing. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, i agree with your overview of the situation. It was closed on multiple times. To have this thread open is either a possible attempt at intimidation on Fut.Perf, an attempt to get sanctions imposed on him, or to get sanctions and prepare the ground for a future desysop of an administrator that some other editors may not see eye to eye on the POV they want to push for years. I come to this conclusion because of the interactions i have had with those editors and the administrator and as many similar pages are on my watchlist. There have already been 3 reopenings and closures. Will there be a fourth and fifth time to get try a certain outcome which they feel is right? This is becoming a waste of time and a farce.Resnjari (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Did some research. FP@S has not interacted with the other user at all since the thread was closed. Levivich should be admonished for wasting everyone's time re-litigating something no one asked to be re-litigated. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ Volunteer Marek 15:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Imagine thinking that your own opinion is so important that it deserves it's own subsection. Seriously, you're the one who needs to drop the stick. This thread isn't even about you. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how you're here expressing your opinion, it's not "my" subsection, is it? It's a proposal, just like the other proposals above it. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

stares blankly –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Imagine thinking that your own opinion is so important that it deserves an entire protracted secondary thread rehash? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, Swarm. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you apparently cannot see that there's another side to this besides your viewpoint on it, and that a number of editors are on that other side. The "facts of the case" as you've described them in your comments above aren't even recognizable to me. It's like we're reading two completely different sets of diffs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Levivich, I would like you to understand that I like you as a person and I do not want this disagreement to translate into a personal issue between us. I am not attempting to personally wound you. Just my way of saying "the pot is calling the kettle black". I am just making the point that you're attacking a user for starting a subsection in your thread, when your thread itself is an attempt to rehash an existing thread that has already been closed, what, five times? Even you must surely be able to admit that the observation is warranted to some degree. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least...

This wasn't a wasted effort from a community perspective. Even if nothing comes of this specific dispute, the bright side is we're having this discussion on how hard editing Eastern European topics can be (specifically the Balkans). I will say that Cullen328 is absolutely right about this (and everything else mentioned).
Earlier this year, I worked his with both editors in drafting WP:MOSMAC3, and I can't recall any serious issues being reported. In fact, both users gave me a barnstar for it. We just need more stuff like that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:MJL about Eastern European and Balkan topics being hard. I have tried to mediate disputes about Balkan topics, and I have usually regretted even trying, but someone has to try. We know what a Balkan War can do, besides shattering the confidence of intellectuals. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like editing in this area is almost as volatile and explosive in terms of rhetoric and temper as the actual wars. I have a lot of admiration for anyone who is willing to stick their head directly into a beehive, especially on an unpaid volunteer basis. I'm disappointed with the way this whole thing has unfolded and by the conduct of the admin involved, but I think dragging this out even further is only causing even more hurt feelings and animosity without actually fixing any intractable issues. 65.229.27.130 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s an understatement. I view the admin’s actions as being in order. However when it comes to the wider behavior of average editors, as some commentary [236] by editors in these 3 reports, it just scratches the surface of what's really going on. It’s much, much worse than many of you know until you get involved in Balkan topics and interact with certain editors, some whom claiming 'bullying' and alike, are individuals who themselves have a habit of casting aspersions of others and do not have a great record of rapport. Anyway the Balkan topics area is like this because there is a lack of administrators that are involved with Balkan topics. I have always been someone who wants more participation by many administrators in patrolling that area. If Fut.Perf. somehow gets desysoped, the problems will increase tenfold.Resnjari (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I view the admin’s actions as being in order. Does this "order" include the disorder he brought upon SR's painstakingly-crafted comments when he reverted them back to an erroneous grammatical state? Dr. K. 03:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As i see it, @SilentResident's "painstakingly-crafted comments" consisted of WP:ASPERSIONS against Fut.Perf like: "classic pro-Turkish POV" [237] and "Future Perfect, your pro-Turkish POV is hard to swallow." [238]. It’s not like these kinds of personal attacks are a first. Because i participated in this matter recently her response to me was a WP:PERSONALATTACK [239]: "But we do not share the same human values. Your disrespectful comments against your very own Mother just some years ago, plus your lack of support to the Gender equality, combined with your support of Polygamy, and now this support of closures which leave Bullying remarks by FP@S unadressed,". We can claim grammatical errors all we like, or that the editor has incompetence issues or even that there were slips of the finger on the keyboard, whoopsie moments or that all these stem from her OCD. For me that comment there toward me looks like the work of someone who knows exactly what they are doing, regardless of their health condition. If there is a behavioral issue too it is not incumbent for administrators like Fut.Perf to put up with it or any other editor, frankly. Claiming that an administrator is “pro-Turkish” when they have been neutral and shown great restraint like in the Macedonia dispute is casting aspersions and calling the integrity of @Fut.Perf. into doubt.Resnjari (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Your response looks to me like anything, but an answer to the specific question I raised. Either you come up with a better answer next time, or don't bother to reply. Dr. K. 03:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, its the right response.Resnjari (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then: What benefit accrued to FP, when he reintroduced grammatical mistakes by reverting SR's edits back to a bad grammatical state? What was the purpose of that action? What was the benefit of such action? Please focus. Dr. K. 04:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Having a look at the history page of the Aegean dispute article, Silent's edits were reverted in one case for neutrality purposes: [240] and in another for written composition issues: [241]. Another admin also reverted the addition by Silent due grammar issues [242]. Sure editors make grammar mistakes –everyone is guilty of that at one time or another, but if gets to the stage that an administrator has to intervene, then it's a bigger issue about editing competence. Really, admins are not parents or even mentors to editors and nor are they expected to be or to put up with trivial moments. Balkan topics have enough of those as it is.Resnjari (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am talking about the talkpage revert, not the article reverts. Do you want me to give you the link? Dr. K. 04:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's part of the same issue, same article. The events of the main page resulted in the situation in the talkpage. They are not divorced from each other. The initial report is about bullying of Silent by Fut.Perf. Also comments by her in that exchange exist that are not ideal, and even later as her response toward me on this noticeboard shows regarding this matter. Toward me, it’s definitely a WP:PERSONALATTACK, via casting WP:ASPERSIONS. It's disappointing, especially when taking into account the wider context of this situation. My position is its time to close the thread. It's been opened 3 times and closed 3 times. By continuing this open/close to and fro one it appears to me at least that either the aim here is for some kind of harsh sanctions against an admin or setting the ground for a possible future desysop, all because for doing their role and having to deal with the disaster of Balkan topics.Resnjari (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari, and also it is particularly interesting to see that some of those that have been complaining for incivility by FF@S, have made much more rude comments,(ie this one [243] by Khirurg- there are more) so I do not believe their crocodile tears.Cinadon36 07:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• There's a reason why discretionary sanctions are in place for this topic area. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the things that come from this mess are anything but positive. In my view, the ANI community are demonstrating an inability to recognise that an admin can do a lot of good work but also make mistakes that need to be addressed. There have been plenty of posts that note that "FP@S does a lot of good in the Balkans editing area, which is a difficult area of WP" (that I don't dispute) but used it to support invalid or inappropriate conclusions like "so his edits are a net positive no matter what" or "so we won't do anything if he loses his cool" or "so we will protect him no matter what." Many posts address desysopping despite that not being a possible outcome from an ANI thread and it not being advocated nor a realistic possibility if the issue was taken by ArbCom. FP@S disengaged from the thread about SR and has not contributed here (as at my last look, anyway), as others have circled the wagons to protect him as if there was no evidence of a problem. He has not demonstrated any appreciation that his admin-like declaration of a rule unsupported by policy was inappropriate, that others might have seen it as a use of admin authority in violation of involved, or that it might have harmed SR or anyone else watching. What I take from this is that ANI remains incapable of recognising or responding to admin misbehaviour when the admin works in a difficult area and is mostly acting appropriately or has a large circle of wiki-friends. I wouldn't ask FP@S to apologise as I believe apologies needed to be offered spontaneously to be meaningful, but I would ask that he be able to articulate what he should not have done or express some reflection on what might have been done differently... but that clearly won't happen. I don't imagine that FP@S should be perfect, but I do expect him to be able to engage with criticism over potential mistakes. A distressing number of editors here don't see deliberately reverting another editor's talk page post to a version containing errors as problematic, or disrespectful, or likely to cause distress, or utterly unsupported by policy. The "rule" FP@S purported to impose would have been clearly rejected as not justified by policy had a non-admin declared it, and recognised as edit warring had it been implemented. FP@S declared it as an admin stating above that he was obviously INVOLVED, though whether that was clear to SR is unknown (it certainly wasn't clear to me that FP@S had recognised that). Making it clear that it was an expression of frustration and not an application of admin authority was an obligation on FP@S and one in which he comprehensively failed. After all, SR continued to seek advice as to the status of the "rule", as did others (including me). In other words, FP@S failed in his obligations under INVOLVED to avoid acting or appearing to act with admin authority – about which most posters here either haven't recognised or don't care.

Sadly, this thread could be closed with:

The ANI community do not recognise poor behaviour from admins if it would involve anything actually being done. FP@S is advised that he can continue to stonewall when criticised or ignore criticism safe in the knowledge that ANI regulars will ensure this has no consequences. The WMF is asked to recognise that the en.WP community's objection to them acting against mistreatment of editors or against admins is not about self-governance but rather reflects a desire to continue to deny that mistreatment of editors by experienced admins is allowed and meant to continue without interference. All editors who believe that civility is actually a part of editing at WP are admonished for reckless optimism and for the temerity of daring to assert that incivility happens by actually calling out examples of it.

Of course, nothing like this will be posted – it's too honest – but it is what I see as actually coming out of this mess. EdChem (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Martin Kempf

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

---

Martin Kempf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is this a sockpuppet? SPI was inconclusive.

Please see discussion about sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Multiple chemical sensitivity for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

How about a username block for the trolling near-anagram? —JBL (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Or WP:DUCK. From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamuelBurckhalter:

The following users use Wikipedia to form their signature but in this process they bizarrely manually type their username beside the four tildes meaning their username appears twice, once wiki formatted and once manually typed, appearing beside the ‘(UTC)’ part of the account signature.

User:Martin Kempf e.g. see this diff

User:KrisKelvin99 e.g. see this diff

User:Leobenite e.g. see this diff

User:QueerWordGirl e.g. see this diff

Also note that Martin Kempf and the socks in the confirmed sockpuppet drawer all tend to use "yo" when pinging. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes and all of those accounts above were checkuser found to be sockpuppets, except Martin Kempf. One or perhaps two out of the other 7 socks were found to be using a proxy. Strongly suspect Martin Kempf passed through the SPI due to using an undiscovered proxy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only is the incredibly unusual signature the same between confirmed socks and Martin Kempf, but look at this: Martin Kempf writes I totally agree with Leobenite... and then about two hours later QueerWordGirl, a confirmed sock, writes: Leobenite I totally support.... User:Leobenite is a blocked sock. They write and use words the same way as well as in the same context and within two hours of each other, they even sign their sigs in same very bizarre way.. And in both those diffs you can see the signing with the four tildes and manually typing their username after the four tildes generated signature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation found that one sock was using a known proxy, however the Mark Kempf suspected sock was found to be using an ISP unrelated to the other accounts, based on the behavioural evidence I think he was using an unknown proxy that erroneously led to him not being labelled a sock account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And on the 2nd of four edits Martin Kempf knows how to ping an editor with the Template:yo. No newbie learns and feel confident enough to use wiki codes that quickly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sock accounts had European names, e.g. Leobenite, Greenved, ...Kempf, Kris..., Burckhalter etc. So I think the duck test is passed and suggest heavily that Martin Kempf is a sock using an undetected proxy. And of course the 4 or 5 European chosen account names in the confirmed sock farm investigation from last year, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamuelBurckhalter/Archive only strengthens the duck test results even more so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Indef. Behavioural evidence is well above the level at which we notmally WP:DUCK block - I would ahve done it myself but am WP:INVOLVED. Amending per Bbb23: this is either a sophisticated sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I don't think we particularly care, but it sounds as if meatpuppet is more likely. I would be OK with a TBAN on that basis. Guy (help!) 21:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• As I stated on my Talk page, it would be wrong to block Martin Kempf as a sock when the technical evidence is as compelling as it is in this instance. Not only is he editing from a different continent using a legitimate ISP, the user agent is wrong as well. The idea that he must be editing from a proxy because of the behavioral similarities is twisted logic: he must be a sock, ergo the IP must be a proxy. I have seen many users whose behavioral evidence is compelling but who are not socks. This isn't the first time. It's just that the filer has gotten into a snit about it and others have been supporting them. If an administrator wants to block MK for other reasons, that's fine, but making it a sock block would be wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Like Guy said the DUCK evidence is very compelling. Okay, so the user agent information is different, I mean people have multiple devices as do their friends and family. I have access to my personal phone and at least three personal computers. Start adding in friends and family and I can come up with dozens of different user agent information.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• User:Bbb23, I have done very basic google research and it does seem that proxies can rotate user agent information. But I am certainly no expert in this area. I do feel that you are giving undue weight and confidence in technical evidence and not giving appropriate weight to the DUCK evidence. We are not talking about one or even two duck tests but multiple lines of duck evidence here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am pretty much an expert in this area. I personally use User-Agent Switcher and Manager to avoid being tracked by user-agent. It has 61,413 users, and is only one of many similar add-ons. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Good to know. Oh, and I forgot to thank you for notifying me of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think you Bbb23 are the one in a snit. Anyway, I looked at the first two edits of Martin Kempf and not only do they know to use the yo template to ping people straight away, but they know how to use the four tildes, know how to indent their posts (took me many months of regular Wikipedia editing before I indented my posts at the request and explanation of my fellow editors). Unless he is some preprogrammed cyborg from the future he is one super intelligent fast learner.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No opinion either way on this editor and sock concerns, but I just want to mention that I mastered the (what I saw as trivial) skills of indenting and using four tildes almost immediately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23, Fair. Guy (help!) 21:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block agree with Guy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Multiple chemical sensitivity

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

---

An involved admin, JzG suggested this article in question may require extended protection. There was a large sock farm operating during 2018 on the multiple chemical sensitivity page, which prompted semi-protection to be applied. Unfortunately another sock farm was created in 2019 which operated for months undetected effectively taking over the article and talk page and skewing it in a very FRINGE direction, see: [244].

Given the large amount of damage caused and given that semi-protection failed to help deal with the socking over the course of a year or so it was applied I think extended-protection should be applied to this article for at least a year, probably longer.

Anyone agree? Any administers willing to apply extended protection here? Thanks for considering.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I applied WP:ECP for six months to Multiple chemical sensitivity after seeing that seven socks indeffed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamuelBurckhalter have edited the article or its talk in the last three days. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Johnuniq. Can the talk page also be extended protected as an equal measure of sock disruption occurred there too. I guess not?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's a little courageous and may be challenged, but I take your point and applied the same protection to talk. Some of the indeffed socks were active on talk, and there is no reason to think they'll stop trying unless a forced break occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks again! That should give the community there a breather to focus on fixing the damage the sock farm caused and hopefully make the sock master give up and move on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Thanks Guy (help!) 19:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Grayfell leftist gatekeeping on Stefan Molyneux

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

---

• Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The current article on Stefan_Molyneux is a brazen leftist attack-piece which only sources left-biased sites. When I tried to simply propose to include a most fundamental point, that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist, and I provided at least 2 respectable sources (from people criticizing him no less! (eg. the SPLC, and a respected philosopher and historian)), Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#Is_he_really_de_facto_a_facist,_right-wing,_far-right,_white_supremacist,_and/or_white_nationalist?, User:Grayfell predictably refused to acknowledge this and instead focused on his own bias, on other irrelevant points mentioned in those sources against Molyneux. I have encountered him behaving as a leftist gatekeeper months ago, and the situation is not improving. His recent contributions are almost exclusively left-wing agitation, using politically charged and ambiguous language such as "neo nazism" and "white supremacy". I propose that Grayfell should be blocked from contributing to politically charged articles, at least for a few months, if not longer. He is harming the credibility of Wikipedia Dennisne (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are some of the numerous leftist-bias issues that people have mentioned on Grayfell's current talk page:

• "leave your personal view out of your editing/ removals. I cite multiple sources, even sources that critique each other just to have a balanced perspective and remain as neutral as possible", I think in an article involving Ben Shapiro.
• "If you want to slander [Mike Cernovich], that's your prerogative, but please find better sources, not highly partisan and unreliable sources like Buzzfeed. You're not helping Wikipedia's image"
• "if the introduction is a summary overall then why we only have to put negative things like ties to white supremacist and all. The only thing i meant is that we should be more neutral with our words on wikipedia."
• "I made the edits because Jayda Fransen isn't a Fascist nor is Britain First a Fascist movement."
• "Stop playing politics on wikipedia by blatantly vandalizing the Nick Fuentes page to make it reflect your own views in direct conflict with the guy's own words."
• a Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion for his use of the politically loaded word "hite privilage"

Not to mention most of his recent contributions - they all involve controversial political biases. Dennisne (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that Doug Weller warned the filer about making personal attacks against Greyfell in March this year. ——SN54129 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, and I quickly retracted those attacks and focused on the merits of my points. I apologize for getting emotional when I felt the credibility of Wikipedia being threatened. I am not attacking Grayfell personally here, but trying to draw attention to his gatekeeping behavior. Hopefully other editors will see how he completely ignored my simple and non-controversial request to have the article changed. And he has done this before with the incident you are referring to. It's a consistent problem with this editor that many others have noticed too. Dennisne (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the link provided and it appears to be a content dispute and not a conduct issue. You criticized the current state of the article and suggested that it should be revised. Greyfell asked for citations backing up your proposed edits. You provide some citations, and Greyfell shared their perspective on why he disagreed with those sources and then asked you to propose specific changes that you wanted. This is not a WP:ANI issue; there have been no urgent and intractable behavioral problems, conduct issues, or disruption going on. You should continue to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page and, if you don't think that you can resolve the disagreement on your own, look into WP:Dispute resolution such as WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. No admin is going to block an editor simply for saying, on a talk page, that they don't agree with using Conservapedia or Mises.org or an apparently cherrypicked quote from the SPLC as a citation on a biography. Even if Greyfell happens to be wrong about whether these edits are a bad idea, he hasn't broken any rules just by expressing his perspective. Michepman (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is intellectually dishonest to use the SPLC for slanderous statements against Molyneux, but not for other factually important things. (Also, when I mentioned the SPLC as a source, instead of acknowledging my point which was irrefutably mentioned in the link, he instead chose to discuss his other off-topic agendas such as gender and race.) That is blatant gatekeeping. As is the outright dismissal of a major influential think tank in the United States (Mises.org), according to Wikipedia itself. Greyfell did not have a valid reason to ignore my citations (Mises and SPLC). This is also not an isolated incident, as I quoted above by all the people complaining about him on his talk page, and with my previous failed attempt to add some valid balance to another hitpiece article that he was gatekeeping months ago. Dennisne (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see no "gatekeeping" behaviour at all on that talk page, but simply a civil questioning of the proposed edits. Just discuss the issue in a similar civil manner on the talk page, but you will not get far by proposing Conservapedia (or, for that matter, Rationalwiki or Wikipedia) as a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the quotes the OP garnered supposedly proving a leftist bias. "leave your personal view out of your editing/ removals". After Grayfell replied, the editor thanked him. "If you want to slancer (Mike Cernovic). A few minutes after that the editor was blocked 72 hours for editwarring and Grayfell closed the discussion saying "Okay, then. In a few days, feel free to start a discussion of this at Talk:Mike Cernovich. Or not'. ""if the introduction is a summary overall then why we only have to put negative things like ties to white supremacist and all." Grayfell replied explaining the issue and the editor then wrote "I will properly look into it. Maybe i am lacking some sort of information Thanks, anyways!!! ". ""I made the edits because Jayda Fransen isn't a Fascist nor is Britain First a Fascist movement." Grayfell's reply was "If you know of reliable sources, discuss them on the article's talk pages.' The editor is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. "Stop playing politics" - that editor is indefinitely blocked for BLP violations. As for the NPOV discussion on White Privilege, I think everyone involved in that talk page discussion was notified (including me) so that proves nothing about Grayfell. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a garden variety content dispute which has been exacerbated by Dennisne's belligerence and hostility toward Greyfell. All this about whether or not to call somebody an "anarcho-capitalist". Dennisne proposed three sources. Conservapedia is obviously excluded as user-edited content. The main problem with the Mises.org source is that it calls Molyneux a "popular libertarian broadcaster" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist" and those are certainly not synonyms. That book review may well be useful in another context. We are left with the SPLC source which Dennisne has denounced as slanderous. How can a source be both reliable and slanderous simultaneously? If there are any behavioral problems here, they are the ongoing personal attacks that Dennisne has directed against Greyfell. I urge Dennisne to stop it now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a garden variety dispute, but a systematic bias with Grayfell. You can see in my contribution history me trying to make a similar factual correction with the Gavin Mcinnes article, and he similarly acted as the gatekeeper and prevented the update. Libertarian and ancap are incredibly similar, with huge overlaps. They're strong allies. Yet neither of these fundamental attributes are mentioned in the main article - again, because of the systematic negative bias by leftists. Molyneux has spoken many times for both libertarian and anarchist outfits. The fact that you too so casually dismiss the Mises citation also demonstrates your bias. Why not cite him as being a libertarian then, instead of completely ignoring the correction? This issue desperately needs more impartial arbitration. You also completely (deliberately?) missed my point about the SPLC. Greyfell himself loves to use the SPLC as a source, and it is used as such in the main article - yet he dishonestly refuses to use it when it supports the fact that Molyneux is an anarchist / anti-statist / anarcho-capitalist. That's a blatant politically-driven double-standard. Will an unbiased editor please step in here? Dennisne (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I left comments about the content on the talk page. Grayfell hasn't shown any bias and has a long history of contributions. Dennisne has contributed to two talk pages- Gavin Mcinnes and Stephen Molyneux (except on one instance in 2010) [245] so I think WP:ADVOCACY applies to them. The statements about Grayfell I believe are rising to WP:PA if not already there.   // Timothy::talk  20:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of Grayfell's recent contributions are on contentious political articles, and almost always highly disputed. And you don't think it's evidence of bias to deliberately withhold crucial information about a political figure, about his undisputed political position, using sources that were already deemed reliable in the same article? Are you serious? Dennisne (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions Molyneux's earlier association with libertarian thought. The Mises.org source goes back 7-1/2 years and there is ample evidence that Molyneux has gone through a dramatic political transformation since then. It is incumbent upon you, Dennisne, to gain article talk page consensus without engaging in personal attacks against other editors. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

False. The article does not mention anything about him being or having been a libertarian or voluntaryist (ancap). There is also zero evidence that he has changed his fundamental position, and the fact that you simply assert that without any citation again exposes your left-bias. I also explained how this was not a personal attack, but rather a systematic editorial issue - you are personally attacking me now. Wikipedia itself acknowledges that Molyneux is a "voluntaryist blogger and podcaster Stefan Molyneux" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism ... elsewhere the SPLC also admits that Molyneux is "a libertarian internet commentator" https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux ... nobody has ever disputed this, yet you and Grayfell consistently dishonestly refuse to incorporate this information. What is Wikipedia's policy for handling people who stir controversy with disputed articles, where evidence is shown that they are deliberately hiding information to serve their political agendas, as Cullen and Greyfell have been proven to have done? Dennisne (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article now says "In 2005, Molyneux began writing articles for libertarian website LewRockwell.com, before starting a podcast called Freedomain Radio (FDR)." Listen again: Decisions on content are made on article talk pages, not at ANI. As for my alleged bias, I invite review of my conduct (and yours) at any appropriate venue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, someone really should review you too. Again, the SPLC itself admits that Molyneux is (still) a libertarian! In the very same source that the wikipedia article itself uses! Again, it explicitly says that Molyneux is "a LIBERTARIAN internet commentator", yet the biased Wikipedia article about him *deliberately* deletes that word from the quote/citation. I have brought this to your attention a few times already - why are you ignoring this, if not your own bias? This is not simply an issue about particular content, but about leftist bias, and how people who have proven to be dishonest need to be prevented from editing politically charged articles. Someone with higher authority needs to step in. Dennisne (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I welcome a thorough review of my editing (and yours). My only edit that I recall to the Molyneux article, just today, was a minor edit to correct an obvious typographical error. I have not opposed reasonable changes to the article, but you are going about it completely the wrong way, for some unknown reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This content issue should really be discussed on the article talk page.

Dennisne I understand you are upset, but you're not doing yourself or your position any good. You should read WP:DR and WP:DISENGAGE.   // Timothy::talk  22:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy for people who are proven to be dishonest and not acting in good faith, for political reasons? Dennisne (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I dunno. This is a content dispute, so not much for me to say here which hasn't already been said. The original proposal was a non-starter, because it would've replaced sourced content with OR. Perhaps somewhere in the article we could mention that he describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, but so far, nobody has proposed how to do that in an proportionate way. Dennisne's proposal was "he is an anarcho-capitalist", but that came later, and is not actionable, so... Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Observe, more shameless bias! Instead of honestly admitting that even his enemies (the SPLC) acknowledge that he's a libertarian (and anti-statist, anarchist), which I have repeatedly clearly explained, instead of apologizing for the gross misrepresentation done in the article (by deliberately deleting the word "libertarian" when they were quoting the SPLC), he still pushes his leftist agenda forward by claiming that Molyneux only SELF-DESCRIBES as such. Completely ignoring that the SPLC describes him like this in the very first line of their description of him. Seriously folks, something needs to be done about these dishonest editors! Dennisne (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennisne, I invite you to stop using a content dispute and this noticceboard as an opportunity to denigrate other editors who have the temerity to disagree with you. You appear to be under the impression that you can label other editors as "leftists" (or for that matter "conservatives") and disqualify them from editing. That's not how it works, and the accusations need to stop. Wikipedia editors come from a broad range of viewpoints. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell isn't disagreeing with me, he is deliberately refusing to update the article to include a crucial undisputed point about Molyneux. (And he has done this in the past too.) He is refusing to admit that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / ancap / libertarian, even when the SPLC (which he sources) admits it. I have yet to see the "broad range of viewpoints" from wikipedia editors on this issue. Dennisne (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to agree with you or to update articles for you. This is a content dispute, which won't be resolved here. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm asking for intellectual honesty - Grayfell simply refused to accept my update (still refuses, without any reason), which his own sources already corroborate (hence the dishonesty), and I had no other recourse but to appeal to some higher more impartial jury. 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisne (talk • contribs)

This isn't a jury, and it's not a means for you to win an argument by denigrating people who disagree with you. You are abusing this messsageboard to make personal attacks. I advise you to stop - if I see one more accusation of dishonesty, you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reading though the original report and the response I'm seeing some ground for WP:BOOMERANG to be in effect. This is essentially a large personal attack, since most of the argument is based on the editor in question, not page content. I'm not going to go the whole nine yards and say this is an alt-right heckler, but we should make sure Dennisne isn't biased as well. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I explained how I have nothing personally against Grayfell, but am simply pointing out how he is *consistently* refusing to adopt patently-true changes to an article (I have diffs to show him doing this with other articles), for clearly political reasons. When presented with undisputed citations, he simply ignored them. (You implying that I'm a heckler or a personal attacker is actually a personal attack.) Please focus on the issue at hand here - the deliberate consistent refusal to adopt factual changes, due to a political bias. Dennisne (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennisne You need to read WP:CIV, WP:PA, and WP:HA, then read WP:DR and then WP:DISENGAGE   // Timothy::talk  22:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfair. I am being perfectly civil. I have also explained how I haven't attacked anyone personally - you accusing me of this is a personal attack, however. (Why haven't you bothered to chastise Kirbanzo above for belittling me and inaccurately dismissing me as a "heckler"? How was that civil? And where was I being uncivil?) Moreover, Grayfell refuses to be reasoned with, he refuses to address the issue, that's why I'm here. He simply won't include a factually accurate and important change into the article. And he has done this before, which is why I think a more comprehensive solution needs to be had here to avoid such situations in the future. I'm trying to help Wikipedia here. The reputation for the political pages here is seriously lacking among readers. Something needs to be done to restore confidence. Dennisne (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Dennisne for 24 hours after he deployed the "dishonest" personal attack again in response to my message on his talkpage after being explicitly warned not to. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the record: I could have phrased that a bit better to not come off as hostile. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on what shape the article should take, but the source Dennisne cited to argue that Molyneux is just an anarcho-capitalist and not a white supremacist calls Molyneux "A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux operates within the racist so-called “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks." For someone to read that and claim "the SPLC never said he was a white nationalist/supremacist/etc", and to reply to someone pointing out the problems with this with accusations of politically-biased dishonesty... It's really, really hard to see anything but either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE applying. Whatever the case, such an editor does not need to be editing in areas relating to politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG topic ban/interaction ban

Per Ian.thomson and others, I now believe that Dennisne is likely pushing fringe political stances, which is essentially a confirmation of my earlier suspicions. Therefore I propose Dennisne be topic banned from editing post-1932 political articles and discussion relating to that topic for violations of WP:NPOV and discretionary sanctions. This will hopefully be sufficient to prevent further distruption from the offending editor.

Extended rationale:

1. Dennisne has attacked editors which he considers to be pushing 'biased' views in politics, and has had a history of doing so (see Serial Number 54129's comment on Dennisne being previously warned for this in March) - in fact, Dennisne is currently blocked for personal attacks for 24h. Grayfell appears to be a common target.

2. Denying that a subject (Molyneux) is a white supremacist even when the source he used to prove this states he is indeed one. This appears to be cherrypicking and willful ignorance at the very least. And when called out about it, saying that the person calling them out is politically biased and dishonest is a red flag, and what caused me to think a topic ban might be in order.

A one-way interaction ban forbidding Dennisne from interacting with Grayfell might be in order as well, but again, the topic ban should be sufficient. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Will also support the IBAN if consensus emerges that it should be applied as well or on its own. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support: CIR + IDHT + NOTHERE + PA = TBan. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: Egregious WP:PA, disregard of WP:CIV, repeated WP:DE to talk page (ref: [246]) and here disrupting discussion towards WP:CON, refusal to WP:LISTEN or WP:DISENGAGE, engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE. Same history of behavior on Talk:Gavin McInnes during March 2019 (ref: [247]) for which he was warned by Doug Weller (ref: [248]).   // Timothy::talk  21:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I’d support the 1wIBAN if Grayfell supports it   // Timothy::talk  21:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for reasons I've already given, but I think an IBAN is just a hat on a hat. Looking at Dennisne's language, politics is clearly the crux of the matter. If anything justifying an IBAN occurs after this, they should just be indeffed -- but that doesn't justify an IBAN yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Behaviour here indicates a worrying tendency to perceive his own biases as neutrality. Guy (help!) 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is more than enough here for an indef block, esp. considering the editor's continued belligerence. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the user is now indefinitely blocked, is this discussion mooted? —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Timelines of the war in Donbass

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

Following a post at WP:RSN § news-front.info (a Russian-backed fake news / disinformation site) I found a walled garden of articles with literally hundreds of references to daily news dumps from Russian and, to a lesser extent, Ukrainian propaganda sites, most of which events have not been picked up in any mainstream source. I'd like to ask fellow-admins to watch this AfD please as it may well become contentious. Guy (help!) 22:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Argentinian IP film vandal(s)

I just spent a ridiculous amount of time reviewing edits by 190.16.83.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), near all of which have been reverted now. In the process, I collected some other IPs that have been vandalizing/warring on the same articles. Some seem to be the same person, or at least doing exactly the same things, while others may be different people, perhaps with a common interest and off-wiki co-ordination. They like to change film release dates and runtimes, move/add images to navboxes in the group params, slap chunks of one article in/on another article. They geolocate to Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina, on three (maybe two – 181.99 and 190.224 have the same abuse email address at telecom.com.ar) ISPs:

• 181.99.120.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.120.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.121.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.122.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.123.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 181.99.124.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.126.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.127.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.127.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 181.99.128.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 181.99.128.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.129.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 181.99.130.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • ‎181.99.131.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.16.83.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.224.148.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • ‎190.224.148.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.149.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.149.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.150.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.151.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 190.224.212.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
  • 190.224.213.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.214.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 190.224.215.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Only the 190.224.214.0/24 (not /22) was currently blocked (by Ponyo, 6 days ago), and Widr blocked 190.16.83.39 today (both for 3 months). Other than the latter, I haven't reviewed the others' contribs (or the ranges) in detail yet and could use some help with that.

190.16.83.39 also created Draft:Mutant Fridge Mayhem yesterday, cut/pasting the contents from The Fast and the Furious (1955 film). 190.224.149.30 created Draft:Saw a few days ago, which is apparently duplicative of Saw (franchise). Should these be CSD'd? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Added latest incarnation 181.99.129.241, who edited at 2019-12-14T18:09:17Z —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Added 181.99.127.19 (edited 2 days ago), 181.99.123.137 (3 days; in new range 181.99.120.0/22), 181.99.120.89 (3 days), ‎190.224.148.223 (9 days), and others from within 90 days, showing all but two (181.99.124.0 and 125.0) of the /24s within the /22s are involved. I've now looked through all the /16s and found no further evidence of this editor's pattern. It seems to be limited to the five /22s and the single /32 above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

All range blocked for 1 month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

LeeWeathers

This user (LeeWeathers (talk · contribs)) has been making problematic edits since being here, and is refusing to communicate with users who disagree with their changes. For the latest, I have left a note regarding their changes to Steven Universe: The Movie, and have noted them to discuss their changes on the articles talk page. They have not responded, and is now attempting an edit war. See their talk page for more examples. If users like this are refusing to communicate to other editors and just continue to revert to a revision their own way (trying to claim ownership), they should not be editing here. 1989 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

1989, you would think that to be the case, but I'm not so sure anymore, based on the incredulous responses in my most recent thread near top of this page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Lee Weathers doesn’t use edit summaries either. During his ongoing WikiCareer of 1 month, he hasn’t communicated with anyone. Not even once. I’d say give him a warning and if he still fails to comply, resort to a block. User also seems to be quite disruptive in some articles. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've left a level 4 final warning. If the edits repeat again, please let me know. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPI

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

---

I wouldn't usually "bump" an SPI here, and I know you're all busy, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das seems inexplicably overlooked, and it's been a while, and Jku456 is becoming quite (... ah, ok, not "quite" - I lied - .. very...) irritating with their repetitive nonsense, so, I guess I'll break the habit - bumped... Sorry. -- Begoon 12:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oops, I forgot to ping Doug Weller, who's also had the indescribable joy of dealing with this irritating sock, so, here's a ping @Doug... -- Begoon 13:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Limesave

Limesave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the page Big Four tech companies three times. This user has three warnings on his/her talk page for vandalism of other articles. I added this user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but Ad Orientem told me to post this here instead. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I guess I dig where Ad Orientem is coming from; they've made some decent edits. Limesave, if you insert that unverified politically-tainted nonsense again I will be happy to block you indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  ”I dig”??? Groovy, man! Far out! EEng 06:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)