Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020

Unacceptable commentary and edit summaries

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 Ip looks to be up to no good. All of his edit summaries and edits include death threats. I would suggest a hard block and a ban for this user. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

and also as IP 2001:8A0:7765:FF00:3C3D:2DF2:23B9:9DE - Its Falconfly again - They are already sitebanned. Curdle (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent IP. The earlier hasn't edited in a few days. I've deleted the edit summaries of both IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 2 October 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 TPA revocation

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 talk:2600:1017:B803:5FCC:CD28:59F:21FF:CB3 is vandalizing their talk page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Double done by myself and El C. Sam Walton (talk) 19:46, 1 October 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.

POV-Pushing and harassment by Zefr (talk · contribs) and Alexbrn (talk · contribs) (condensed)

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.

---

(Previous incidents reports [1][2] )

Both are WP:POV-pushing on [3], and using edit war warning (in addition to insults and WP:Lawyering) to harass me (from trying to stop them from POV-pushing).

• Zefr: he reverted twice[4][5] with no clear justification. He refused to discuss[6] on purpose[7] while still editing [8]. Then issued me a warning[9]. He then retracted the revert when a 3rd-party got involved[10], but Zefr heavily biased it[11][12] («inability to sustain weight loss [...] people were unable to sustain fasting due to an "energetic error" in adhering to reduced food consumption during fasting»). Source used: [13]. Here's how another paper interpret the source: [14]: «All of these strategies are effective because humans do not completely compensate for the lost energy.» My edit: [15] («the body cannot precisely compensate for errors in energy/calorie intake [...] potentially explaining weight loss»). What he wrote does not reflect the source at all, this is clear POV-pushing. This + no discussion makes his warning unwarranted.

• Alexbrn: reverted several times to keep content failing verification[16]. My (reverted) edits reflected the source[17]. My interpretation i confirmed by authoritative source AHA[18]. He POV-pushed even though I tried to discuss[19]and started a mediation[20], after which he issued me a warning. The edit war warning is a duplicate of Zefr[21]

They also accused me of NPOV/POV-pushing[22][23][24] and WP:Wikihound me[25], and now WP:Wikilawyering (note the 'Aha!')[26][27].

I think this is a hijacking of WP:BRD to WP:GAME and block me from contributing valid encyclopedic content that do not fit with their views.

I know that we are all volunteers, but that does not mean they have the right to harass me. I request that they get reminded of the rules, that they get each one edit war warning, and that mine get removed. --Signimu (talk) 16:55, 1 October 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.

POV-Pushing and harassment by Zefr (talk · contribs) and Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

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 the continuation of [28] about [29] because of new developments, reading this previous thread is unnecessary as this thread will contain all infos necessary.

I'm sorry for continuing this issue, but I cannot edit, and less so "enjoy editing", with this kind of harassment and WP:GAMING, as they both continue compounding more errors and to harass me, so sure that they are of being right. I will now demonstrate that they are both WP:POV-pushing, and using edit war warning (in addition to insults and WP:Lawyering) to harass me (from trying to stop them from POV-pushing). I am prepared to face sanctions if you think that this request does not fit this board.

• Zefr: Zefr reverted one of my edits twice[30][31], for the reasons: 1. non encyclopedic source (falsely, this was a systematic review WP:MEDRS), 2. opinion editing (accusation of POV-pushing). I tried to discuss, he never replied. Then he issued me an edit war warning[32]. He later accepted the edit after an external user agreed it was encyclopedic[33], but Zefr heavily modified it. Here's the proof that he POV-pushed: here is the source in question[34], and here is another paper citing the source: [35], from which here is an excerpt summarizing the source: «All of these strategies are effective because humans do not completely compensate for the lost energy.» Compare this description with mine [36] («the body cannot precisely compensate for errors in energy/calorie intake [...] potentially explaining weight loss») and Zefr's[37][38] («inability to sustain weight loss [...] people were unable to sustain fasting due to an "energetic error" in adhering to reduced food consumption during fasting»). Thus, the content he inserted, and the reason of my warning for trying to reason with him, is NOT coming from the source: he wrote whatever he wanted. This is clear POV-pushing.

Of course, misunderstandings can happen, no problem. But here, Zefr first reverted twice for dubious reasons, before retracting when another editor shown disagreement, to then modify the sentence to reflect his beliefs instead of what is inside the source, clearly demonstrating a POV bias all along. At no point in time over 30+ hours did he accept my requests to justify his edit and to discuss (see "* Mechanism:" in [39]), nor tried a mediated conciliation with a 3rd party, or asking WikiProject:Medical, all of which could have clarified the issue (he just thought he was right, so why bother being collaborative?). One could say that a day is not a short time for response, but he was editing a LOT during this timeframe[40], including on the article of contention here, and later admitted he did not reply on purpose[41]. Furthermore, the edit war warning he issued me was for this reason. In other words, I tried to prevent a POV-pushing, but I get an edit war warning from the pusher.

• Alexbrn: I edited sentences that failed verification, which Alexbrn still insisted on reinstating[42]. The biggest contention was initially about whether "there is little evidence" or "there is evidence" (this has importance for the rest of the entry). The AHA (an authority, US diet guidelines relies on them) recently issued this statement[43], which says "there is evidence" + other confirmations of other things in my edit. I did not have this source at the time, but the source that was then used[44] said this: « [...] both diet groups had lost weight compared with the normal eaters. [... But] there's no strong evidence that fasting adds health benefits beyond any other weight-loss strategy. ». In other words, « there is evidence » that the diet is efficient for weight loss, for the rest there is less evidence (which is what I wrote). So it was not even a question of bad source (although it was weak according to WP:MEDRS, but Alexbrn clearly POV-pushed when trying to reinstate this, even though I pointed the issue clearly out[45]. Later, there was a disagreement for another edit he tried to push: I requested stronger sources, to which he disagreed without explaining up until after the 2nd revert[46][47], then it was stalled (last revert[48], and on Alexbrn's idea, I started after a discussion on the WikiProject:Medical[49], and it shows the issue was arguably ambiguous), and then a few hours later, just about 15min after Zefr's edit war warning, without nothing else happening, Alexbrn mimicked and issued me a warning[50], supposedly for the "fad diet" disagreement[51] for which nothing was happening apart from a mediation that I initiated. How can this be considered a legitimate and honest use of edit war warning, when he SAW me starting a mediation, and then chose nevertheless to issue me a warning?

In both instances, they were demonstrably POV-pushing and abused of edit war warnings (in addition to insults such as POV-pushing[52][53][54] and WP:Wikihounding[55]) to block ME from contributing by harassing me. And on top of that, despite my attempts, they are still not willing to discuss[56] nor peacefully resolve the issue. And following the incident's closing, they now feel free to nit-pick at negligible things to try to bait me into doing/saying a stupid thing (note the 'Aha!')[57][58] (when at the same time he says I reverted twice the "fad" qualification under a few minutes, which is false[59] -- since I ALWAYS go to discussion if there is contention, wait that all users have either started their WP continuous activity sustained for at least a few hours OR edited the entry in question before assuming they don't want to participate on the talk page). That is disruptive behavior and the object of this (and previous) request. It's not normal that they can issue edit war warning when they are the ones doing misdeeds and not complying with WP:BRD (the discussion is missing). I always assumed good faith until now and these new elements, but personally, I can no longer assume good faith from these users anymore. What they do is not collaborative edition, that's WP:GAMING. This is NOT simply a NPOV issue, because it would have otherwise been resolved in another manner, instead of them deciding to harass me.

I know that we are all volunteers, but that does not mean they have the right to harass me. I fully respected the WP:BRD cycle, and in the end I am the one with 2 warnings and being harassed. I request that they get reminded of the rules, that they get each one edit war warning, and that mine get removed. I consider it's not much to ask, given what they've done.

If this issue gets closed without any sanction for anyone, could an admin please clarify if this means that these two users can continue reverting my edits for no reason, avoid discussion, and then issue me a warning when I try to edit again?

Thank you for taking the time to read. --Signimu (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Alexbrn clarified/corrected that in fact his warning was issued for the same diffs as Zefr[60], thus both edit war warnings I got are pertaining to the same diffs (see Zefr point above). Is doubling edit war warning for the same reason by 2 different users ok? --Signimu (talk) 16:32, 1 October 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:Blunt hiker

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.

---

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

This user's first edit was at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser asking for merging of pull requests by SanFranBanned Kumioko/Reguyla - noting "I had to intentionally spell that users name wrong because it kept triggering phalanx". I blocked per WP:RBI. This could be a mistake, so I invite review. Guy (help!) 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed. I revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. I got trolled again. Ho hum. Guy (help!) 16:40, 1 October 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.

RBMcIntosh

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.

---

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

Long time listener, first time caller (I think). User:RBMcIntosh has introduced a slew of copyvio drafts (and as their talk page shows, this isn't the first time), among other low-quality draft content. Based on their userpage and the top of their talk page, this appears to be posting student-submitted articles for a class and may be a shared account ("we" shows up a couple of times). They do not appear to be communicating with other editors despite the many messages left on their talk page, and have only used their talk page so far to post the notice about creating drafts. Given that they aren't communicating and the vast majority of their contributions are poor drafts that other editors have to sift through, I'm asking for a block (if nothing else, to get their attention and see if we can actually get them to engage in conversation). creffett (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd already reported them on user names for admin attention. They posted today This is a content creation account for a high school class. Any submissions or edits are meant to be approved (but may not always be). Any articles or edits can be deleted as required. There will generally be a large number of drafts created every September and February. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Neatoh is likely an affiliated an account, both accounts have created Draft:Master Of The Blue Jeans (here's the RBMcIntosh version) today. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

RBMcIntosh has been blocked by Cullen328. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• OK--see my recent log for the CU blocks I placed. Now, it is possible for this to be legitimate one way or another--if that is the case, these accounts can be unblocked. I did not delete the multitude of drafts nor check them for copyvios. Cullen328, I'm kicking this ball right back to you. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Drmies, I'm mobile so I can't look too closely, but I'd guess that the accounts all share IPs because they're at the same school, so might not be sock/meatpuppetry. As for the drafts, I'll work on them more tomorrow, though of course anyone else who wants to wade through that mess is welcome to. creffett (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• creffett, that is entirely possible, and unblocks are cheap. I wouldn't have placed the blocks if the drafts weren't so problematic. In other words, yes this needs further research, but what it needs more than anything is for User:RBMcIntosh to respond on their talk page--I will leave them a note. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• creffett, I need one more thing from you, and others--please look at the drafts and tag them for copyright violations if that is going on. Please see the editor's talk page for my further comments. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 1 October 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.

Now What?

Sorry for reopening after close, but I do want to bring up the question of what we do with all of these drafts. I'm going through them to flag copyvio (thank goodness for Earwig's Copyvio Detector), but even without that, we have a lot of drafts that aren't going to get any further attention from the creator, and to put it bluntly a lot of them aren't going to pass muster (mostly for lack of notability). Is there anything to do about them besides leaving them to rot in draftspace until they're eligible for G13? Sure, a couple might be notable subjects, but as a whole I'm not expecting much. creffett (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If they're not copyvios, then yes, they may well rot in draft space for six months. As this is draft space, not article space, it doesn't really matter. Fish+Karate 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Boundarylayer and the Great Famine

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.

---

Further to last year's incivility from User:Boundarylayer (chancer and hypocrite), he has chosen to restart here his former accusation[61] that I am part of a neo-Nazi conspiracy. I am not. Can we please have either a block, a topic ban, or an interaction ban? DrKay (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. But if another admin wants to up it to indef, I have no objections. El_C 16:38, 1 October 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy

I feel bullied and harasssed by the user through continuous construed warnings and unnecessary notices on my talk page here and here and here. Four times I've now asked h to stay off my talk page, but that is ignored as excuses are found to continue to try to exert power over me there. Administrative assistance is need to determine whether or not I am being too sensitive and whether or not special arbitration matters re: the article Greta Thunberg are being abused in this case for the purpose of bullying and persecution outside the actual interests of those arbitration decisions. Some of the input reads as if I had criticized and attacked this user personally in connection with the Thunberg article and as if I (while hoping for a more NPOV there) do not respect the sensitivity of that article. None of that is real. In any case, since 2008 I've never seen anyone disregard 3 requests for someone to stay away from a user's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stand by for my request of community-imposed WP:BOOMERANG sanctions of a 24 block of SergeWoodzing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about repetitious reprimands on my talk page, not about the infected Greta Thunberg discussions. It now appears that they have been a device to try to get me blocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) You're an experienced editor. I assume you should know that generally speaking, when an editor asks you to stay away from their talk page, this should be respected except for essential notices. From what I see, this request came first [62] and your reply was frankly unnecessary [63] but I'll give you one acknowledgement of the request. In case the request to stay away wasn't clear, there was another here [64] Yet despite this, only ~20 days later you posted this [65] and then this [66]. And to top it off, after a third request to stay away [67] you post this [68]? There was absolutely no reason to. If there are problems with SergeWoodzing's editing and they're rejecting your help, you can bring a case to ANI etc. You can point to your earlier attempts to engage SergeWoodzing and the request to stay away as evidence you did your best to engage with the editor first, but couldn't because they rejected your help. Content issues etc can be dealt with in article talk pages like always. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed someone else referred to NewsAndEventsGuy here [69] before this reply of theirs [70]. So okay I'll put that one aside. It still was unnecessary especially given that they already had 2 requests. A better alternative was that NewsAndEventsGuy could have approached the other editor directly and explained the situation to them. Separately, SergeWoodzing should also have asked that editor to remove any reference (direct or implied) to NewsAndEventsGuy. (To be clear, it's inappropriate allow discussion of an editor on your talk page if you've asked said editor to stay away.) I would add that since NewsAndEventsGuy was not pinged, I have zero idea how they became aware they'd been referred to within about 4 minutes on SergeWoodzing's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy should not be watching the talk page of SergeWoodzing when they've been asked to stay away. Even if they wanted to be aware of any AN//I threads opened on SergeWoodzing, this is surely not a good way to handle it. Anyway putting that all to one side, none of this justifies the other followups. Particularly not the completely unnecessary reply to the third request. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One final comment, if there are genuine problems with SergeWoodzing's editing, and frankly from what I've seen I think there is, this is even more reason why what you've done here is dumb. We should be discussing problems with SergeWoodzing's editing. Instead we're discussing your refusal to stay away from their talk page when asked. You could have avoided that simply by staying away and opening a case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely deserving of receiving template:trout for being dumb, and on a regular basis. However, in this case, I'm going to plead an attempt at assertive kindness. I really really really dislike the drama boards and putting someone else through the grinder. Especially when I believe the issue is WP:CIR, as is the case here. But the cat's out of the bag, so.... here we are... I'll go back to reviewing SW's history which I thinks supports my opinion but I am still self-banned until I have my reply ready. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• You both have clear block logs. Let that sink in for a moment. Neither one of you has posted diffs showing the other damaging an article, so I'm inclined to dismiss this matter. My strong recommendation is to avoid each other. If you have a problem with the other editor, come to my talk page and let me know. Or find some other administrator. Greta Thunburg will be fine without your help. Consider unwatching that page for a few weeks if you find the happenings there stressful. NewsAndEventsGuy, you have indeed been asked four times to stop going to SergeWoodzing's talk page. Please do not post there again for any reason. Go to a third party if this limitation is being gamed. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) SergeWoodzing, it would help a great deal if you'd post diffs including of your requests so it's easier for use to see. But anyway I've posted them above now. I wouldn't oppose an immediate block of NewsAndEventsGuy for harassment since they've been clearly told to stay away from SergeWoodzing's talk page multiple times but refuse to. As I said above, they're an experienced editor and should know better. Barring that, I suggest a final warning to NewsAndEventsGuy. I've not yet seen anything to justify a boomerang. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's quite possible I do not comprehend the requirements at WP:ARBBLP#DECORUM to which we of which we are both "aware". I'm prepared to show Serge, who is site-banned from the Swedish wikipedia, habitually tells people to get lost instead of working with the DR procedures. I offered to DR earlier in Sept and was told what I could with myself. "Immediate ban"??????? In under 60 minutes without a realistic chance to explain myself? How about I just don't edit until I prep my actual reply? Thats sufficiently time consuming that it will have the same practical effect as a block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your reply is almost definitely irrelevant to my support of a block. Whatever wrong SergeWoodzing has done, it doesn't justify your atrocious harassment. When someone asks you to stay away from their talk page, just stay the heck away. It's simple. As I said, if there are problems with SergeWoodzing requiring administrative attention, then open a case somewhere relevant. Hey in that case you even have an acceptable reason to post on their talk page to notify them. Otherwise stop annoying them on their talk page when you've been told to stay away. It helps no one. They're clearly not interested in what you're saying or taking it onboard so there's no purpose to post there. I admit I missed that you'd been pinged for the reply to the IP as per below but ultimately this doesn't change the equation much since in the end you had multiple opportunities to deal with things in a different way but persisted in unnecessarily posting on someone's talk page when asked to stay away. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If you were aware of SergeWoodzing's discussion with Domdeparis, that is the only reason I can see that would change my mind about your persistence. Although even in that case, I still would have expected you to ask them about it rather than just keep posting. Maybe there are other reasons but your initial reply didn't give me confidence. You seemed to be talking about what SergeWoodzing had done wrong, but that doesn't justify what you did wrong. (It may justify a block of SergeWoodzing, but that's a different issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record... I had never seen SW before meeting at the GT BLP earlier this year. As best as I recall my ONLY exposure to SW has been at that venue and our talk pages. And until your note I don't think I'd ever heard of Domdeparis. You still haven't heard my full story, which takes time to assemble, and I'm voluntarily self banning until I complete it. I thought that "CIR" applies a little bit before today's events, just from the GT page and associated discussions, but my opinion has solidified since this all seems like calling an airtanker when a cotton ball catches fire. I continue to draft a reply in my Sandbox5 if you care to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

(edit conflict)::I agree that NesAndEvensGuy should stay of the other editor's page. I wouldn't support a block. SergeWoodzing's first request for him to stay off his page included an accusation of bullying that I don't think was warranted.[71] I think he probably over-reacted to the DS alert. NewsAndEventsGuy's post to SergeWoodzing/s page yesterday was in response to a ping, which turns out to have been from an IP. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the IP ping, which was concerning. NewsAndEventsGuy, are you active on Swedish Wikipedia? If so, can you post a link showing where SergeWoodzing is banned from there? That seems like relevant context. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP Ping is a random IP from out of the blue. What really happened is that en ed who has previously labeled me a bully over a content dispute went to SW's talk page and cast aspersions at me without notifying me that I was under discussion. But since I had the page watchlisted, I saw that. Full chronology of the lead up to todays drama is at top of my user subpage Sandbox5, if you want to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

request linkYger (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies I missed the ping. I still don't consider this a good response especially given it was coming so hot on the heels of the previous post. Really there was little justification for the 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC) comment. If NewsAndEventsGuy had wanted to post something, they should have just said, 'please don't discuss me here as I'm banned' although as I said it would be far preferable to simply approach that editor directly and leave SergeWoodzing's talk page the well alone. And I still don't get why NewsAndEventsGuy even saw MartiniShaw's comment.

But even if we forgive that unnecessary post, once the IP pinged it needed to stop. Again, the best course was simply to directly approach the IP. But if NewsAndEventsGuy really felt the need to comment on SergeWoodzing's talk page they really need to simply say 'please stop pinging or discussing me since I'm banned from here' or similar rather than their comment at 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC). And of course, whatever we say about the other comments, there is still the 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC) one. There was absolutely no need for that.

I do agree that SergeWoodzing seems to have overreacted, and in fact before I looked carefully at the time stamps I was going to say that I'm not willing to fault someone leaving a DS notice even if they'd been asked to stay away from another editor's talk page. But ultimately plenty of people banning someone from their talk page have likely overreacted. We still expect these to be followed within reason.

I mean at most, one post from NewsAndEventsGuy trying to explain themselves and suggesting SergeWoodzing had overreacted may be tolerated. Not 2 along with another 2 unnecessary posts just because you were pinged or mentioned. It's clear that SergeWoodzing wasn't getting the message, just getting more and more annoyed so that helped no one. Ultimately if SergeWoodzing refuses to accept help it's their funeral. I will equally give short shrift to someone who violates our policies or guidelines and tries to complain that people didn't explain the problems to them when they didn't let them.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jehochman: the main discussion was here.[72] His talk page where the block was placed is here.[73] One of the reasons was violation of their 'Etiquette" policy, which is similar to our WP:CIVIL. I note that it says that those violations "affected a wide range of other users, including those that are noticeably non-confrontational". I also see him accusing others of bullying. There were also accusations of socking and using IPs, but these weren't proven. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. @Jehochman: Thanks for asking, but I do not speak Swedish. However, when SergeWoozing came to the EngWikipedia, (s)he chose to edit the same content here. Naturally the controversy followed. Sample 2016 discussion It's long and it may have a happy ending overall but that story starts in fire and - the part I care about here - SergeWoozing told the ed who was reaching out "Please do not reply". I am drafting in my Sandbox5 if anyone wants to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In reference to "DR" as mentioned by this user above and elswehere for my benefit, I had no dispute with any editor at that time, so I felt the "DR" reference was moot at best and could be perceived it as bullying at worst. The part about a blocked editor did its part. I may have over-reacted, yes, and I'm sorry if so. I thought Dispute Resolution had to involve an actual dispute with someone.

Re: Swedish Wikipedia, it's an old and long and very unpleasant story which I would hope does not have to spill over into this page. If the fact that I am blocked elsewhere hinders me from complaining about what goes on on my talk page, that would be something I didn't think of. I had several detractors there and several supporters back then. I think everyone, including me, is content with the fact that I am no longer active there. Nothing even close to what was complained about there, whether rightly (as per my detractors) or wrongly (as per my supporters) has ever occurred here. It is beyond what I can comprehend that a long discussion about Prince Bernadotte, where things have been satisfactorily stable for quite some time, can be relevant to my complaint about disregard of my multiple requests not to post on my talk page. I "came to" English Wikipedia long before that discussion, and what I edit is what I can find reliable sources for on subjects where I might know how to find them. (I also remove unsourced material and revert quite a bit of spam and mischief.)

I do not intend to investigate the work of this user to try to find other things that might turn adminisrators against h. Several editors do not agree with h about the Thunberg article, but my complaint here is about my talk page, not the user's other work.

As noted above, there are many other ways to deal with what somenone might percieve as a personal dispute than posting repeatedly on someone's talk page where one has been asked to stay away. I admit I have asked a few users before to stay away in the past, since we got nowhere and I felt their entries on my talk page were more disconcerting than constructive. I though that was my right.

Can a user of long standing who has had a few animated discussions not procect h own talk page because of those discussions? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You do seem to have a tendency to tell people to stay away from your talk page a lot. This is rarely a good sign. While people should generally respect such requests, if you're refusing to accept help and refusing to take on board what people are telling you, it's likely to be your funeral.

If someone brings a case and demonstrates problematic behaviour on your part, it's going to be difficult to argue to give you another chance since you weren't properly warned or informed over the problems in your editing since you banned anyone who tried. I suggest you stop taking everything so personally.

And I just noticed your response to Domdeparis at 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC) which is incredibly confusing. Are you actually banning editors from your talk page or not? You cannot ban editors then simultaneously claim "I do not refuse to talk to you or anyone else here or anywhere about anything relevant". If you're banning editors then you are refusing.

You may be allowed to, within reason, although as said, this may also cause more grief for you then benefit if you're not accepting help. But whatever your choice, please own up to what you're doing and don't leave conflicting messages. Also, if you have banned anyone, remember that it's not acceptable to discuss them on your talk page or allow others to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep your advice in mind not to ask anyone to stay away from my talk page if it is obvious to me that they are trying to help Wikipedia. That is not the case here in total, I feel, after having looked at it all again with every measure of fairness and good faith I am able to muster.

I will also remove any discussion started on my talk page about anyone I have asked to stay away. I fully agree that nothing else would be appropriate.

For anyone interested in Swedish Wikipedia, as mentioned above, I probably should have added that there is no dispute resolution there, nothing that resembles third opinion assistance (which is very helpful), no arbitration and no rules against outing. On behalf of 4-5 of us who have been blocked there (after a lot of good work also having been done), I'd like to say that, as far as I've seen, we haven't found it possible to have our own views on article content and reliable sourcing judged in such constructive avenues as one can pursue - usually with great success - here. I have never expected to be right in every instance, only to be treated with the same respect and equinimity (having inherited a doube dose of quick temper from my father and my mother's mother) that I try very hard at the outset to use when dealing with everyone else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: SergeWoodzing isn't the only one to get harassed and bullied. User NewsAndEventsGuy threw unnecessary notices on my talk page too [74] even though I have done nothing wrong! This is a form of bullying and needs to stop. This user also unilaterally removed my comments from the Talk Page of Greta Thunberg, [75] which then I brought to the admin's attention [76]. The admins disagreed with the removal of my comments in Greta's Talk Page and soothed my worries and reassured me that I am not being persuaded.[77] I can't help but ignore this and let it go, however seeing that this incident wasn't limited only to me, but happened to other editors as well, made me come here and report my case as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

At least as far as the no-fault strictly FYI DS Alert template goes, I participated in the 2013/2014 discussion that intentionally de-fanged the prior "badge of shame" system with this no-fault/nothing-implied FYI alert system. SilentResident appears to be reacting as though we still did the "badge of shame" approach, even though it has moved to a FYI-only template for the last five years. At the time of the overhaul, I argued that the best way to de-stigmatize the system was to have a bot auto-deliver them to everyone in these hot topic areas. Instead I abundantly pass them out to many people manually, and to try to show they are FYI and not badge of shame I often issue them to myself. SilentResident is upset over specific actions at the article and talk page too. I still haven't tried to load those events in my brain and will try to do so soon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe editors need to be more discreet in throwing ARBMAC warnings around, especially when there were no actions to justify them. You threw an ARBMAC Warning at me for... what? And your actions to delete other people's comments in Greta's talk page found the admins disagreeing with. You really need stop throwing warnings at other editors/deleting their talk page comments. If you are incapable of seeing the wrong of your actions, no wonder why I am upset! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(A) Since you're not hearing me, someone else can explain the DS Alert to you

(B) You left out the key thread, where we already discussed your beef with me. Please correct this brief summary if you disagree.... The venue is the BLP of Greta Thunberg ("GT"), a minor. You cited a Greek-language source that someone else's company was greenwashing but apparently made no claim that GT herself was greenwashing. I pointed you to to the archived thread where page editors had exhaustively debated all this. Our discussion closed with your promise to review the archived thread. Since I heard nothing from you until today, I assumed the matter was resolved to your satisfaction. WP:ARBBLP#Decorum requires an assumption of good faith. Where I saw a BLP rumor violation and off topic comment about actions by a 3rd party, I can admit that others might not see it that way. So maybe it's kinda borderline, raising the question how we should interpret what I did? One approach is to ignore DECORUM, assume bad faith, and thump me for bullying. The better way, in line with DECORUM, would be for you to produce RSs that directly connect the minor-aged young woman to the greenwashing allegations you wanted to add to her BLP article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It may seem different to you than for others, and this only shows why it is just as bad to act like how you did! If you do believe a query isn't worth it or relevant to the article or its subjects, you can simply reply accordingly, right bellow their query, so that the editors can know and be given the chance to defend or make the necessary clarifications, and this will be appreciated. But if you do it the other way instead, i.e. by touching / removing others' queries from Talk Pages just like how you have done with mine, you will regret it. I don't want to sound harsh towards you, but your actions were very indimitating for me and have upset me, for which i have seen no apology at all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty simple.... If you got sources to comply with BLP, argue sources. If you lack such sources, demand apologies from the person who says so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

BOOMERANG request re: SergeWoodzing

SergeWoodzing will tell anyone who will listen that it wasn't his fault he was banned from the Swedish Wikipedia. Here at the English site, he has often expressed bitterness when admins don't behave as he thinks they should

...It does not pay off to start trouble oneself, because nobody cares who started the trouble or went way too far, no matter how obvious it is, when 2 users are having a nasty fight. Custom is to always find fault with whomever complains...[78]

Below I will document a WP:Competence is required basis for the community to limit his access to the dramaboards. This user approaches conflict with a persecution complex and inability take feedback.[79] But since he still has a clear block log, it might help if we try a small block first as a "wake up call".

User to be sanctioned SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User notified Being NOBAN'd I'm counting on him seeing this or someone else telling him

Authorization for DS WP:ARBBLP

DS Alert Issued here

One line summary User shits on DR offers and games the system to avoid review of his own acts

Procedural note

If this weren't already at ANI, I would submit this report at AE, but I'm hoping an admin will ignore the procedural venue and employ DS anyway. If that's not possible, then let's crunch this the usual ANI way

Requested sanction

For six months, SergeWoodzing is page-banned from Greta Thunberg, the BLP's of her immediate family, and pages related to Thunberg's climate change activism. This includes all talk pages and related discussions at any venue.

SW violates WP:ARBBLP#Decorum and WP:5P4
My story starts at Talk:Greta Thunberg, with a content dispute which produced the following chain of events

• 6:36 May 4 SergeWoodzing adds the BLP subject's middle names

Important details

8:06 May 4 Reverted by Wham2001 EditSum Middle names are unsourced, as far as I can see, both here and at SvWP 17:30 June 4 SergeWoodzing starts thread citing the "Swedish Tax Authority" 19:40 June 4 Wham2001 directs SergeWoodzing's attention to WP:PRIMARYCARE 09:00, June 20 In response to the discussion, SergeWoodzing spitefully deletes even the subject's first and last names from an infobox, saying that is not her full name 15:58 Aug 31 MartiniShaw asked ...What is the problem with including it [Thunberg's middle names] on here?" 17:39 Aug 31 NewsAndEventsGuy answered ..show us her full name is so "widely reported" as to overcome the spirit of the private personal information rule at WP:DOB... where the first sentence reads "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private." 20:30 Aug 31 MartiniShaw asks Under what rule is "regarding their full name as private" a bar to the inclusion of the full name on Wikipedia? 22:00 Aug 31 In a bit of WP:STONEWALLING SergeWoodzing's says No rule that I can find. When all one has to do is look at the Swedish article with her full name as supplied by the Swedish Tax Authority's published census.... 22:04 Aug 31 NewsAndEventsGuy points to his earlier reference to WP:DOB, shortcut for WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources

• 15:50 Sept 7 SergeWoodzing responds to me, by bolding his comment from 22:00 Aug 31. and making a personal attack in the EditSum

censorship going on here

• 15:57 Sept 7Seven minutes later, SergeWoodzing again violates WP:NPA saying

...The article has become an obvious embarrassment to Wikipedia, to anyone who wants us to create neutral articles and (as so heavily and obviously biased) to Ms. Thunberg herself. 2-3 editors working in sync own the article and remove anything that attempts to balance the promotional wholeness, and many of us have given up on such attempts.

This was obviously directed in part at me. Besides the timing I was one of two main editors in the prior month. Later he will try to WP:Game the system by claiming it wasn't a personal attack because he didn't utter my name.

• 11:34, September 9, 2019 NewsAndEventsGuy posted a DS Alert BLP notice to SergeWoodzing's talk
• 11:37, September 9, 2019 At article talk, NewsAndEventsGuy deleted SergeWoodzing's personal attack from Sept 7 (above)
• 11:42, September 9, 2019 At SergeWoodzing's talk, NewsAndEventsGuy tried to explain the NPA removal in a thread titled Assume good faith and focus on content
• 18:29, September 9, 2019 SergeWoodzing violates WP:ARBBLP#Decorum and WP:AGF and WP:5P4 by WP:casting aspersions of bullying back in my face saying

...Please do not try to bully me! Amd stay off this page...

• 18:37, September 9, 2019 I acknowledged his NOBAN request and on my way out the door I offered to do any kind of WP:Dispute resolution he might like to try (details of the content dispute are in the collapsed section above)

...if you think your RS-based article improvements have been wrongly kept out of the article, I will be glad to participate in any WP:Dispute resolution process you care would [sic] like to try

• 19:00, September 9, 2019 SergeWoodzing again spits on WP:ARBBLP#Decorum and WP:AGF by characterizing my offer to do DR as harassment and bullying

I perceive this unneccessary [sic] comment as harassment and continued attempted bullying. You have no power on this particular page. I repeat - 2nd request - please stay off this page! (bold in original)

• 20:01 Sept 10 In a stunning bit of WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:SANCTIONGAMING, SergeWoodzing pretends there is no content dispute and that offering to do dispute resolution is a bullying, contrived irrelevancy. Quoted in full -

What I "rebuffed" on my talk page was not anything that I could take, in good faith, as a serious constructive offer or suggestion. Surprised that the user would feel licensed to do so, I took it as attempted bullying, not earnestly in the interest of improving this article. I had no dispute of any kind with that user until h/s showed up on my talk, so the "DR" angle, to me, is contrived and irrelevant, here and on that page.

• 20:30 Sept 10 I asked him to either complain at AE or produce sources to comply with BLP, and described the value of Dispute resolution

...if you have RS-s for your desired changes it shouldn't get that far, because I am willing to participate in any of the DR options you invoke...

• 21:38 Sept 10 SergeWoodzing Employs more WP:Gaming the system tactics

Again, I have complained about nobody by name but only about the content of this article as I perceive it and why I perceive it has become so embarrassing as an unbalanced whole. I have never had any personal interaction with you until you wrote 3 times on my talk page. One of the things you wrote was about focusing on content not on any contributor, which, to me, means any individual contributor by name. That's exactly what I think we should do (often having cited WP:TPYES myself over the years). You are now free to do that, by ceasing to personalize this discussion to engage any particular individuals.

• WP:GASLIGHTING - SergeWoodzing pretends

• I was not one of the many eds who reverted text he wanted to be in the article, Thunberg's middle names
• We had not interacted at article talk, where he accused me of censorship and seven minutes later lobbed a personal attack

• WP:PLAYPOLICY - SergeWoodzing falsely claims that trashing editors without uttering their name is a civil thing to do. Note that our WP:NPA policy says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (italics in original)
• "Borderlining" - SergeWoodzing attacks in this manner hoping the community views his acts as a low-grade policy breach, so his targets will have a hard time actually proving misconduct.

• 14:35 Sept 30 (diff unavailable) He is also gaslighting right here at ANI, trying to pretend he didn't shit on an offer to DR over using Thunberg's middle names

..I had no dispute with any editor at that time, so I felt the "DR" reference was moot at best and could be perceived it as bullying at worst...

The content issue is both trivial giving level headed admins a reason to be sad that we're here, and a serious bit of respect under BLP privacy. The BIG issue is SW's devastatingly hostile response to an offer to do DR, and his attempts to escape culpability by - once again - pretending he's not the problem.

Unrelated but telling BLP warning at same venue and SW challenges the admin
07:52 Sept 22 Admin Cullen328 issues a BLP warning to SergeWoodzing 14:00-16:00 Sept 22 full thread SergeWoodzing challenges Admin Cullen328 in thread title "Threat you made" ...Please don't threaten other users like that with unclear aspersions bordering on a personal attack...

Events of Sept 29

My housekeeping edits on Sept 29 that started today's events.

On Sept 29, I manually archived one thread from article talk and copied some its contents to the active thread on the same subject. This was merely a bit of housekeeping consistent with WP:MULTI. The opening post raised two issues, one of which was resolved. The other issue was already under discussion in a prior thread. The two-part housekeeping involved material FromTalk and moved to ToArchive3 In the FromTalk diff above I copied the part about the middle name to the main thread about that issue, so those remarks were not simply shipped off to archive land but they were copied, per WP:MULTI, to where they could most efficiently contribute to the consensus process. After I did that, this is what happened.... Importantly the only one to complain was MartiniShaw, as explained below, who later said "OK"

• For 19 days I observed NOBAN.
• Then a third party who didn't understand my housekeeping work flamed me by name at SW's talk I and I wrote about 30 words addressed to the third party under their comment, per WP:MULTI.
• And per MULTI I later wrote about 10 words to an IP who pinged me
• 11:07, September 30, 2019 SergeWoodzing violates WP:ARBBLP#Decorum exploding

...This is my third request: stay off this page! You are not welcome here under any circumstances, especially not to start arguments with me or anyone else. Defend yourself and your actions elsewhere, not here! If you reply to this, or ever write anything here again, I will report you. (bold in original)

• 11:10, September 30, 2019 SergeWoodzing posts on my page. He had previously been told that would invite a reply despite a NOBAN.[80]
• 11:31, September 30, 2019 Frustrated, but not wanting to run to the drama boards, I acknowledged SergeWoodzing could attempt to have me sanctioned if he really thought it was necessary. I just couldn't believe any editor in his situation would risk a BOOMERANG, and I compounded my own error stupidly thinking putting the remark on his page was the right procedure.[81]. Looking back, I wish I had just reported him to AE.

And so, after utterly trashing my offer of dispute resolution, he pretends there is no underlying content dispute so can play the NOBAN victim, in defiance of everything WP:ARBBLP#Decorum stands for.

--- What's policy say? ---

• WP:NOBAN (stay off my talk page) is a guideline
• WP:MULTI (keep discussion in one place) is a guideline
• WP:ARBBLP#Decorum is a commandment from on high.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

SergeWoodzing has been neither "reasonable" nor "calm" nor exhibiting a "collaborative outlook" - In the first couple Sept 29 remarks I wasn't talking to him but still he freaks; he castigates my offer to do DR without any sign of a "collaborative outlook". He's gaming the system by pretending there's no content dispute, pretending we had not interacted before I posted on his talk page, pretending to be the aggrieved party although making personal attacks, and wikilawyering to undermine our policies of trust and community. If you're not in conflict with the guy, he's really nice. But heaven help you if he lacks the RSs for his desired article text and you dare to say so!

Moving forward, while I don't know anything about SergeWoodzing's ban from the Swedish Wiki, here there seems to be a bit of a WP:CIR problem and definitely a violation of the Arb's BLP ruling on these pages. Before talking about more complex restricitons, let's try a 6 month ban from the closely related pages as defined at the top of this boomerang request.

But wait... maybe you're wondering if it's just me?

SW regularly slams NOBAN door in others' faces

In habitual defiance of WP:5P4, SergeWoodzing has slammed his talk page door in the face of many editors, showing he lacks the ability to work through conflict in a calm and civil manner that seeks to collaborate even when other editors have reasons to disagree with his desired edits. Editor 1 ...do not use my talk page... Editor 2 ...You are no longer welcome here on my talk page. For any reason. Ever. Please... Editor 3 ...You are not welcome on my talk page, so stay off it please! Especially when you are running the errands of someone else... Editor 4 I am warning you one last time: stay off my talk page!... Editor 5 ...Your advice is of no interest to me here and is unwanted... Please stay off my talk page! Editor 6 I would appreciate not having that user on my talk page at all, neither in mentions by other users or in her own additions to it... Editor 7 Stay off my talk page - this is the third time I have asked you to! This ed was trying to teach SW about WP:NLT in relation to SW's use of the word "slander". When the other finally resorted to ANI and posted the required ANI template, SW gamed the system by raging at the aggrieved party ...Vindictive and frivolous posting. Just an excuse to post here again... Editor 8 ...If that's all this has become, please stop and go away! Editor 9 ...Don't come here to try to police me, after what you've done! Editor 10 ...cannot for the life of me figure out what your agenda is on this page, unless it's just to try to pick a fight. Editor 11 Feeling your oats, (Editor 11)? ... Stay off this page with any and all threats, please! Editor 12 ... please stay away from this page. You are no longer welcome here. Editor 13 ...Because of your condescending, presumptuous and provocative behavior here, you are not welcome on this talk page SW was challenged over possible COI related to ......Jacob (import paragraph from last section) Editor 14 ...Please do not reply! (bold in original) Editor 15 I asked you not to come here and accuse me... of such things as "a breach of the Wikipedia etiquette".... SW pretends user talk is not designed for working out conduct issues without the drama boards' involvement Editor 16 ...for the 10th time stay off my talk page! Editor 17 ... You do have a reason to apologize ... If you mainly want to argue, go away! Here, SW is gaming the system by pretending policy forbids seeking consensus by making article edits, even when a discussion is underway

A frequent-flier at ANI, SW is usually told he's some if not all of the problem

SergeWoodzing's track record at the dramaboards is dominated by others telling him that he is the problem. Examples of such cases include A whole series of cases he filed with respect to a single editor.[82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. Ironically, in the second case one commenter said "I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem...." Despite many people telling him that his complaint lacks merit and/or that he is the problem, SergeWoodzing's wraps up the last case ends with a final bitter WP:IDHT Since it seems obvious not one administrator is interested in trying to help with this, and since it only has led to more heartache, I am getting real and withdrawing anything that needs attention. I do that very sadly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Ten days later SW finally agrees to a voluntary no fault 1-way 6 month interaction ban. The ban allows him to seek input from an admin, which he does. Just 12 days into the IBan the admin advises SW to just assume good faith and SW lashes out at the admin most colorfully and by 6 weeks into the IBan the admin had to tell him his constant drumbeat at the admins page might start to look like harassment of the other party. In other cases.... 2011, filed by SW and he complains that when he files his own behavior is examined 2012, filed about SW and he resists the idea that complaining about "slander" violates WP:NLT 2013, filed by a 3rd party and mutliple eds say SW is the problem 2014 filed by SW, both eds warned 2015, filed by SW but goes nowhere and SW flames an admin 2015, filed by SW and again told he is the problem 2015, file by SW and he is told its just a content dispute 2016, filed by SW. The other ed gets a warning, and an admin tells SW he's blown it way out proportion. SW fires off the last word bitterly complaining at the lack of relief. 2016 SW reports 4 eds to 3RR, gets a BOOMERANG warning 2017 SW complains but is told it's a content dispute and as it turns out a few days later SW admitted he had not disclosed a COI regarding Jacob Truedson Demitz a BLP which was removed at AFD. 2018 SW files, told the dramaboards are a last resot and it was too minor and premature for ANI (although the other ed did apologize) 2018 filed by SW and gets told he is part of the problem

It seems crystal-clear there is a WP:CIR challenge with this ed when anyone dares offer criticism. Prior to anything more complicated, let's try a discretionary sanction under ARBBLP, giving him a 6-month ban him from a small set of articles as described at the top of this request.

usertalk protection request re 86.187.231.123

Ordinarily I'd ask for protection at the usual place, but since admins here may look at my talk page before protection is granted, I'm asking here... My user talk is under atttack from 86.187.231.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Notice the "cabal" tread at Talk:Greta Thunberg also. help please? Apologies for this unconventional protection request. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have protected for 12 hours...please ping me when it keeps on coming, although I also have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Aspersions by Jamie Tubers at User talk:Haylad

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at the behavior of User:Jamie Tubers at User talk:Haylad? He is casting aspersions at various administrators, saying that they are part of a cabal dedicated to punishing and keeping a user blocked. When I asked him to confirm whether he was accusing me of being part of this cabal, he said "I wasn't accusing you in particular. But yea, I see signs of some group revenge action ..." So, apparently, I'm not being accused "in particular", but, yes, there's evidence. Simply because I asked a user a question politely and thanked him for his answer. Someone then pinged me at the talk page, asking me to return to the conversation and review the unblock request. I asked people to stop pinging me from that page and declined to get further involved the drama. In response, Jamie Tubers pinged me again, and doubled down on the bad faith accusations of a cabal. Can someone please block Jamie Tubers or at least give him a one-way interaction ban against me? I don't want to deal with this person. I am a volunteer, and I don't like the idea of being browbeaten into responding to an unblock request. If I think a disruptive editor is making my life difficult, I shouldn't have to deal with repeated demands from that person that I take an admin action. This is in addition to the clear personal attacks that Jamie Tubers is making against TonyBallioni and Huon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the cabal also supposedly includes TheSandDoctor and Ponyo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering that yesterday I was told I was incompetent and told to hand in the mop & resign, I consider editors complaining about admins to be an unfortunate part of the job. Unless he is coming to your user talk page, I think you should just take Haylad's talk page off your watchlist, if it was on yours. Log off and do something enjoyable for the rest of the day/night. Let someone else review that unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The page is not on my watchlist. That's the whole point. I can't do what you said, because people are pinging me from that page and demanding that I return to it! And, yes, it has started to spill over into my user talk page, though that request is very polite and reasonable. So, no, I can't just ignore this drama. It is following me around on Wikipedia, and I'm getting pinged by random people when I try to ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Treating it as “just part of the job” is the reason people think it’s acceptable and why we have so many admins who either burn out or completely stay away from the difficult areas where they are needed most. This conduct was unacceptable, especially from a member of the Ombudsman Commission, who should know better. I’m not sure if a block is needed now, but at the very least he should be given a formal warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I was the blocking admin. I believe that it was a "good" block within policy, however, I will support an uninvolved administrator's judgement of this case. I cannot review it myself as I consider myself involved and am apparently part of the "cartel" supposedly conspiring against this user, as it was stated/by implication. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  I suppose the unblock cartel cabal is one of those double-secret things we don't talk about. Anyway, I've expressed an intention on the talk page to independently review the unblock request. Hopefully this will reduce the pings, or at least redirect them to me, hopefully negating any need for any other actions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm obviously involved, but Jamie Tubers' behaviour on that page is beyond the pale. Pinging someone right after they asked not to be pinged on that page is harassment, and Jamie Tubers should know better. That's not even taking into account all the other WP:NPA violations. I'm of a mind that we should treat those just like other violations of policy instead of arguing that there are policies that just aren't worth enforcing if it's an experienced editor breaking them. Would we be similarly lenient if we had an experienced editor who would every now and then violate WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP in the same way? Huon (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• IMO pinging someone when they've told you to stop is not that different from coming to someone's talk page when they've asked you to stay away. Jamie Tubers really needs to cut that out and if they don't we can force them to by blocking. While editors can turn off notifications, they shouldn't have to just because someone refuses to stop pinging when they've been asked not to. (Note that I treat pinging different from simply mentioning someone since that can get complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Should clarify that I'm not saying the rants were okay but I also agree with Liz that regardless of whether we should, we tend to accept some minor abuse and rants over administrators and so it's less clear whether this has clearly crossed that line. One additional factor here is that I think it's clear Jamie Tubers' actions are harming not helping Haylad. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That Haylad was unhappy about the block and the talk page conversation is indeed expected, and I haven't complained that he describes me in such terms as "unjust" or "unfair" or accuses me of systematic bias against African editors (based on no evidence whatsoever, of course). That is the kind of daily abuse that comes with being an administrator. Jamie Tubers doesn't have that excuse, and the last time I checked, WP:NPA doesn't have an exception that says admins are fair game. Huon (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, I haven't made any personal attacks at you. That is very obvious from my interactions with you. Second of all, your exact phrase on the talk page was: "I'm not really interested in answering pings on this talk page any more". I have no idea how that translates to "No one should ping me anymore". With that said, I actually pinged you to reply you, simply because you DIRECTLY accused me of influencing your actions, and I had to respond to that. Seriously, I am not interested in having to deal with you either. Canvassing for me to get blocked because I responded to your accusations is a reach....and if admins here actually obliged you... Oh well... I wouldn't be exactly surprised. That would make me the next victim, hey.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to have a decent understanding of English and are also a highly experienced wikipedian. So I don't see how you can fail to interpret "I'm not really interested in answering pings on this talk page any more" as having the clear implication "do not ping me on this talk page any more". Replying to someone is complicated, and by itself I'm not willing to fault you on that but there was absolutely zero reason to ping someone who had said they did not want to receive pings/did not want to answers ping. Also AFAICT, no one has explicitly said you made personal attacks against NinjaRobotPirate although you did make that questionable "wasn't accusing you in particular. But" comment. People have said you made personal attacks against Huon and TonyBallioni. We can deal with multiple different actions by you against different users here. There's no reason why they need to be restricted to your actions against one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are actually many varieties of English across the world. Where I come from; when people express that they are not interested in answering calls, it means that they want to snub other people from their own end (i.e literally not responding to the calls). It's not considered a request for other people to stop making calls to them.. But then again; it's also ironic to tell someone not to ping you, but you then lay accusations on them in the same sentence.

I didn't make personal attacks on those admins either. I made observations on the way they handled the case. If I found behaviours of admins to be questionable, I am allowed to state it and of course back it up with reasons. I did exactly that on the block talkpage. These admins never gave reasons to why they continually shifted goalposts of the Block reasons (most of which were actually unfounded). And all of that drama happened just because a user created a page which got speedily deleted....and then the user was bold enough to ask for Deletion review and got the deletion overturned. Lo and behold....the admins decided to open a full SPI case on the user and blocked him! - wrongly! If this series of actions were done by regular editors, it would pass as stalking.

I have seen too many cases of administrators behaving this way and it doesn't help the encyclopaedia! Most especially, when you do it to new editors. I dare say, if I wasn't involved in the discussion, these admins would only wear out the user and not unblock him at the end of the day. I have seen this play out over and over. The admins just assume the worst faith (as they tried to do on the Haylad issue), without any concrete evidence.. So, miss me with "Your involvement wasn't helpful". Before I got involved, They declined his unblock request TWICE! He didn't say anything new on the third unblock request, which got him unblocked....*after my involvement*. So.......yea. I can only hope that User:Haylad is not being closely monitored to be trapped into another block. Because, well....it often plays out this way.

We wonder why the number of active editors keeps dropping on Wikipedia, but we don't see that we do have a group of overtly sensitive administrators who do not want their authorities questioned....but ironically feel it is pretty cool to block people without basis, and even when the user tries his best to prove his innocence, they just keep coming up with other petty accusations, instead of just accepting they made an initial wrong judgement and even apologise for it.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: You have had your say. Please do not contact or ping NinjaRobotPirate again in relation to this matter, and stop referring to them. Continuing after the issue has been aired at ANI would indicate a determination to attack another editor, and that may very well lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• I never contacted them. A ping will obviously will not happen again, since they've made their actual request clear on this ANI. I'm not sure what you mean by "stop referring to them", but while this case is still open, there might be valid reasons to refer to them within the context of this issue. So that might not work out.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Bodo people

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.

---

Between User:2402:3A80:DE4:2F2B:45D9:8249:EE0D:25DF, User:Bhaskarbhagawati, and User:PerfectingNEI. I can not trust any of them. Flix11 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Flix11, you have trust issues, got it. What are you specifically asking for here? --Malerooster (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear sir Flix11, You don't need to trust me. But some factual data are being erased by Bhaskarbhagawati & He is adding only his version of Story. I felt I should report it, so I did. Thanks. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC) That IP edits were done by my junior. I asked him to add these things. I don't edit Wikipedia because of people like bhaskarbhagawati. Kindly block everyone. Alteast block the disruptive editor bhaskarbhagawati. Byee PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:35, 4 October 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.

Seeds of Destruction

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.

---

The article Seeds of Destruction (book) was clearly created with the purpose of promoting conspiracy claptrap. My attempt to clean it up Special:Diff/919045204 was for some reason undone. 188.133.155.110 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi 188.133.155.110 - while it very well may be a pseudohistory/CT tome, your cleanup attempt involved the sudden deletion of half the article. It would be better to first discuss sweeping edits like this on the Talk page. Also your revised version veered heavily into WP:OR through unsourced value statements like "As typical of sensationalist conspiracy writers ...". While "XYZ" may, in fact, be typical of sensationalist conspiracy writers it's impossible to assert that without at least one WP:RS. You also added that the author of the book "uses quote mining to create false quotes". Again, you need reliable sources that state the author uses quote mining to create false quotes. In this case you independently arrived at this conclusion by comparing the quotes scribed by the author against the original text of the quotes and noted a variance, attributing the difference to the author engaging in quote mining. While this might be a valid conclusion to make, it runs afoul of our policy against original research. You may want to check in at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for tips on how to correctly cleanup articles that are potentially "promoting conspiracy claptrap". Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There may be a more fundamental issue here. As originally created (by User:Forest90), the 'reception' section contained supposed quotations in broken English which appear from the sources I have been able to check to be mangled paraphrasing at best, if not entirely fictitious. 19:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B701:A101:3916:883D:C51:1715 (talk)

Editor: when you start a discussion about another editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Simply pinging them is insufficient. Also, include diffs demonstrating the problem instead of posting unevidenced declarations. These, and other important instructions for posting at ANI, are contained in the box at the top of this page. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't start this discussion, I commented on it. As for 'diffs', I'd have thought it was simple enough for anyone looking at the article history to figure out what the problem was. Still, if this sort of 'please fulfil all bureaucratic procedures before commenting' response is the norm for this noticeboard, I'll not bother commenting again, and leave the issues which actually matter to an encyclopaedia (like not making quotes up) for someone else to raise here... 86.143.228.87 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi 86.143.228.87. First, please accept my apology for misidentifying your IP address with that of the original IP editor. Second, thank you for your patience and understanding. Chetsford (talk) 03:39, 3 October 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 to protect articles regarding Peruvian politics

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.

---

Due to the ongoing dispute on 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis, please extended-protect the said article, President of Peru, Vice President of Peru, Martín Vizcarra, and Mercedes Aráoz. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please make this request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Fish+Karate 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Flix11:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:51, 2 October 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 PAs, ASPERSIONS, homophobic rants and BLPTALK violations by Xx236

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.

---

BLPTALK violations

• (On historian Jan Grabowski) "Awardwining lies are still lies." [90]
• (On Grabowski) "If Grabowski cheats, his supporters have a big problem."[91]
• (On Grabowski and the USHMM) "anti-Polish sources and the Nazis [agree]."[92]
• (On Grabowski) "Grabowski misquotes Datner and doesn't have any idea about numbers."[93]
• (On sociologist and historian Jan T. Gross) "Some lies are obvious... JT Gross refuses to correct his errors, legal way is needed."[94]
• (On SUNY Albany philosopher Berel Lang) "I want competent historians rather than propagnada writers."[95]
• (On USHMM historian Edna Friedberg) "All Americans lack knowledge about Europe and the writer seems to be a perfect American ignorant."[96]
• (On sociologist Rafał Pankowski) "Center for Research on Prejudice are professional anti-anti-Semites... Rafał Pankowski (a leading expert in creating virtual reality."[97]
• (On anthropologist Joanna Tokarska-Bakir) "Tokarska-Bakir has some ethical problems."[98]
• (On Unistra researcher Valentin Behr) "Behr is an obsessional IPN enemy. He belongs to Western left, which wants to indoctrinate Polish people."[99]
• (On multiple media outlets) "Haaretz, Jerusakem Post, JTA frequently publish lies... [they're] propaganda."[100]

Unfounded PAs and ASPERSIONS

• "Icwhiz, you are extremely biased. I'm not sure if biased editors should decide about this Wikipedia content."[101]
• "Icewhiz, you don't have any idea about Poland... You are biased like hell."[102]
• "The man defends himself and Icewhiz supports the aggressor and probable liar."[103]
• "Poor [Holocaust Research Center], with friends like Icewhiz they will loose."[104]
• "The mafia lead by Icewhiz rewrites history of the Holocaust transferring responsibility from Germany and Austria (and their smaller allies) to Poland"[105]
• "You participate in anti-Polish campaingn promoting anti-government activists, unable to accept democracy in Poland."[106]
• "The ideology of Icewhiz is to attack the Poles, the Catholics." [The ideology of Icewhiz is to attack the Poles, the Catholics]
• "Icewhiz is revisionistic himself, he transfers German Nazi responsiblity to Polish peasants."[107]
• "You aren't human, probebly a bot."[108]
• "[a] revisionistic project by Icewhiz and FR. They transfer responsibility for the Holocaust from Nazi Germany to Polish people... Any subject is good to dehumnaize Polish people."[109]
• "anti-Polish hate speaker Icewhiz."[110]
• "Icwhiz haqs fought a war against Poland."[111]
• "the anti-Polish campaign by Icewhiz."[112]
• "Icewhiz, you have proven you don't have any idea about basic maths, please use emotional propaganda but don't try numbers and other mathematical ideas (growing). It's probably too late to learn maths."[113]
• "Icewhiz, quoting such extremely biased text is shooting in your own foot. It's a shame to be so dumb to write such trash and to quote such trash."[114]
• "The truth isn't important according to you. Your bias should win."[115]
• "a masterpiece of hypocrisy by FR. FR has bashed Polish history, culture and POlish editors now he asks - why is the world so cruel?"[116]
• "You have attacked Polish people now you care about racism. What you do is anti-Polonism symmetric to anti-Semitism... You are so indoctrinated you are unable to understand yourself. Probably only a psychoanalisis would allow you to understand yourself."[117]

Homophobic rants

• "LGBT is an ideology in Poland... The alleged LGBT community is a perhaps 1000 activis community.. The community is leftist, anti-government. The same people organize anti-governmeny... LGBT manifestations travelling around country."[118]
• "The march was organised by foreigners... LGBT activists came from Polish cities. They travel around Poland, so there is no one Day of Pride."[119]

Past warnings

They've been repeatedly asked to stop both on article talk pages[120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128] and on their own[129][130][131][132] as early as 2008,[133] and were T-banned from articles related to the Soviet Union two years ago.[134]

The matter has been brought to the attention of ARBCOM by five different editors,[135][136][137][138][139][140] but it chose not to comment. I trust the community will react differently. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the direct impetus behind bringing this here now, François Robere? While I await an answer to that, I will say that I have been noting Xx236's edits with increasing concern. A topic ban from Poland and EE (including BLPs) would be effectively like a siteban, since I'm not sure their focus goes much beyond those areas. El_C 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

a) The last two PAs, dating to today; b) I've waited three months to see if ARBCOM would engage on this; now the case is closed,[141] and they haven't. François Robere (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly be tempted to include LGBTQ+ articles; whilst it is unsurprising that someone defending one of the most homophobic countries in Europe should produce homophobic edits themselves, it is certainly something we could do without. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Many comments do look highly problematic and could be a reason for sanctions. However, some of them are not new. Others are criticism of a user who just has been sanctioned by Abcom, so perhaps some of the criticism was not unreasonable? I would suggest to bring this complaint to WP:AE. Then it will be handled a lot more efficiently than here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Block and proposals

I issued a 31h NPA block for this and this, as a starting point.

Proposals

1. IBAN with François Robere (two-way, probably)
2. TBAN from Poland broadly construed
3. Escalating blocks for continued personal attacks

I would support all three and invite others to discuss or add. Guy (help!) 21:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – A lot of NPAs are against Icewhiz, so there's another potential IBAN. I'm not seeing reciprocal diffs that would suggest to me the IBANs should be two way rather than one way. A broader point: in light of potentially two IBANs and three TBANs, are there constructive contributions that justify having this much sanction overhead? I'd be curious to hear Xx236's response to all of this (albeit copied from their talk page). – Levivich 22:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Xx236 is somewhat an odditity from older days of Wikipedia. He almost never edits articles and has been commenting for years.From what I gather ed he is a very, very elderly user who easily gets winded up by others and has little clue on how Wikipedia works.He didn't receive a ban before, and not all what FR shows is correct or insulting(although some edits are).I would say one month ban from topics on Poland should be sufficient for him to cool off, topic banning him indefintely perhaps is too early, give him a second chance-in many topics he offers point of view not known to western users and IIRC pointed out some fundamental errors like photos from Holocaust being wrongly describred.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UT:C)

I'm not enjoying this, I just had enough with attacks on my integrity, other editors' and BLPs'. It's been going on all year and we've all been patient enough. François Robere (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Re "He almost never edits articles and has been commenting for years", this same observation was made here at ANI, in a thread about Xx236's Polish-related editing, eleven years ago [142]. Xtools backs that up. Re "He didn't receive a ban before", he's received two. Ten years ago, Xx236 was TBANed from "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" [143] (a violation of that TBAN resulted in a short block [144]). Another TBAN, from Poland, was proposed in 2016, but NACed by an editor who commented in the discussion after it had been open for two hours [145]. In 2017, Xx236 was topic banned from Soviet Union [146] [147]. – Levivich 23:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support all three of Guy's proposals above. The description of Xx236 by MoMoloboaccount accords with my experiences with them, but I disagree about a one month ban being sufficient to provoke any kind of change. There is absolutely no indication that Xx236 will ever change, or will suddenly understand how Wikipedia works. In my opinion, what you see is what we will always get from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the IBAN being one way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Xx236 is already topic banned from Soviet Union: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#User:Xx236's disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles (2017). Extending this to Poland (or Eastern Europe) makes sense. Many of their edits are disruptions of Talk pages targeting BLP subjects and other editors, along with off-topic rants. Multiple suggestions on Xx236’s Talk page to modify their behaviour have had no effect. Here are my attempts:
  • User talk:Xx236/Archive 5#WP:NPA. Xx236’s diff I included was this: [Editor] insults 99% of Holocaust victims ignoring them and selecting the one percent of victims (including the indirect ones) of Poles. He transfers responsiblity from Germans and Austrians to Polish peasants, which is Holocaust revisionism. [148].
  • User talk:Xx236/Archive 5#Ewa Kurek Talk page; related diff: the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system [149].

I support the proposals with the exception of the 2-way Iban; there’s no indication that FR has behaved inappropriately towards Xx236. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I was surprised that ArbCom only kept two parties to the case and there were no FoFs about anyone else, especially Xx236. Though in a way this is pot calling kettle black, since François Robere has himself been warned and blocked for personal attacks in the Poland/antisemitism topic area. But FR is not incorrect about Xx236, who always doesn't even seem to bother to pretend he's interested in civil discussion. Pudeo (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three I have found them to be a problem, and have been on the receiving end of their attitude. They have a massively battleground and POV pushing mentality, without (I think) really adding anything beyond confrontation. I have also found them self contradictory even objecting to material they have added.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: Just out of curiosity - why 31h? François Robere (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's generally a pretty standard cool-down block for NPA from what I've seen elsewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Default for someone with no significant block history. 31h, and escalating for repeat infringement, seems right. Though I have to say his low mainspace count did tempt me to WP:NOTHERE him. But, you know, he's been around long enough to earn WP:ROPE. Guy (help!) 21:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• @François Robere: Oldies have passed this tradition down verbally, the reason being that a block for 24 hours results in them coming back online at approximately the same time, so a +7 hours functions as a good reset. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support all three though we should also start thinking about what our threshold is for an outright site ban; after many years, it's starting to wear thin. As noted, these sorts of limited bans have been used for this user before. It hardly encouraged good behavior. --Jayron32 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three, except for the IBAN being 2-way, since the PAs are going one way. - DoubleCross (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three w/one-way IBAN. I would probably support a siteban in light of comments like this from two days ago: "Now some people want to transfer African or Asian people to Polish towns or villages, if it is not racist reeducation of poor Poles, what is it?" (It's called "immigration," Xx236.) – Levivich 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three, and I would support a site-ban if proposed (I would like to do more research before proposing it myself). This behavior is way out of line. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Qualifying: I would prefer a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN, but I would prefer a two-way IBAN to none at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support with one-way I-ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN on Polish and Soviet-related articles, on LGBTQ-related articles, and a ban on personal attacks. After looking at these diffs and at the previous case [150] brought by Midnightblueowl, this is long overdue. -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three, although I only see a basis for the one-way contact ban at present. It is very clear that Xx236 knows perfectly well that they are editing inappropriately; they've been warned again and again and again. I'd even argue that there's a case for an even firmer measure, such as a total edit ban. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three . Good grief.-- Deepfriedokra 09:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 (two-way) and #3, but not #2 because I saw this contributor contributing constructively in some discussions. Lately, his behavior deteriorated, but I think #1 and #3 are sufficient. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three, but with 1 way IBAN. No one has provided evidence of Francois Robere insulting Xx236.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of slander [[151]], this seems to me to indicate a two way is indeed valid.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The accusation of "slander" is substantiated by the list of BPL violations in this ANI complaint. It would be better not to use this legal term though, I agree.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It still has no place on an articles talk page, as policy makes clear you do not dismiss a user views due to perceived bias, or any other reason. The tone (and no it is not isolated) was hardly helpful or likely to defuse tension.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That accusation of slander happened seven days after this proposal was made, and six days after you voted for the two-way. So what was your vote for the two-way based on? – Levivich 03:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As I have said many time, I do not support 1 way IBANS, and I think (in this case) an IBAN is not a bad idea, hence I support a 2 way IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support all three with one-way IBAN. SarahSV ^(talk) 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If anyone would like to try and explain to him the seriousness of this discussion...[152] François Robere (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support all three proposals and agree about the two-way Iban with François Robere, because the asperity there seems mutual (I neither know nor care "who started it").--loupgarous (talk) 05:22, 5 October 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.

Is a user allowed to use the re-tired tag if not Retired?

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.

---

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 stumbled upon a user after doing some reading regarding Israeli Military Units. User Number 57 recommended I post here. User:Nishidani User talk:Nishidani IsraeliIdan (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Vexatious niggling per the user's handle and the fact I came back to fix two pages (Racism in the Palestinian territories,Afro-Palestinians after noting they were being abused by inane POV-pushing). Failure to note the puns used on those pages cited in the query is understandable. Unfamiliarity with English usage can be remedied by studying the following average remark about retirement in an academic profession. I.e.Steven G. Krantz, The Survival of a Mathematician: From Tenure-track to Emeritus, American Mathematical Society, 2009 p.231. The plaintiff should be advised to concentrate on editing Wikipedia, and not wasting people's time by nano-nugatory pettiness.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 4 October 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.

Regardless of the claimed puns, the banner on both the user page and talk page state "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." which is clearly untrue.

However, attacking the OP based on assumptions made because of their nationality (whilst I find Zvikorn extremely annoying, I have not seen any evidence of POV issues) and WP:SOAPBOXING like this are more concerning. Number 57 19:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Soapboxing is, of course, ill-advised. But I don't think there's anything that mandates a user to follow through or accurately represent their retirement tag — though, of course, WP:TIRED would be better since there is a picture of a cat involved. El_C 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Number 57, I agree with what you've said and he has been warned about his behavior in the past. As for the template, I told him about that before and his suggestion was to change it from retired to re-tired, but this is what the template page itself says: Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing., among other instructions, it is a little deceptive, since it hides the user from discussions since people coming to the page may not necessarily continue on with a conversation, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Perhaps it is best they customize the tag not to read This user is no longer active on Wikipedia. El_C 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't do that. You can customize why you're no longer active, but the message is part of the template. There is a semi-retired template that is available to use if one choose to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

YOu have an American flag wavering on your page, SJ. I don't complain of what could arguably be challenged as violating WP:SOAP. So what's your problem?

So we are now grinding down to the minutiae of how to destroy even the most picayune suggestion that an editor may use irony, be playful, use puns, in using a template. To all effects

I am re-tired (tired once more), re-tyred (overhauled for more dreary wiki roadwork, and retired which, as the obvious text I cited shows, in English, does not mean that one cannot return on occasion to pitch in and work at a place one was formerly employed or laboured in. I retired academic can give lectures during his retirement and no one would be stupid enough to have their hackles raised and talk of the inappropriateness. I no longer care to edit Wikipedia and am retired. I retain a right to come back briefly, as I perceive a need, and edit for a day or two every now and then.

Anyone can, with a will, master the intricately Byzantine dicta' of wiki precedent, tradition and law to make anyone's wikilife difficult. What's the point? Is my need for playfulness as a small anodyne in a stressful commitment to actually writing content in one of the so-called ultra-toxic areas of Wikipedia, where so many niggle and only a handful labour in the field, to be made an issue of because of some freaking concern that, a slight jocose dissonance undermines the order of the encyclopedia. C'mon!!! SJ has argued endlessly at AE and ANI that I be forcefully retired, so his point is understandable. Number 57, an editor I gather who dislikes my work here, but whom I respect as a highly productive, accurate and invaluable contributor, is wrong to flourish [WP:SOAP]] to characterize an empirical, accurate statement: To that Border Police shoot Palestinians is to refer to something that happens with weekly regularity, a fact duly attested by every neutral party toting up the toll, and cannot be construed as violating the principle that 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.' Soapboxing in standard English usage refers to haranguing, with bludgeoning insistence, a passive audience. Gentleman, we have better things to do than to (adopting a brilliant phrase from an otherwise despicable anti-Semite) frenetiser l'insignifiance. If you insist that my playfulness must suffer correction, I of course will fuck off permanently. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 4 October 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.

There is constant NPOV and agenda issues stemming from people who are not competent to be involved in the discussion of Ash Barty's heritage.

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.

---

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

In this edit {User|WWGB}} continues to engage in edit warring over Ashleigh Barty who is a self-identified Indigenous Australian Upon starting their incompetence to edit in this domain and to stick to the neutral term (in this case, indigenous) they have continued to revert edits including my good faith edit and several other difs reminding them that the correct term is indigenous.

There is also an ongoing dispute about the fact that the correct term is indigenous where for all purposes both academic and in general the most neutral term is indigenous. It's a shame that a person becoming number one in the world has to invoke the racism card in Australia.

This is an open request to block disruptive editors who revert the most neutral term which is "indigenous." --124.181.82.220 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up; I think you may have messed up your first diff- it appears to be going to the calendar reform talkpage. Curdle (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems they have now removed this discussion on their personal talk page as well as the ANI notice. I'm quite sick of this and would like to request an administrator to do something about the ongoing race issues on that page. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The impression I get is that it's the OP IP that is the problem, this edit of theirs on Ashleigh Barty was reverted for being redundant (it's already mentioned in the lead, which was clearly stated in the edit summary of the edit that removed it), resulting in this incoherent rant of theirs on the talk page of the article, accusing others of being incompetent, racist and so on. They have also repeatedly posted this rant on User talk:WWGB... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Easy enough to do when youre copying and pasting. While I can understand your contention, this looks like more of a content dispute; and those dont really get handled here. Its only for "protracted behavioural problems " etc. Several people on that talkpage (not just WWBG) have decided opinions on the wording and emphasis that should be placed on barty's ethnicity, there does not seem to be an agreed consensus and the subject keeps coming up. That sort of dispute is not uncommon on biography articles. Have you considered an WP:RFC or other form of dispute resolution?

It is considered within a user's rights to remove posts on their own talkpage; if nothing else, it is proof that they have read them. Curdle (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing incoherent about it. It's also not a content dispute when the most neutral term is indigenous. This issue has been going on for months if you check the talk page. People like the original person concered here are just the tip of the iceberg that has brought it to this. There is no need for an RFC over commonly accepted terms either. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:DUCK (see contributions, and their habit of spewing accusations about racism around) there's a very high probability that the IP is the same person as User:Sharyn4939 an SPA that was active a month ago, and just won't give up, in spite of getting no support from other users on the talk page of the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Is that it? Is that all you have? False aspersions and claims I am someone else? No amount of IP checking will verify your claims. Further to the point... The accepted terms are Indigenous, Aboriginal, South Sea Islander and Torres Strait Islander. This is both the common usage and academic term and denying it also makes you part of the problem should you choose to do to. Much like your false aspersions about edit warring when I had already brought it to this discussion, you're not doing anything here to help yourself out. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly that Per MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". And Barty is notable for being a top tennis player, not for being part aboriginal through having had an aboriginal great-grandmother. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Barty self identifies as an Indigenous Australian. That is a part of her notability, including her inspiration to fellow indigenous Australians and her role as an Indigenous ambassador. There are a small number of right-leaning Tabloids in Australia that deny this fact. Her correct and formal identity is Indigenous Australian. I would hazard to guess that if she did not gain notability in the first place you would have no interest in this subject. It's the "Cassius Clay" argument all over again. So would you kindly cease and desist? That's all I'm asking. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Can people stop arguing about this here? This is a content issue that should be resolved on the talk page. Everyone should try to calm down, too. No more talk of incompetence or incoherence. If this can't be resolved on the article's talk page, try some form of dispute resolution. An RFC, for example, would settle the issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter for dispute resolution, there is no dispute of the terms Indigenous, Aboriginal, Torres Strait, or South Sea Islander which clearly makes it an administrative issues when users remove commonly accepted terms from an article on the basis of race. Given the LONG history for right-leaning people to do this in Australia there isn't much of a leg to stand on to say it is anything other than open racism. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be another argument based on the daft premise that anything that can't be shoehorned into the first sentence of the article has no importance. It should be on the talk page of the article, not here yet, if at all. Britmax (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the case at all, it's clear abuse of the basic premise that we have commonly accepted terms on Wikipedia, apart from that the only reasonable and logical conclusion anyone can come up with is that its yet another example of kicking rocks towards indigenous people. You might have an agenda against indigenous people, that's tough. Wikipedia is also not the place to push your agenda. There is the old addage that also applies to Wikipedia. If you want your own agenda, start your own forum --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

She's notable (per Wikipedia's way of determining notability) only for being a top tennis player, not for being part aboriginal, which is why your repeated attempts to add "indigenous" as her most defining characteristic, right after her name in the first sentence of the lead, are being reverted. I suggest you look at the articles about Naomi Osaka, Venus Williams and Serena Williams, three other women who are notable for being top tennis players, because those articles treat ethnicity/race in the exact same way as the article about Ashleigh Barty does, without anyone, AFAIK, having any problems with it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, not the case at all, this is yet another example of you pushing an agenda an example why I don't have a wiki account, because people here are not educated enough, or mature enough to have a discussion without inserting bias and agenda. Once again you're not helping your case. There are clearly defined terms for Indigenous people in Australia and she is a well noted figure within the indigenous community whether you like it or not. Also when it comes to Wiki, that notability need not be international either. You are only digging your hole deeper. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:RGW. Take your pick. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You might want to read this one Wikipedia:IPs are human too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.82.220 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 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.

Neo-Nazi Content

Banned user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Saw on (link redacted) twitter. User My Very Best Wishes: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gas_van&diff=919488591&oldid=919486842 added Soviet gas vans to Gas vans. Holocaust denying neo-Nazies use this. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is an antisemitic novelist used by neo-Nazies. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483491&oldid=890861013 Removed everything critical on Icebreaker. This book is used by neo-Nazies to defend Hitler. The book is an outlandish theory that Hitler was Stalin's pawn. It writes than Hitler's invasion of USSR was defensive. Neo-nazies use this to defend Hitler. I propose you ban this user from your community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.150.178 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Notified. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrator is using their role to censor historical events.

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.

---

The administrator called Gujo is an admin in the Swedish wikipedia site. However, the admin is eliminating parts of history for political purposes.

On the page for Socialdemokraterna_(Sverige), s/he is deleting all sources that mention that political party's corruption scandals.

Should an administrator be allowed to delete historical facts based on personal political beliefs? — Preceding Student342 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia doesn't have any influence over the Swedish Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks like the proper place to discuss the issue. Antandrus (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And you should not assume that simply because someone is an administrator, they are abusing their position to disagree with you. Administrators are allowed to edit like everybody else. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 5 October 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.

Suspected WP:NOTHERE of William S Lerner

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.

---

So far, of the ten edits of User:William S Lerner, two are attempts to add William S. Lerner to List of Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts, and one to TP of @Alexf:, four to user's own talk, two to user's own sandbox (which I've tagged as U5), one to an IP with no edit history. All of them are related to attempts to add a person to Wikipedia that the user shares a name with, so I suspect an outright nothere. ミラP 19:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No doubt stale by now but Charlitobajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alansickles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are responsible for most of that article, and Danestyped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created it (and a couple of deleted adverts); the original article was deleted by DGG as a G11, it was created by Spawedspanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked as a spammer. Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but I smell promotional editing. The claim to fame appears to be a system to warn if the glass on a glass-fronted fireplace gets too hot, to stop toddlers getting burned, and he's lobbying to mandate such devices be fitted to all fireplaces. Here in England we have this thing called a fireguard. Guy (help!) 20:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: If you look at Special:Diff/919269129 you'll see that his signature is apparently an extremely long CV. Anyone seen that stuff before? Also pinging the aforementioned @DGG:. ミラP 20:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you deleted the William S. Lerner article for WP:G11, I'd like you to consider blocking William S Lerner for WP:NOTHERE. ミラP 20:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: @Bishonen: has salted User:William S Lerner. ミラP 20:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bish is on it, she can be relied on to do the needful. Guy (help!) 23:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

And I've revoked talk page access, due to WP:CIR or outright trolling. Yeesh, that was painful. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 3 October 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.

Longtime editor editing while logged out

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.

---

• Bardrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.13.177.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.243.101.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Wally Nightingale has a history of edit disputes going back to 2017, in which Bardrick (talk · contribs) insists on inserting an unsourced original research/editorial analysis description into the lede [153], [154]. The OR has been repeatedly reverted. In more recent years, every so often, an anon IP shows up to reinsert the same OR description [155], [156]. Per WP:DUCK this is clearly Bardrick editing while logged out. I placed a warning on his talk page, but he is an experienced editor and should know this is not acceptable. Furthermore, he has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring in the past, which gives this the appearance of trying to avoid further scrutiny for edit warring. ♟♙ (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The logged out editing goes much, much further than just the IP mentioned above. There is currently a range-block on Special:Contributions/84.13.176.0/21 to deter Bardrick from editing while logged out. I will inform the checkusers with knowledge of this case of this discussion. FDW777 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I notified him of this discussion on his account talk page and the IP talk page, but he seems to have chosen not to respond here. He did respond on his own talk page [157], claiming "he didn't know" despite having had an account here since 2012. As you say, there's a rangeblock in palace to prevent him editing while logged out, so it seems this has been an issue with him for some time? ♟♙ (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

On 29 June I asked Bardrick to log in while editing at User talk:84.13.182.138 with a sockpuppetry warning. Bardrick made two edits using that IP a few hours after my message. Obviously I cannot say Bardrick read the message, but he/she definitely had ample opportunity to do so. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I will also add the "sometimes I forget to [log in] - particularly if it's an edit made quickly" claim doesn't hold water. From 1 August-24 August (when the IP range was blocked), Bardrick made 78 edits while logged in and 154 while logged out. FDW777 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is considered to be a serious problem, then User:Bardrick's account should be blocked for at least 24 hours and perhaps one or more IPs should also be blocked. Bardrick has been here since 2012 and has four previous blocks. The two IPs listed at top of this report are covered by active rangeblocks issued by User:Berean Hunter. Click on 'contribs' to see them. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 3 October 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.

Adding of "closure date" of Star City by 49.144.8.140

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

Kept adding closure date of the amusement park without knowing that it would just temporarily close, not fully.

Source: 1

Edits made by IP: 23 4

RareButterflyDoors (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2601:154:C101:B00::/64

• Range contribs

After receiving a "final warning" on one IP, the user changed their address and resumed vandalism here. Given the user's vandalism across 3 IPs within this /64 range, I'm requesting a rangeblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on this expletive, the lack of sourcing for their changes and the lack of a positive response to a warning I've blocked Special:Contributions/2601:154:C101:B00:0:0:0:0/64 for three days. Let me know if the problem continues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Office info boxes - profanity, unwillingness to discuss reasonably and compromise

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 hate to do this but I have to report Sek-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being uncivil, refusing to compromise, and to making changes unsupported by facts. The page is Microsoft Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); discussion here.

Their escalation to profanity directed at me is what made me decide to report this. Given that, this seemed like the right place.

Summary (profanity is in point 7):

1. There are two info boxes on the page. The titles do not reflect original usage, historical usage, or current use. The fact is that the names have changed many times over the years and the current titles are confusing, especially since the top info box is large enough that the second info box isn't visible unless you scroll. I added "(for Windows)" to the top info box. In retrospect, this wasn't the best way to do it. Sek-2 reverts the change with the statement "I've never seen any other instance of brackets in infobox titles" (which I think is irrelevant).
2. I restore the change with a clearer explanation.
3. Sek-2 reverts again with an explanation on the talk page that IMO doesn't reflect what the page actually is about (Office family vs. Office products available today).
4. On the talk page, I show that the info box names are not accurate and request that Sek-2 come up with a suitable alternative (first attempt for compromise). And I don't want to edit war.
5. They don't suggest an alternative and point to some pages that use the name they think is correct, but no page that actually says that (i.e., no actual source). There are certainly thousands, perhaps millions of pages, that use other names that Sek-2 rejects. And Microsoft's pages don't agree with them.
6. I point out something we apparently agree on and rename the info boxes again, this time to "Windows version" and "Mac version", avoiding the name problem. My second attempt at compromising.
7. Sek-2 reverts again, including the comment "I did not fucking say that, stop putting words in my mouth," which is both uncivil and making a false accusation. This is in response to my pointing out something I thought we agreed on (see my response on the talk page for where it seemed pretty clear that Sek-2 and I were in agreement). They also reverted a change in the first paragraph.
8. I responded again on the talk page, but have not changed the page again. They've made three reverts (not in one day). I don't want to edit war, even slowly.

I think editors who act like this drive away good editors and Wikipedia is worse for it. I see it all the time. Here, I say "act like this" because this is my first interaction with Sek-2. They may be a good editor elsewhere who's just being stubborn here for some unknown reason. It is frustrating to deal with this on a small, straightforward, obvious edit.

I've thought about this a little more and I think the best titles for the two info boxes are "Windows applications" and "Mac applications" and that there should be two or three more info boxes for "Web apps," "iOS/iPadOS apps", and "Android apps". It may be that the last two could be combined. Also note: pages for Office apps (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, OneNote) have similar problems. On the OneNote page, there are two info boxes with the same title, and both are about both Windows and Mac applications.

I am not asking for Sek-2 to be blocked. I do want them to receive a warning about their behavior.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You should take your long argument about infoboxes to the article talk page & seek input from other editors. Often when there is a slow revert battle between two editors, opening the discussion to other people helps clarify things and a consensus can be reached so it's not a "your way vs. my way" dispute that ends in an edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that an editor turned into a personal attack with profanity, which is why I brought it here. I never tried to make it "your way vs. my way". It is clear that I was attempting to find a good and accurate solution, to improve Wikipedia, with no desire to do it "my way". If there is a better place for me to report the profanity and false accusation directed at me, please let me know. RoyLeban (talk) 20:26, 6 October 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.

CEngelbrecht2

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.

---

CEngelbrecht2 (talk · contribs) has been rather combative over at Aquatic ape hypothesis making comments like this [[158]], they have been asked to stop making PA's [[159]] with a response of [[160]]. They have now taken to calling content dispute vandalism and censorship [[161]], [[162]] thier respnse to being asked tpo not accuse other users of vandalism with out good cause was [[163]], which seems to be a reference to this [[164]], his response to my saying vandalism is deliberately trying to break a page was to again accuse a user of being a punk [[165]]. It is clear they are wp:nothere, but rather to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen a good user compare their "side" to Galileo on trial, just advocates who don't get their way. The assumption that Wikipedia and/or mainstream academia is carrying out the same blasphemous injustice that the mean-ol' bigoted Catholics did to our enlightened leader Galilio always means that the user in question is not only failing to assume good faith, they probably lack the capacity to even acknowledge the option (although we must hope that they'll snap out of it but take more pragmatic actions if they will not). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Needs a block imho, much nastier than me. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I will note (and I did only just note this) it apparently has been going on for 2 years, over the same article. I note that even had a TBAN, I was going to suggest a warning, but they have been TBAN'd once for a month, I now think it needs to be permanent.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

2 years? 7 years more like - note this user formerly used the account CEngelbrecht. Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You can check my talk page for how eager Alexbrn has been to link me to sock puppetry. Do the math. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I must be the dumbest sock puppeter around, just adding a '2' to the name of an account, that refused to log in, for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CEngelbrecht2#Topic_ban_warning

Alexbrn is very eager to kick me outta the contest. And seeing his edits on the aquatic article, I can imagine why. Nothing is worse than having your subversive agenda called out by some busybody. I'm not as versed in all Wiki's complex systems as he is, therefore he can abuse them to shut me down. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

>>I've never seen a good user compare their "side" to Galileo on trial, just advocates who don't get their way.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

All I know is that for years I was told again and again by people with degrees, that I shouldn't bother reading the sources in question. Nullius in Verba suddenly didn't apply. And the day I was told an anecdote from a student of one year of paleoanthropology, then switching to biology, of how her professor told her, that she was endangering her exams, if she didn't stop asking him questions about Elaine Morgan, I knew something was deeply wrong in the field of paleoanthropology when it comes to Elaine Morgan's beach apes.

And because of it, Wiki's article on the topic is a battleground of misinformation and censorship. Of burning banned volumes, of Charles Darwin depicted as a chimpanzee all over again. Oh yeah, I do see strong analogies to the likes of Galileo trying to reason with Pope Urban, that just sicced the inquisition on him. This is all wrong. Such a strange pseudoscientific idea, where people aren't supposed to know, what it's arguing. They're supposed to keep thinking it believes in mermaids and not listen to Giordano Bruno.

"During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleoanthropologists and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic theory. I haven’t yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have also wondered the same thing."

- Dan Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995.

--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• CEngelbrecht2 has been blocked three times for this exact behaviour on this exact article (two of the blocks, including one for three months, marked as arbitration enforcement in the block log, plus earlier blocks, including for block evasion, as CEngelbrecht; yes, it's the same person) with no change in their behaviour, so it's time for a new block, preferably an indefinite one. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not exactly Donald Trump here, am I? --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This [[166]] says it all.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It was never meant for information, but for indoctrination. --CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you do not misunderstand, you misapply. As many users do you assume all information has equal value. Under our polices it does not, information that is mainstream is considered of great value then information that is from the fringe. If a physicist says "Nessie is real" that does not carry the same weight as a biologist saying "Nessie does not exist", even though both are scientists and academics one is more qualified then the other. We might give the Physicists view, but not with the same weight as the biologists.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Enough. I've indefinitely blocked CEngelbrecht2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 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.

IP editors repeatedly removing information from Ramon Airport

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.

---

Two IPs repeatedly remove Arabic name of Ramon Airport without specifying the reason: [167] [168] [169] Can an admin please put some kind of protection on the page? “WarKosign” 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The protection policy and how to instructions can be found by reading WP:Protection policy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 6 October 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 Tgru001 criticizes source in bad faith

• Tgru001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit Tgru001 (talk · contribs) criticizes www.timeanddate.com. I believe the criticism is in bad faith, and is actually sour grapes over not getting a file the editor uploaded added to Calendar reform. I warned the editor about the need to edit in good faith here. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly that specific comment you highlighted seems extremely mild and not worth worrying about. The editor's generally editing to that talk page does seem somewhat confusing like their random sock-puppetry accusations just because someone uses a pseudonym and doesn't have a "home page" (user page) [170] [171] and maybe ironic coming from me, also the wall of text of many of their comments there. However it seems like Tgru001 is new and still learning. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as I have said to them already, I happy to cite scientific stuff but am as green as with the arts and social sciences. I tried reversing on edit I thought ill conceived but never the one referred to here. There is no sour grapes. The reason I posted it in the first place is the whole page seemed poorly referenced so I thought is was more of a calendar fest than anything else.

Regarding random sock puppetry accusations, I'm just after some consistency on the page in terms of editor input. I even asked them where I could formally query about the significance or otherwise of blank home pages as I'm new to pages which apparently are controversial for some reason. As they repeatedly tell me I often forget to sign, but at least I log in so my real ID is there. I'm not one for tit for tat, but it's off putting with editors generally that only work by reversing your edits rather than trying to improve them and apparently think it adds wait to their arguments if I make mistakes with trivia. Particularly when the reasons for reversing your edit change when their first, second etc reason turns out to be incorrect. If they are not changing for the reasons first given then I felt the reversals are for reasons they don't really want to divulge. It doesn't inspire confidence and the anonymity adds to that lack of confidence in them. When it comes to human interaction we prefer to see each other, if not talk to each other, if not write to write to each other, or at least know we are both human and not a computer algorithms exchanging bits over the internet.

They often misquote me, effectively trying to put words into my mouth. He told me I didn't think he was sincere. I guess it was because he was intending to come here to this page. I never said that, nor do I lack faith in them. The worst I will say about them is their intentions may be noble but in my opinion the page I'm trying to edit is suffering due to misplaced good intentions. Going by the comments about them that others have posted (and then been edited out) I suspect the good intentions are tending to drive away other editors with good intentions as well. They may be a really nice person in person, but their style of written social interaction is not endearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Whhops I forgot the tildes again.Tgru001 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A sock of the infamous User:Vote (X) for Change is interfering in the discussion at Talk:Calendar reform [172] [173] [174]. I suggest the talk page be semi-protected for a while and that 94.0.175.75 (talk · contribs) be blocked for 30 days or so. Since 94.0.175.75 mentioned ANI in 94.0.175.75's edit summaries I deem 94.0.175.75 to be aware of this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I protected the talk page for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive satellite editor

I embarked on a project last month to update DirecTV’s satellite fleet page and related, as they were painfully outdated. A user by the name of Agentdoof started reverting my edits today, starting with the new names of the satellites, due to them not having realible sources. Which was true, as I got the information from a forum. So after some frustration, I decided to let him revert the names until I find a realible source. I however didn’t allow him to remove the T16 satellite listing from the AT&T info box and AT&T template as he believed it didn’t exist. It seems as if this user knows little about satellites. I provided multiple sources, one from the infobox on the satellite fleet, with the source right next to the T16 section. It’s from ArianeSpace, who launches DirecTV’s spacecraft. Another source I provided was Airbus Space & Defense, who legit built the spacecraft. He said these weren’t realible sources and he continually reverts my edits in that respective, despite proof that’s he’s wrong. I’ve sent talk page messages to him that he views as "bogus" and removes. I’ve tried to solve this situation on my own, but to no avail. I’m worried I may have broken WP:3RR. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Page where incident occurred: Template:AT&T. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:HurricaneGeek2002 I took a look at the talk page discussion between yourself and User:Agentdoof. From what I saw, yes, Agentdoof could have done a better job, like replying to you to tell you what was wrong. That said, the first source you used wasn't a reliable source and you admitted as much. The second source you provided is reliable but from what I can see, they never mention their satellite is being used by AT&T at all, so without that, it looks like you're trying to infer that they are, and I can understand why, but that would run afoul of Wikipedia's restriction on synth or original research.

Maybe you can find something on Disk Network/AT&T that actually lists their satellites, as long as it's not their forums or a press release that could possibly be used as it would link AT&T with a certain set of satellites, and it would be a reliable source.

I'm not a sysop , but if I were I'd urge agentdoof to at least respond to you and not remove your messages without comment as well. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that press releases are sufficient to establish use/ownership of a particular satellite, since it's a factual statement and isn't likely to be significantly biased/promotional in and of itself. The press release isn't sufficient to establish notability, of course, but I think it's acceptable if there's no other good sources (or all sources lead back to the press release). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Unless I misinterpreted what Wekeepwhatwekill posted above and they were actually saying that a press release is a good source, in which case...agreed! ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The source from Arianespace I have as seen here directly mentions the satellite as being used by AT&T. I was also able to find the FCC document for the name changes, but it looks like only DirecTV 11, 9S, and 15's names have been changed. I'm sure the others have been renamed too, but until I find the FCC listings for those, I'll leave those alone. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve found the official document that DTV filed for the FCC about the new satellite names. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) In my (limited) experience, PR at launch time is accurate as of then only. Satellites seem to be routinely moved to different positions, renamed, reconfigured (transponders), and retired. There are a lot of bad references out there that are old, unmaintained, and without dates to at least know when they were correct. It would be good to know if there are sources that are consistently good. It seems like FCC filings would be good. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by User:ChieftanTartarus on Talk:Self-coup

User:ChieftanTartarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:PRIVACY, dredging up external websites (such as social media), even if said social media links are openly stated by a user, as a way to challenge an editor's edits is a violation of the Wikipedia harassment policy. However, this is exactly what has happened here at Talk:Self-coup in the middle of a (somewhat heated) NPOV dispute. I don't make my off-wiki political leanings particularly secret, but framing them as some sort of "gotcha" to win an editing dispute is not on at all. Neither is the tone of this message. I can deal with a bit of incivility, but this goes far beyond that. Sceptre (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not dredge up external websites, you have it OPENLY available on your Wikipedia Home Page, for all to see, WP:PRIVACY does not apply to information which you have made publicly available on Wikipedia. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Fourth paragraph of the "posting of personal information" section. I suggest you remove your comments and apologise. Sceptre (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologise? You've been overtly aggressive to numerous editors, including myself and are now harassing me and causing me undue stress when I have done no such thing against you apart from seek conflict resolution. You as an established and experienced editor should know this well. I will not apologise for doing nothing wrong. You should apologise to me, and everyone whose time you have wasted with your unrelenting attack on numerous other editors. I will not be communicating with you any further. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ChieftanTartarus, having a view is not a conflict of interest, and you bringing it up on an article talk page is inappropriate. Please don't do this again. El_C 20:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As you wish, but I do not believe that this complaint by Sceptre is warranted nor has any base. I did what I deemed to be necessary to resolve a conflict which had been ongoing for well over a month and where neither side had bothered to contact any administrators for assistance. Fair enough I made some errors along the way, but I by far was not the only one at fault. That being said, I apologise for my part in it. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation of events is, in fact, both wrong and deeply disturbing. First you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what it means to have a conflict of interest. If most definitely does not mean having a bias or personal point of view of a subject, nor does it even include being very passionate about it in real life (on a certain broad level, even membership in a very large group does not create a conflict of interest, eg a Catholic does not have a conflict of interest on all articles related to Catholicism). And the difference between good faith editing and POV pushing is most definitely not that someone successfully conceals their personal bias.

It is expected that editors will have biases, and it is expected they will set aside those biases and instead discuss what it is that sources state and whether those sources are reliable. That is exactly what Sceptre is trying to do in that discussion. When you bring up Sceptre's social media during a talk page discussion over whether a source is reliable for a claim, it doesn't matter if that social media account was publicly acknowledged - you are needlessly personalizing the discussion, turning it to focus on Sceptre herself rather than her policy-based arguments.

If I didn't convince you, that's fine, as long as the type of behavior does not resurface. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for any convincing, I merely misinterpreted some policies, for which I apologized for. I want to move on from this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The key policy here isn't COI, it's NPA. Discuss the content, not the person arguing for it. People with strong biases belong on Wikipedia and should play a role in shaping content. Guettarda (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If CT wants to move on from this, I'm more than happy to do so as well. I also agree with Someguy1221 about editor biases, and how best to deal with them; I'm pretty sure that El C is one of the more left-wing admins on this site (his userpage quotes Lenin!), but he's still a damn good admin. To give an example on how to deal with your own biases: although I personally don't agree with Johnson's plan to prorogue from next Tuesday, because I think that day was chosen to skip another PMQs, when I edited the article about the prorogation controversy to add it, I made sure, because it would be an NPOV violation not to include it, you know? Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

AnimeDisneylover95

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.

---

• AnimeDisneylover95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 28 September, ADL made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Line_Spacing_for_Filmography_pages to change the TV/FILM role years from one line to 3/4/5 lines (depending on the years)

(Ie: 2005-2007

2009

2011-2012)

This was rejected by myself, IJBall and Joeyconnick,

Since the closure of that thread ADl has continued to use a template to add years as seperate lines[175][176][177] and they've also continued to shorten years[178][179][180],

Despite them being reverted they've continued to edit war and readd their edits despite having no consensus at all to do so, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Look if you want to but sanctions on me fine but at the same time just this morning I was reordering the filmography table for Dilshad Vadsaria, until IJ constantly reverted the edits: [181] [182]. I explained to him on the talk page regarding the filmography tables should be sorted and I disputed that not every actor/actress need to have their filmographies in a single table given that they are divided with the sections dedicated to film and television. More recently I did it with the Lara Pulver page up until Davey and IJ reverted the page constantly: [183], [184]--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss content issues – this is about behavioral issues, specifically your tendency to WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, there's a far deeper, longer term behavioral problem with this editor. Basically, a perusal of their Talk page history will show what I am talking about. There's a long-term pattern of WP:Edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND here that has involved warnings from other editors and several different Admins. This editor seems unwilling to follow WP:5P4 and act in a collaborative manner, often making WP:POINTy edits, and excessively pinging other editors (again, check the user's Talk page history, etc. – I am not the only editor who has complained about this editor's excessive pinging which boarders on WP:WIKIHOUNDING...). Ultimately, in this case, I am supporting an indef block – not because I think this editor should never edit again, but because I think this editor shouldn't be allowed to return to editing until they can demonstrate that they will respect Wikipedia's collaborative environment, not edit war, and not ignore the MOS simply on their own WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to block me go ahead! I admit I take responsibility and the blame but frankly, Davey and IJ never should WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and when especially when I was making the edit on the Lara Pulver page when I was separating it by Film and television. I just don't want to deal with IJ and Davey's banters and differing opinions and their obsessions with certain aspects on the filmography pages with their WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. So go ahead block me, reprimand me, cause I don't want to be involved with your WP:Edit warring and cyberbullying from--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a simple (behavioral) answer to that – rather than blindly reverting, like you've been doing, you do the "table split" in a new, separate edit. In the case of Lara Pulver, whether such a table split is actually necessary is at least arguable, but the MOS violations in your edit were not – so you should have done the table split without reverting or restoring the MOS violations. P.S. Please learn (finally!) how to properly indent in these discussions. Also please just stop parroting other editors' arguments back at them. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And I suggest to you and Davey (finally!) TO STOP WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and become fully obsessed with certain pages you spend time on. But most importantly enough with your "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" basis you had on them. Cause all I did was doing a small simple edit n the Dilshad Vadsaria page regarding the years she was on Bones until YOU reverted it cause you "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on the br'/ubl' bracket which became the big issue, as of now. And I don't want to deal with another issue regarding Filmography section being listed under a single table instead of it being divided by film and television like the rest of the actors pages. Just for goodness sake, stop arguing and being hypocritical cause I don't want another "shit show" from you guys!! Lastly please go edit other pages on Wikipedia instead of spending too much dependency on the Filmography and years section, or better go out and do some hobbies for your own sake. Thanks--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: AnimeDisneylover95 just attempted to close this report themselves – [185] – which is completely out-of-process. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Tell that to Davey2010, who deliberately closed this himself on a topic that I created - [186]--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (with IJBall) I am reopening this thread. @AnimeDisneylover95: Please do not close discussions in which you are involved. Another editor will close this discussion when it reaches a suitable conclusion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not, Davey2010 close this topic when he didn't like this was heading. I said it myself, I don't want to be drag in this mess all because of small change I made on the Dilshad Vadsaria page becoming a larger issue on the other actors pages. On top of that, I don't want to deal with Davey2010 and IJBall's being so WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude whenenver I put a "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section on the filmography pages for the actors, especially on the Television section. If you or another user wants to block me go ahead, but I'm not benefitting from this conversation and I had enough of both Davey and IJ's disputes and disagreements on the filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I closed that discussion because things were becoming heated and we were going in circles, You made a proposal and it was rejected ....so there was nothing else left to do or say other than to repeat myself 50 times over. –Davey2010^Talk 17:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• And continued edit warring at Emily Deschanel – [187] – while this ANI discussion is ongoing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Also edit warring at Michaela Conlin, They pretty much don't care about edit warring and they only seem more than happy to ignore the policies we have here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• If I ignored the policies while edit warring, I would've just ignored it and walk away. I'm just tired of you and IJ lashing out on me and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude on the filmography pages. Just block me cause I don't want to constantly be dragged into a conflict that I made myself but having to deal with your prejudices on the filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to be blocked if you would just stop on insisting having things "your way" (i.e. a significant amount of the time in Wikipedia editing, consensus will be against your view, and you have to be willing to accept that), and if you'd just be willing to start collaborating in editing. Are you willing to do this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that also applies to both YOU and Davey as I still see you insisting having things "your way" on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY. And for goodness sake stop being so WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude whenenver I put a "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section on the filmography pages for the actors, especially on the Television section. I don't want to have myself continue going in circles all because of something you and Davey "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on an edit I made in the filmography section (e.g. "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television)--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• "(edit conflict) If I ignored the policies while edit warring, I would've just ignored it and walk away." .... Well mate .... had you walked away a week ago we wouldn't be here now would we ?. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

".... Well mate .... had you walked away a week ago we wouldn't be here now would we ?" No, not when I was just editing the filmography pages to sections dedicated to Film and Television especially when you reverted the Lara Pulver page: [188]. I just don't want to continue going in circles with YOU and IJ again.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Judging by this editor's unwillingness to change their behavior, their inappropriate closure of the ANI, and all the past warnings on their talk page since 2015, it may be time to consider an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I will take full responsibilities for my actions for getting into this issue,. But this is on one area I can't handle (e.g. IJ and Davey's conflicts on the pages related to WP:FILMOGRAPHY) not the entirety of Wikipedia in general as I did provide sources to voice actors on the roles they played with cited Tweets and verifications on the end credits. If I still want to edit on this site I don't want to have myself going in circles again with Davey2010 and IJBall being unwilling on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude when I put the ubl brackets on the year section of the filmography pages or having tables as "List tables" instead of it being divided by "film" and "television".--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Indef Tban at least Since AnimeDisneylover95 has said in this thread "so block me" and the topic area is one he "can't handle" an indef Tban seems in order. Admittedly I only skimmed this report. What I see is a lot of WP:VAGUEWAVE at P&G links but few examples of behaviors in other topic areas. The outrageous exception is the inappropriate closure EdJohnston cited as basis for an indef. If there is evidence of the same approach to conflict elsewhere, I'd support indef. If not, I'd rather just see a Tban with a strong "last chance" warning, that gives the user WP:ROPE. We need to retain eds when possible, without being dumb about it. So is does this user have a similar attitude towards conflict elsewhere ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC) See below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, this report is about WP:FILMOGRAPHY behavior primarily, and previous dust ups have been over anime voice actor Filmographies – e.g. this report. Now the whole background on that older ANI report is convoluted, ultimately involving what looks like two different WP:RfC's at WT:ANIME: this one and then this more definitive one. So do you consider that all "Filmography" problems, or WP:ANIME and WP:Filmography problems together? However, like I said, the edit warring and quasi-WP:WIKIHOUNDING complaints in the case of this editor are long-term, and go back well over a year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We do prevention, not punishment. Is there 2018/2019 evidence of problems in other topics? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend an IBAN (Interaction BAN) to me and for IJBall and Davey2010 mainly to me. Look I get into conflicts and argue with others on previous conflicts on pages related to WP:ANIME. "I learn to roll with the punches", even If I don't agree with them I learn to add in sources.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm just frustrated with the WP:Filmography section since last week, along IJBall and Davey2010's behavior on having things "their way" while also displaying an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and WP:INDISCRIMINATE attitude on the filmography pages be it 'ubl brackets in the years section on the Filmography and recently having the Filmography tables as One tables instead of having it divided by by "film" and "television" like the majority of the actor's pages. I don't want to continue going in circles with IJBall and Davey2010 whenever I make an edit on an actor's page again. This issue has gone far enough and I just don't want to have IJ and Davey continue acting like "vultures" whenever I make an edit on ANY actors page and constantly just argue and antagonize me that I broke "MOS" or "ubl brackets aren't allowed" or condescending/sarcastic remarks at me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You've linked WP:INDISCRIMINATE about half a dozen times now. What do you think it means? It doesn't seem relevant to a disagreement over, basically, formatting and MOS issues. Your posts are pretty hard to follow anyway, but I really have no idea why you keep linking a page discussing the suitability of certain types of information for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I can only imagine you haven't actually read it and think it's about something else...

Incidentally, on the subject of the discussion, it's been explained to you that what you are doing is wrong, goes against MOS, and looks awful - so what you should do is stop being such a stubborn nuisance about it and complaining about the people who are preventing your damage, and move on to something else, before someone gets irritated enough by your disruption to actually block you. I hope that helps. -- Begoon 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Incidentally, on the subject of the discussion, it's been explained to you that what you are doing is wrong, goes against MOS, and looks awful - so what you should do is stop being such a stubborn nuisance about it and complaining about the people who are preventing your damage, and move on to something else, before someone gets irritated enough by your disruption to actually block you. I hope that helps". Frankly Begoon, you're acting rudely here after calling me a "stubborn nuisance". Secondly it's not only me that needs to move on to something else, but also to IJBall and Davey2010. I for one do not want to continue going in circles with them especially on their "I don't like" behavior and doing things "their way" on the WP:Filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Acting rudely? That was actually one of the politest ways I could think of to describe the behaviour. You wouldn't have liked the alternatives which I rejected at all, I guess... The rest was intended to be good advice, but you're free to ignore that - you don't seem particularly good at listening, so I wouldn't be massively surprised at that. Did you miss my question about WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I'm still puzzled about that. As for "it's not only me that needs to move on" - well, yes, it is, you see - because once you stop causing damage and edit-warring against consensus people won't need to fix it or tell you about it any more. I hope that's clearer. Good luck. -- Begoon 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Did you miss my question about WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I'm still puzzled about that. As for "it's not only me that needs to move on" - well, yes, it is, you see - because once you stop causing damage and edit-warring against consensus people won't need to fix it or tell you about it any more." I'm aware of the "Wikipedia: Indiscriminate" question, especially when I used it so many times in this discussion. Secondly, as I said before, I will stop editing war and move on if Davey2010 and IJBall do that as well. Cause I had it with them being "know-it alls" and just acting so hypocritical all because of a small edit I made on an actress page in the filmography table now becoming a big issue all "because of me". I'm just frustrated with both Davey and IJBall right now given how condescending and rude they have been the last week and continue going in circles all because of their "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on an edit(s) I made in the filmography section (e.g. adding "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television). What is is so difficult for them to understand?!? Even when I went to the article's talk page and explain about It get rebuffed and continue to disagree with my explanations--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"I'm aware of the "Wikipedia: Indiscriminate" question, especially when I used it so many times in this discussion." - erm, yes, that was my question - what do you think it means, and why have you "used it so many times in this discussion" when it makes no sense here at all? Anyway, Rdfox 76 seems to have summed up the advice I'd recommend quite elegantly below - so I suggest you read that - at least twice, quite slowly... Thank you. -- Begoon 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand what a "long-term pattern of behavior" means?! That's why we're here – this isn't a "one-off", but a repeated pattern of behavior from this editor. Why don't you ask other editors who've encountered AnimeDisneylover95 (and warned them) what they think? It might clear this up for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware it isn't a one-off but more importantly I hate having myself heat up and continue going in circles once again from the both of you. Even after this conflict reaches a resolution, I don't want to even think about the both of you following me around and just chastise and WP:WIKIHOUNDING me "till the cows come home" on ANY actor's page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking through their talkpage they seem have butted heads with anyone and everyone and have acted the exact same way as they are now, People can change in 3 years but this editor hasn't and it's unlikely they ever will, This user seems to have been disruptively editing since 2015 but it seems ROPE was given in all cases...... TBANNING is pointless imho. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary I learned to cope with select pages and roll with the punches, especially when it comes to adding in sources particularly for voice actors. It's just recently on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY section since last week from both you and IJ that was considered the last straw for me and where I blew my stack for you constantly WP:WIKIHOUNDING me "till the cows come home" on every article page for the actors and actresses. I'd rather have an IBAN (Interaction BAN) from you guys than just have this discussion be continued to NO end. --AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, since it's clear that you either aren't understanding what others have said, or just plain don't get it, as an uninvolved user with no advanced permissions and no real desire to ever have them, let me put it to you more plainly. Drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. An IBAN is not a technical solution, it's a behavioral one, and requires the same thing from you that everyone has been telling you here: that you shut the fuck up so the discussion doesn't continue. An IBAN is not a tool to win the argument, it's the community telling everyone involved, "Keep the hell away from each other or we're gonna turn this car around and go home." Even if we impose the IBAN, it doesn't mean that IJ and Davey have to walk away from the articles and let you have your way; it means you all have to stop interacting at all--and let the community consensus decide what the articles end up looking like. And if you keep trying to beat the dead horse after the IBAN is enacted, it will be enforced with a block. So put simply, my advice to you is stop talking so the discussion can die, before you piss off too many people here and end up blocked for a long, long time, OK? (Oops. I used the F-bomb and some other four-letter words. So much for ever being an admin--clearly, I'm too uncivil. Glad I never really wanted that headache, anyway!) rdfox 76 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Site ban changing my suggestion of Tban (struck out abovec) to site ban, based on AnimeDisneylover95's (A) own statements that he can't handle the subject area, (B) inappropriate attempt to close this filing, and (C) the tendentious IDHT in his followup replies the last couple hours NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76 and NewsAndEventsGuy I'd rather just Drop the Stick and move away from the "Dead Horse" and not deal with anymore of this issues and conflicts and with IJBall and Davey2010, alright, just for goodness sake, just leave me alone already. I want to move on from this discussion that I've been involved in since this morning and for the last couple of hours.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

IJBall and Davey2010 are reasonable people. Neither will hold a grudge against you, and they're very likely to drop the issue as soon as you do. Now, please stop edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All I wanted was do just a small edit for the Dilshad Vadsaria page regarding on how her year was formatted in her appearance in Bones in the filmography section:

• "(2010, 2015)" (From This)
• • 2010,
  • 2015
  (To This)--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Long story short, the reason I put it in this format (along with some of the other actors/actresses pages) is because when it comes to someone portraying a minor guest character in an episode of a show and aren't seen again like 2 years, 5 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode then they are put in this format. But I never expected it to just escalate quickly all because of an edit I made along with IJ and Davey2010 continue to loath the "ubl' bracket" to no apparent end whenever I do something on the Filmography table and will continue to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for this after the conflict of this discussion is resolved.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Even after this issue, I wanted to make edits on having filmography tables for the actors/actress having it divided it into two with a filmography table dedicated to Film and another table for Television, but even THEY just want to have the filmography tables on the actors as a a single table all because of "MOS rules". Even when I make a new proposal and discussion for a resolution they are going to say "NO" and want to have their things "THEIR Way". -AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"IJBall and Davey2010 are reasonable people. Neither will hold a grudge against you, and they're very likely to drop the issue as soon as you do." I don't know about that, particularly on the Grudge part as they made sarcastic remarks when reverting my edits on the actors pages. Look It's been a crazy week and a half since this issue on the WP:Filmography section relating to the Years in the Filmography tables started. I just want to Drop the stick and move away from the "dead horse", and I say that IJBall and Davey2010 ALSO need to WP:DROPTHESTICK from this conflict and the edits I made as well. I don't want to continue having the duo justWP:WIKIHOUNDING me and continue to have an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude on edit(s) I made in the filmography section of a specific actor (e.g. adding "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television (depending on the actor)) "till the cows come home" and going in circles. I just want to have a normal life making edits. Is it not to much to ask?!??!.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...le sigh... I'm also now supporting a block - at least until ADL95 can convince an admin that they understand the issues here and will, as correctly advised, and as they say they want to, just STFU about it. The WP:IDHT is strong in this one, I fear... "Dropping the stick" does not equal "I'll stop fighting if I'm left alone to disrupt and break things as much as I like, but until then I'll whine on it about it semi-coherently at painful length" -- Begoon 00:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have given AnimeDisneylover95 an indefinite block as a result of their strangely disruptive behavior in this conversation, and their recent behavior as reported here. Any administrator may unblock if convinced that the disruption will not reoccur. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 7 October 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 editting

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.

---

Takinginterest01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor disrespectfully reverts other editors without any explanation. See for example, they added this content Special:Diff/919993605 without any source when I reverted they reverted without an explanation. This isn't the first time this editor does that with me. Suggest a warning or blocking for not explaining in the edit summary WP:REVEXP.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I took a quick peek and I think you want to complain about edit warring. A better place is the WP:3RRN. Go there, review archives, see how people made reports that led to action. Don't expect anyone else to look up a record of contribs and analyze them. You need to do that work and explain the problem. Looking at the the successful examples in the archives at 3RR noticeboard will show you how. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 7 October 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.

Threatened privacy breach

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.

---

In an edit summary at Hartforth, IP user 2601:406:c201:d20:718c:5bf2:f4a1:4c35, who appears to be the same as 2600:1702:3e70:6700:31bd:4e7a:e724:ef09 is apparently threatening me with "syndicated article exposing your nastiness and financial history. You have been warned." in response to my removal of promotional/self-published material. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IP and protected the page, since it seems like this information has been added and reverted a bunch of times. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's a totally bogus/hoax claim they're repeatedly trying to add, since it's a title that doesn't exist (there's even a website dedicated to the bogus claim, hartforth.com, plus a presence on lots of other websites, where a "Sir Knight Dr Anton Anderssen" claims to be "Lord of Hartforth", in addition to claiming to be a "syndicated journalist" with homes all over the world, plus a lot more, but I have to admit I especially like the "Sir Knight" bit, very impressive...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Some additional info. It seems to be someone who is using a fake title to scam people, repeatedly trying to get the fake info into Wikipedia to make the claim more believable... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:31, 7 October 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan

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 all. I was about to make a comment on this AFD and got an edit conflict because apparently it was closed. I found sources and was going to make a keep argument, and I believe the AFD was improperly closed early as it is not in the backlog section. I left a note already with the closing admin, but I think they went offline. I also left a note at the talk page at AFD but nobody has responded. Is it possible to re-open the AFD? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

AfDs close in 7 days. I don't think it's early. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That day's section is still in the open section at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It was premature, but there was not much discussion anyway. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I spent 50 minutes digging up sources, found 2 newspaper articles where he was the main subject, a peer reviewed journal article reviewing his work in a play, and several media reviews. I'd like to make my keep argument.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't premature, it was open for exactly 7 days and 1 minute. It's a proper closure, but you might contact the admin and ask them to relist - I see you already have done so. I've informed them of this ANI thread, as you are required to do when opening a thread about an editor. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ST47, I didn't really think it was necessary, because I am not complaining about the admin who was acting in good faith. I really was just wanting to re-open the AFD so I can make my comment. I have no personal complaints against the admin.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Try WP:DRV. In my view the AfD was closed properly after contributions from two regular and respected editors. I would have voted delete too. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe:I was about to provide multiple indepent sources to prove the article met WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG in my keep argument, but unfortunately the AFD was closed literally less than a minute before I made my comment (I had an edit conflict). How you would of voted, or they voted is irrelevant, because I was presenting new evidence.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am heading to bed. Good night (or good day depending on your time zone) to everyone. I wish you all well.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 4meter4 in accordance with the doctrine against following policy for the sake of policy. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The correct venue for this would be DRV as there isn't an incident of any sort. I vote for a speedy close here. Waggie (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing admin here: Even DRV is unnecessary for this. All that was needed was a little time for me to see the request and respond. Bringing forward sources not discussed previously is a perfectly legitimate reason to ask for the close to be reverted in this situation, so I've done that, restored the article and its talk page, and relisted the AfD. Problem solved, I hope. --RL0919 (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919:Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I think the problem is solved and this discussion is closed. Apologies if this was not the right forum for this concern. Thank you all.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 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 by Tonyof408

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 see User talk:Tonyof408 -- John of Reading (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 5 October 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.

2601:49:8402:EA20:F599:5DDF:52D4:3FDB

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:2601:49:8402:EA20:F599:5DDF:52D4:3FDB just added incorrect information after their final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 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 IP

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.

---

Despite a previous block and a multitude of warnings, this user continues to push unsourced info and original research into articles. As there are constructive edits in between the disruptive ones (here, here, here, here & here as examples), I figured it was not simply a case of vandalism and may require slightly more scrutiny from an admin. Robvanvee 06:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Robvanvee 08:29, 5 October 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.

Cross wiki harassment

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.

---

85.84.112.122

WP:LTA Multi IP handler again into cross wiki harassment.

Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70 & 85.85.58.215.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked by Samwalton9--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 5 October 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.

Repeatedly naming an alleged Milkshaking assailant without providing reliable sources

• Rowan Croft (Grand Torino) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ruy costa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Ruy costa created a new article on 24 September about a far-right YouTuber, Rowan Croft (disclosure: I have since nominated this article for deletion). One of the two paragraphs in the article was about a Milkshaking incident. The WP article claimed the milkshake thrown at Croft contained curry powder, and named the alleged assailant definitively, in WP's voice. The source used was an online news aggregator site, theliberal.ie, generally regarded as a biased and unreliable source (the owner has had to publish apologies following court cases (a second time after trying to hide the first apology) and pay damages for plagiarism). The unreliable source used for this does at least sprinkle "alleged" and "allegedly" throughout its article, when mentioning who it alleges carried out the assault. I first added a 'citation needed' template but then removed the defamatory content altogether.

On 2 October, Ruy costa edited the Milkshaking article to again directly name the alleged assailant and state that the milkshake contained curry powder. The "reliable source" is a YouTube video of the incident.

I removed the claims as they were not sourced. I also posted to the user's talk page, on 2 October, warning them about the requirement to reliably source such assertions.

I thought that would be an end to the matter, but on 3 October, Ruy costa has re-added the content, repeating their claim in the edit summary. The source used this time is a tweet by the person they claim is the attacker, which, from the wording, is certainly nothing that could be construed as proof.

I've no idea if the person in the video is the person Ruy costa is repeatedly naming. And I can't find any reliable sources naming her. I'm not sure if the edits need oversight (personally I would err on the side of caution), but I definitely do think that the user in question needs to be advised to properly source their edits, per WP:V and WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've warned User:Ruy costa against restoring material removed from the article for WP:BLP reasons without getting consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. In your opinion, do the edits to the two articles require oversight? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I did some revdels which hopefully got it all. Since the named person apparently put up a picture of the incident on Twitter they must not be super-concerned, so I wouldn't see the need for oversight. (Though it does look like their face in the picture, they never admitted their responsibility). This is contingent on it really being their actual Twitter account which seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Whispering: You didn't get them all [189]. EEng 00:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Birth data of Japanese voice actors without indicating sources

I think it is too much, since Debiit appeared on different Wikipedias, it does not stop placing the same birth data of the Japanese voice actors without indicating any source that, according to their discussion page: the dates themselves are verifiable if you It should refer to moderately reliable sites such as Anime Network, MyAnimeList, etc. and since he is the other way around, he doesn't care and continues to add false data. I have tried to contact different Stewards on Meta-Wiki to clarify this case but they never answered their calls, meanwhile Debiit threatened to ask for global blocks to the IPs that tried to correct it and it was fulfilled.

And, of course, why Debiit removes the maintenance templates if no one else has translated or expanded it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and changing the images of the two actors in his own way 41, 42.

In addition, he has recently requested the temporary protection of the article Tōru Nara here upon Requests for page protection but what happens is that I translated it because users have not expanded the article enough in Japanese Wikipedia 1 and however Debiit always adds false data to the actors when he wants to, the same happened with Chika Anzai which for example tried to add truthfully the birth year 1 but, other users reverted it several times because it did not indicate the same sources. Due to his behavior and lack of understanding among several users who tried to warn him on his discussion page, almost a month ago Debiit was blocked in Wikimedia Commons allegedly for uploading unfree files after warnings and kept putting the images of the voice actors. If you have any complaints please do it here, we are tired of the same with its reversion to other users, thanks. 148.101.55.21 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've notified Debiit of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I think you're a very hypocritical person. You have accused me of vandalism in numerous occasions while you are the one who is always changing or deleting the births dates of Japanese voice actors in all the Wikipedias because you want it in that way. You don't own Wikipedia, so you don't have the right to do it and to tell others what to do either, this is a free site. Honestly Wikipedia was a better place when you weren’t around. 'Me and other users'?, don't make me laugh, you are the only one who manages all the IPs and adds the expand template in articles that are complete only because 'they lack a biography', that can be considered true vandalism. Stop meddling in my affairs with other users, I'm tired of you following me around and going after my editions. And also, learn how to speak English properly before trying to take me down like this, you are always causing troubles to me and other users as well. Debiit (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Debiit: what is your source for the birth date in Tōru Nara? As far as I can tell, the cited source says nothing about a 1980 birth date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. Blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Debiit been blocked twice before by NRP for BLP violations, and their reaction to the IP's complaints on their Talk page was almost a mirror image of what it is here. Rather than acknowledge their disruptive behavior and correct it, they attack the IP. I've therefore blocked them for one month. If their behavior persists after expiration of the block, the next block should be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, @NinjaRobotPirate: forgot to withdraw Chika Anzai's birth year, as I said before, I was reviewing the page on Japanese Wikipedia although unfortunately I have not seen any reference of their birth and it would be better to talk to the Stewards to convince them to withdraw them, since many users of different languages ​​are guessing it, looking from the Google search and all databases. Thanks. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing that prevents you from removing the DOB from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: why not? 148.0.112.100 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood. Bbb23 is saying that if there is a change that needs to be made, you don't need an administrator to make it, you can make it yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you can't remove the birth data of those Japanese voice actors, I will do it myself, but I want to remind you that if Debiit returns after his block he will return the same dates as they were before and remove all the maintenance templates from those mentioned The same happens in Wikipedia of all languages ​​where he has reversed several of the IPs when trying to correct them because I have seen many of those articles in Japanese Wikipedia without years of birth if they want to intervene. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And one more thing, I have also seen that some Japanese Wikipedia users had already placed the date of birth with true references. See: 1, 2 148.0.112.100 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of reliable sources for etymologies

I write plant articles and expand plant stubs. In the naming section of each article, I give the etymology of the plant's name. User:Wimpus does not agree with many and deletes the etymology and the reference from the articles that I,and others, have written.[190],[191], [192]. Despite being asked to stop deleting reliable sources and pleas from other editors to reach consensus[193] and here, Wimpus persists, claiming for example, that the sources have been "misinterpreted"[194] or "are quite unclear whether they refer with Greek..."[195] Any help with having this editor stop removing reliable sources would be appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite having made thousandths of etymological edits, explaining the Greek and Latin roots of Latin botanical words, Gderrin has admitted that he knows very little Latin and very little Greek. Therefore he does not recognize in multiple instance when he is using conflicting sources or when he is misinterpreting sources. But even worse, he makes things up. In my last five edits (see [196], [197], [198], [199], [200]) I had to remove etymological additions of Gderrin, in which he claimed that certain Latin or Greek words could be found in the source he used, while these words were not mentioned at all by the specific source. It is very difficult, due to his lack of knowledge on this topic, to explain to Gderrin, what is actually wrong with his edits. In our last two disputes (Talk:Caladenia oreophila and Talk:Caladenia callitrophila), he does not seem to understand what a compound is, nor the difference between Greek and Latinized Greek. Such knowledge is not a prerequisite for editors to edit on Wikipedia, but when your editing extensively on etymological sections of Latin botanical epithets, mistakes and misinterpretations are bound to happen. In the last few months I had to correct hundredths of mistakes made by Gderrin. Any help to prevent Gderrin from making unreliable etymological edits, would be appreciated. Wimpus (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The context of this dispute is lacking in any third party involvement. I would find that the lack of seeking out a third party with knowledge of the area is seriously problematic. I would think that in wikipedia, the notion of negotiation or seeking a third opinion, seems to be so sadly lacking in this discussion. I think the test is someone with adequate knowledge of what is being discussed, otherwise one persons version against another is not what wikipedia is about - collaboration, consensus and cooperation to find others with sufficient background knowledge, otherwise it is a disservice to the involved parties, and the long suffering observers of this discussion. JarrahTree 06:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Also a careful and close reading of the talk page of User:Wimpus is required to adequately understand the 'space' that gives this current discussion some background. JarrahTree 06:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's important not to get bogged down here in the details of etymological edits. The issue is primarily about seeking consensus. I have interacted extensively with Wimpus in order to try to achieve a consensus on how to handle explanations of the meaning of scientific names (as can be seen from his talk page). Wimpus undoubtedly understands historical etymology, but does always seem to accept the need to try to reach consensus with editors of differing expertise – "experts" have no special dispensation here.
  There is a difficulty with some otherwise reliable sources giving "short cut" explanations of the origins and meaning of scientific names, which are not exactly wrong, but miss out details. For example, in scientific names, the component atr- usually has the meaning 'black', especially 'dark black'. It's ultimately derived from the Latin ater; the e disappears in compounds as is normal for second declension Latin adjectives ending in -er (the genitive is atri). I've found several otherwise reliable botanical sources that simply say something along the lines of "derived from the Latin atro (or atro-) meaning black", which is correct, but misses out steps. This leads to the WP:VNT conflict, which is difficult to resolve without maximum goodwill on all sides. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the implied claim here that the principle of consensus requires prior discussion and seeking of consent in cases of simple, straightforward corrections (including removals) of edits that are just, simply, incontrovertibly wrong, as was the case in, for example, this edit. If you see an entry like that, and you have the expertise to understand why it's wrong, then the only correct thing to do is exactly what Wimpus did: remove it, with a matter-of-fact and informative edit summary. Accusing Wimpus of disruption for such edits is not appropriate. The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Echoing Fut.Perf., using debating tactics (talking about consensus and so forth) is rather beside the point when factually incorrect information is involved. Would Gderrin please identify an edit by Wimpus that Gderrin knows removed correct information, or which added incorrect information. Please give reasons for how that is known. There are diffs above but I'm not talking about the fact that reverts occurred—the issue people should be concerned about is what is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gderrin: I would like to know as well. If necessary, I can provide a long list with incorrect etymological edits made by Gderrin. Wimpus (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It is not necessary for @Gderrin: or anyone else supplying an etymology to be a latinist or someone who reads Greek. It is sufficient to reference the etymological source. And if there is a conflict, then another editor may include the conflict within the article together with his or her source. Deleting referenced editing is generally an inappropriate action. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @MargaretRDonald: I would agree with you, in case the interpretation of a source would be straightforward and would not require any knowledge on the subject. But, in many cases, correct referencing of a source requires some (not much) basic knowledge.
        

In this edit, based on Stearn's Botanical Latin, you have stated:"valvis (valved), ". This is factually incorrect. As, I have an earlier edition of Stearn's Botanical Latin on my shelves, I was able to check the precise wording of Stearn and saw that you confused the word-forming element -valvis with the dative/ablative plural noun valvis. In case you oblivious to the difference between word-forming elements and dative/ablative plural nouns, such misinterpretations are bound to happen.

In another edit, based on Stearn's Botanical Latin, you have stated: "obtusifolia, meaning "obtuse or blunt leaves", which is factually also incorrect, as you translate a Latin adjective with a noun (=leaves). In case you would have interpreted Stearn's Botanical Latin correctly (and especially his translation of the word-forming element -folius as -leaved), you would have arrived at a different (correct) translation.

It is not my intend to discuss your edits in extenso, but I would like to make clear, that editing without any knowledge on the subject and not being able to fully comprehend in subsequent discussions the linguistic issues that are being discussed, can be detrimental to the reliability of Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections @Wimpus:. I agree that yours are the better translations, in the two cases you have marked. However, the point with most of these botanical terms is that they are compounds, and in the creation of a compound such as "blunt-leaved" (or "with blunt leaves") "blunt" (adjective) describes the "leaf/ves" (noun) to give a latin compound which may be translated into English in several ways: "blunt-leaved" gives an English compound, while "with blunt leaves" or "having blunt leaves" also gives the sense of the latin compound. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Correcting translations is fine/excellent. Deleting references is less satisfactory... MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Wimpus is undoubtedly right as regards the linguistics in the two cases above, although I think that calling the edits "factually incorrect" without any further qualification was not helpful. The important information for our readers – what the epithets fissivalvis and obtusifolia mean – is correct. The grammar was not – both epithets are compound adjectives not nouns, so (as MargaretRDonald wrote above) are best translated into English as either adjectives, like "split-valved" for fissivalvis, or as prepositional phrases, like "with blunt leaves" for obtusifolia. If I were marking the original edits, and I have taught and examined linguistics for computer science, I would take a mark off for lack of precision, but that's all. The relevance of this is that we are writing etymology for readers interested in the organisms, not for linguistics specialists, and in this context the important facts are correct. Maybe it's an issue with writing in a second language, but Wimpus could usefully be less confrontational. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

But there is a difference between "with obtuse leaves" and "obtuse leaves". The latter might even suggest that the "epithet" is a noun in apposition, to which different rules of the Code applies.

In these aforementioned two examples, I could easily remediate the incorrect translations by checking Stearn's Botanical Latin, but in the earlier-mentioned edit, in which Gderrin claimed that ancylosa is an ancient Greek word, while the word is not even mentioned by its source at all, the only proper thing I could do, was to remove the etymological information and its source. Of course, I have checked whether the source provided other relevant information pertinent to ancylosa, but without conducting questionable OR, I could not satisfactorily add this.

Information that is added to Wikipedia should correspond to the information as expressed in the source. And when an editor, in a subsequent discussion, can not answer basic questions considering this correspondence, and clearly misunderstands the information extracted from his source, it seem untenable to reinsert the contested edits over and over again. Wimpus (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As Gderrin started this request to intervene, it would appreciate (and expect) if Gderrin would, as requested by Johnuniq, identify those edits in which I removed correct information or in which I added incorrect information. In case, Gderrin can not unequivocally provide such edits, I would like to ask the administrators whether it is possible to restrict Gderrin's rights to edit etymological sections.Wimpus (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I stongly object to such a conclusion to the issues at this point in time, on the basis that GDerrin is unavailable until November as he is away from his usual computer contact. He is unable to respond to any specific issues at this time. In requesing WP:AGF perhaps this conversation may remain in abeyance, until his return to specifically respond to anything here. Also I would like to echo Peter coxhead's comment, a more relaxed and perhaps less confrontational attitude might help the discussion JarrahTree 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So, Gderrin made a request to intervene on 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC), made his last edit in less then 48 hours (21:53, 28 September 2019 (UCT)) and then went on a Wiki-leave for a month, and did not respond to a single edit posted here? That seems inopportune. Wimpus (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A significant number of editors find your attitude problematic, and in the end, regardless of the veracity your editing, the attitude is simply not very helpful for what wikipedia is WP:ABOUT - take the hint, to survive a community like this is not being simply right or wrong, but how you conduct yourself. There is a long history of former editors who were in fact right about something but simply never could get the other part right... JarrahTree 00:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I made my case at the start of this. “Correct” in this context, depends on what’s in the references, not on the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Gderrin (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll at least go through the cited diffs from the beginning:

• "That reference even uses the non-existing tricho as Greek form. So, that reference is not reliable for etymological information" I would need more explanation from Wimpus on what is wrong with this one, as I don't see the text using "tricho" as a Greek form. That text rather asserts 'trichos'. Hard to find anyone using that as a word, but I assume it's a transliteration of Greek τριχός (having hair). Our own Wiktionary (of course not a reliable source) also asserts a translingual and English prefix 'tricho-' as a derivative of Greek θρίξ (thrix, hair). But more importantly, I don't see in the cited pages where this text actually explicitly states the etymology of trichoglottis.

reponse Wimpus

begin

Gderrin uses two sources, i.e. Brown and Trin keys, for his etymology ("name Trichoglottis is derived from the Ancient Greek words trichos meaning "hair" and glottis meaning "tongue" referring to the hairy labellum in the type species, T. retusa.")

Brown does not mention the full compound Trichoglottis, but only explains the single words. Gderrin conducts OR when he explains this full compound based on Brown. Brown however does not mention glottis on p. 466. More importantly, Brown translates glottis with "mouth of the windpipe" (p. 538: "Gr. glottis, -idos, f. mouth of the windpipe") and not with "tongue". "Tongue" can be found on p. 805 in Brown as: "Gr. glossa (glotta), f. tongue".

In his description "Gr. glottis, -idos, f. mouth of the windpipe")" Brown provides two forms of glottis, i.e. glottis and glottidos. The first is the nominative case, the second the genitive case, that means "of the mouth of the windpipe". The translation "mouth of the windpipe" only applies to the nominative case. It is quite common to provide in dictionaries for so-called consonant stems, besides the nominative case also the genitive case, as the genitive case includes the final letter of the stem (stem of glottis is glottid-), while that is obscured in the nominative case. For "trichos" we can find in Brown on p. 392: "Gr. thrix, trichos, f. hair". Here we can see that Brown similarly provides a second form "trichos", besides the nominative case "thrix". Gderrin only mentions this genitive case and not the nominative case, while the translation "hair" only applies to the nominative case. That is quite confusing and in contrast with using glottis (nominative) and not glottidos (genitive case) for glottis. So, it seems the Gderrin merely randomly picks one of these two cases.

In Trin keys, we can find: "Trichoglottis, which is derived from the Greek thrix, tricho, hair and glotta, tongue, refers to the pubescent labellum in the type species." First of all, that source uses glotta for tongue, not glottis. The part "Greek thrix, tricho, hair" is confusing, as we would expect trichos, the genitive case, when a second form is presented. But tricho is not the genitive case. They are merely mistaken and used a non-existing word. Maybe they referred to the word-forming element tricho- (that has to be written with a hyphen, to indicate that it is not a full word).

To summarize:

1. Gderrin uses Brown to explain the full compound Trichoglottis, while this compound is not mentioned by Brown at all.

2. Gderrin refers to glottis with a reference to Brown, while Trin keys mentions glotta instead.

3. Gderrin refers to the wrong page in Brown for glottis.

4. He provides the wrong translation of glottis that actually belongs to glossa (glotta) in Brown. Although he may have used selectively, the translation of Trin keys for glotta instead, although he refers directly to Brown.

5. Gderrin mentions for thrix, only the genitive case, while the translation applies to the nominative case in Brown. For glottis he mentions the nominative case.

6. Gderrin uses two sources that seems to be clearly in conflict. Trin keys even provides a Greek word, that is actually not a word at all.

This long list demonstrates, that Gderrin confuses various things, makes serious mistakes in referencing sources and conducts OR.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

end

• "No, the source states that giant would be Greek. No, you have left that out and you actually acknowledging that not all the infomration provided by this site is correct. So plwase, do not use this site." Indeed, the source asserts that 'gigant' is Greek, a claim for which I can find no support.

reponse Wimpus

begin

I have made a mistake here. I thought (in this edit) that the source was writing "giant" instead of "gigant". I saw a pseudo-Greek form in the text of the source and concluded that it was not in correspondence with the real Greek gigas (γίγας). As you acknowledge, "gigant" is not Greek either. Later, I checked the original source of the describing authors and changed the etymological information accordingly. The Euclid-site, that was used as source by Wiki-editor Hughesdarren merely misread the original publication.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

end

• "removed incorrect etymology that is partly derived from the Euclid site, that is not very reliable for etymological information. The form stylis was used on Euclid, while style was written here. But is this really Latin or merely Greek στυλίς." I think Wimpus looks over a more severe problem, that one of the sources for the alleged etymology predates the description of the taxon.

reponse Wimpus

begin

This etymology ("The specific epithet (brevistylis) is from the Latin words brevis meaning “short” and style.") was added by Gderrin in this edit.

1. Gderrin refers to two "Latin" words brevis and style. Style is actually English for botanical Latin stylus (that is derived from classical Latin stilus according to Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983)).

2. Gderrin uses for style the Euclid-site, but this site mentions not style, but stylis ("Eucalyptus brevistylis: Latin brevis, short and stylis, style."). The form stylis is however inconsistent with the form stylus as mentioned by Stearn's Botanical Latin.

Again, incorrect referrencing and use of a source that seems to be at odds with more reliable sources. Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

end

• "Misinterpretation of sources." Indeed, I agree with that assessment.

reponse Wimpus

begin

Gderrin's etymology: "The specific epithet (callitrophila) is derived from the name of cypress pines in the genus Callitris with the Ancient Greek ending -philus meaning "loving"."

1. On p. 498 of Brown we can not find the ending -philus. We can find on the same page "philos, beloved, dear", but that has -os and not -us and it is not using a hyphen. So, it seems that Gderrin is misquoting Brown.

2. No words in ancient Greek are known that end on -philus, as that is actually written as -philos (-φιλος).

3. In Short and George we can find: "-philus (adj. A, in Gk comp.) loving". It seems that they are suggesting that -philus is actually Greek, which is easily disproved by the link to Liddell & Scott. But I do think that Short and George are using the label Gk to refer to words that are "Greek-derived" and not "ancient Greek forms" per se. I can not find the phrase "ancient Greek" in Short and George and I do not see clear evidence in Short and George that they really mean "ancient Greek" when using "Gk". Gderrin interprets the label "Gk" in George and Short as "ancient Greek", but can not quote directly from Short and George to support his interpretation.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

end

Okay, so given those examples, I agree with all of Wimpus' reverts presented. I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221 for your analysis. I am editing this on a phone in a remote area with poor connectivity and have no books with me. (Trying to get plant images.) Apologies for this cryptic response. 1. Trichoglottis - the etymology is in the ref cited “Derivation of name”; 2. E. gigantangion- The etymology is from the authors of the species’ formal description; 3. E. brevistylis was described in 1974. None of the references predates that. Gderrin (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Although some compounds/epithets could be interpreted straight-forwardly there are numerous cases, in which a compound is less easily interpreted. When Gderrin is conducting OR-etymologies based on Brown, he arrives in many cases at different conclusions, than other editors would do, based on Brown. This is quite detrimental to Wikipedia. As my respons has shown, Gderrin frequently makes mistakes, misread Brown or other sources, confuses words and word-forming elements, randomly picks the nominative or genitive case, seems to find specific words in Brown that are not really there, does not seem to notice that he is using conflicting sources, confuses ancient Greek and Latinized Greek et cetera. His current response shows, that he does not seem to understand what he is actually doing wrong. He repeatly states that he is only referrencing sources, but does not seem to understand that a lot goes wrong, when he is "only" referrencing sources. My statements and wording might be too confrontational. English is my second language and I might lack the English language skills to phrase it less confrontationally. Otherwise, as Gderrin is a prolific editor, this problem is so wide-spread, that we can not ignore this. We should not value the right of Gderrin "to have fun with inventing etymologies" of more importance than the reliability of Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Gderrin: considering your response of 05:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC):

ad 1: That is not true, as Brown nor Trin keys indicate that Trichoglottis is derived from trichos and glottis. Trin keys does not mention trichos and glottis at all.

ad 2: That is also not true, as I have demonstrated that the authors use gigas instead and not gigant, that is merely an error on the Euclid-site.

ad 3: Brown's book is from 1956, while Eucalyptus brevistylis was described in 1974. Although the form and meaning of brevis has not changed in the intermediate 18 years, Brown however does not mention the full epithet brevistylis.

In the meantime I have found brevistylis on p. 608 of Brown: "Osmorrhiza brevistylis (sweet cicely)", but he does not give a translation of brevistylis and he does not make clear to which word brevistylis can be linked. Wimpus (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

We should thank Someguy1221 (!!!!) for checking the diffs. But Gderrin; wouldn't that be your task? You are accusing me of making inappropriate edits, but you seem to refuse to provide evidence when asked. Wimpus (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The references trin.org and euclid/CANBR are reliable (published) sources and should not have been removed. Gderrin (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that those sources are reliable, I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself. I have deliberately not addressed whether there is any behavioral issue on Wimpus' part, but if he is edit warring or refusing to accept consensus in the face of obvious mistakes and original research, it is quite understandable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to be succinct. That does not appear to have worked.

• ’’Trichoglottis’’ Trin keys gives “‘’Trichoglottis ‘’, which is derived from the Greek ‘’thrix, tricho’’ hair and ‘’glotta’’ tongue. I added “derived from ‘’trichos’’”. That derivation was removed because “that reference is not reliable for etymological information.” Trin keys is a reliable (published) source. The derivation should not have been removed. Removing the letter ‘s’ would have been acceptable.
• ‘’E. gigantangion’’

Euclid gives “Greek ‘’gigant’’ a giant and ‘’aggeion’’ a vessel or receptacle.” That derivation was removed with a long edit summary ending “So please do not use this site.” Euclid is a reliable source.

• ’’E. brevistylis’’ Euclid gives “Latin ‘’brevis’’ short and ‘’stylis’’ style.” That derivation was removed because “...the Euclid site is not very reliable for etymological information.”

The Euclid/CANBR/CSIRO is a reliable (published) source.

These are articles about plants. The derivation is to inform readers of the meaning of the epithet. In these three cases, and in a large number of others, the meaning was deleted, along with the reference, in spite of the meaning subsequently being apparently accepted as correct. ‘’Trichoglottis’’ “hair, tongue”; ‘’gigantangion’’ “giant vessel”; ’’brevistylis’’ “short style”.

Someguy1221 - If by “I would honestly have trouble believing you”, you are suggesting I am dishonest, then discussion with you is pointless. If that is not the implication, I suggest you might choose your words more carefully. Gderrin (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Below, please take note that I am not offering an opinion in a content dispute, and saying that one person is right and one person is wrong. My goal is to explain whether or not certain edits are disruptive, which requires me to analyze whether they are reasonable. A series of eminently reasonable actions would not be considered disruptive and would not require administrative attention.

• 1. Trichoglottis: If you were using Trin for the etymology, you should not have been citing Brown at all. There is also an inherent problem with Trin in that it claims tricho- to be Greek, which it is not. It is derived from Greek. I can imagine reasonable arguments for both inclusion and deletion, but this removal had a very good reason and should not be considered disruptive. This can be resolved through dispute resolution.
• 2. E. gigantangion: "gigant" is not Greek, which almost immediately makes the removal reasonable. I also think that declaring Euclid to be unreliable is a reasonable reaction to seeing a source claim a word to be Greek that is not.
• 3. Eucalyptus brevistylis: If you're citing CANBR for the etymology, you should not be citing Brown at all. Also, the specific revert referred to was removing text that, as written, implied "style" to be a Latin word. While this could have been corrected instead of deleted, given that I've already conceded there is a reasonable argument to be made that CANBR/Euclid is not reliable, combined with the use of Brown, this was a reasonable action.

In conclusion, I cannot find anything disruptive in the diffs presented. Every edit pointed to as an example of a problem requiring administrative attention in fact requires none. These are ordinary content disputes, and they can be resolved by dispute resolution. CANBR/Euclid or other sources can be taken to WP:RSN if there is a debate over its reliability for etymologies. And as with assessing the reasonableness of the edits, please don't mistake this for me making an argument that these sources are unreliable. I'm saying that Wimpus' position is reasonable, and should not be considered evidence of bad faith or otherwise disruptive behavior. As far as I am concerned, the only thing you have demonstrated is that Wimpus frequently disagrees with you. As for honesty, you have never addressed why you are citing Brown (1954) for etymologies of species described after that book was published. In one case you cited him for a word he never uses, and in the others, you use it to define components mentioned in another source, which could be reasonably argued to be a form of original research.

I am being very sincere when I say cannot honestly take anything you say at face value until that gets an explanation, since you blew past the issue and denied it exists, while anyone can plainly see in several diffs a 1954 source cited for the etymology of species described much later. If your explanation is going to be that you were not citing it for the etymology, but for the definition of a word used in another source, you could have provided that explanation (still a problem that the position of the footnote explicitly gives Brown as the source of the etymology itself) instead of just saying None of the references predates that. It was never my intention to imply I think that you are dishonest. But it cannot escape notice that you made a statement that is not true. Whether that resulted from a mistake in remembering, or looking at the wrong diff, or misunderstanding the question I had posed, (or actually being dishonest), it leads to the same result: I am no longer able to believe that what you say is true without proof.

Regardless, and I also mean this very honestly, if this was your best case for arguing that Wimpus is being disruptive, I suggest simply dropping the issue, and dealing with any lingering disputes through the ordinary venues. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, thank you for your patience. You might understand that I am still doubting in various other cases whether the etymological information that is added by Gderrin truly reflects its sources. I do not have access to each single source Gderrin is using, but I have noticed numerous times, that he is claiming that something is ancient Greek, while evidently it is not. I think it would be better if Gderrin would cease adding etymological information and would check/double-check all his previous etymological edits and in case of doubt, would remove them. But I doubt whether Gderrin would cease voluntarily his etymological editing. Is requesting a topic-ban the only solution? Wimpus (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The whole issue about incorrect information and conflicting sources regarding Trichoglottis, was already discussed earlier on my talk-page with Gderrin (see here), but without any succes. I have difficulties to belief that discussions with Gderrin will prevent such errors to happen. Wimpus (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the forum in which to discuss how we should present explanations of the meaning of the scientific names of organisms (specifically plants in this case), and the discussion is straying into this area. I think we do need some agreed guidelines, at WP:PLANTS or WP:TOL, but these should be developed there, not here. I would only make one hopefully new point. Reviewing the discussion above, I think terms like "etymology" and "etymological" are unhelpful, and are causing some of the problems. In a plant article, we aren't doing etymology, we are explaining the meaning of the scientific name of a plant and of the components of the name. The names are constructed in Botanical Latin, not classical Latin or ancient Greek, and what matters is how the word and the components of the word are used in Botanical Latin. (The definitive source for Botanical Latin is William T. Stearn's Botanical Latin.) The fact that they may have an origin in ancient Greek is of some interest, but ultimately marginal. Botanical sources frequently give abbreviated explanations based on the use of words and word components in Botanical Latin. These may often not meet the strict requirements of an etymologist, and may not match ancient Greek usage, but are not incorrect. Repeating a point I made above, to claim flatly that such abbreviated explanations are "incorrect" is not a helpful way of engaging in a constructive discussion.
I can't see that anything useful is being gained by discussing this further here. Since Wimpus appears to have clear ideas on how to present and source explanations of scientific names, I suggest beginning a user essay page, perhaps under WP:PLANTS in the first instance. Then we can try to reach a consensus on some guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully support Peter's proposal to move this out of here, due to the nature of the discussion and the issues, it almost makes it impossible for anyone from outside of botanical nomenclature, or latin and greek issues, to actually get a handle on the subject. Also administrators noticeboard is not a place for such lengthy commentary. It really needs some move to Plants - and really a better sense of understanding how to negotiate move towards consensus . JarrahTree 09:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also in agreement and thank Peter Coxhead for his contribution. Gderrin (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, you seem to make a few fundamental errors. This discussion is not only straying into how we should present explanations of the meaning of the scientific names of organisms, but also whether Gderrin is clearly misquoting, misreading and misinterpreting his sources. You seem to turn a blind eye to the damage done by Gderrin to the etymological sections in various botanical lemmata. You can not deny that Gderrin in the aforementioned cases clearly made mistakes and seemed to misread his sources and fabricated in a few instances an etymology. You can not change ad libitum, glotta to glottis, stylis to style and tricho to trichos. And when Gderrin does not seem to understand it is wrong to arbitrarily use one orthography/form or the other, the only solution would be that Gderrin would cease editing on etymological sections. No clear guideline would prevent Gderin from making such detrimental edits.

It seems ad absurdum to claim that "terms like "etymology" and "etymological" are unhelpful" and "we aren't doing etymology, we are explaining the meaning of the scientific name of a plant and of the components of the name" and "The names are constructed in Botanical Latin, not classical Latin or ancient Greek". Primo, it is quite common in Botanical journal articles to give an etymology under the heading "etymology". Denying that such "etymologies" are actually "etymologies" at all, seems ridiculous. Secundo, names are not necessarily constructed in Botanical Latin. Alot of epithets already existed before working knowledge of Latin and Greek waned in the botanical community. Other epithets might be formed analogously. I really doubt whether Ferdinand von Müller even thought that "gamophylla" would be "from the ancient Greek words gamus (sic) meaning "marriage" and -phyllus (sic) meaning "-leaved"." Such an etymology is flawed, as it misidentifies word-forming elements derived from Greek as ancient Greek words. It is of no use to tell our readers that something is ancient Greek, while evidently it is not and to tell our readers something is a word, while the hyphen clearly indicates otherwise. And Botanical Latin does not mean that dendro [sic] becomes "tree", glottis becomes "tongue", tricho [sic] becomes "hair", phloia [ic] becomes "bark". You can not use the label "Botanical Latin" as shorthand for the sloppy etymologies provided by classically illiterate present-day botanists. First of all, we have to get rid of unreliable secondary sources, that muddy the waters. In the near future I will post on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard the Euclid-site as unrealiable source. I am actually amazed by Gderrin's unconditional religious trust in such sites, despite the clear evidence, that in many cases, the etymologies are clearly flawed. Wimpus (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: please review WP:5P4 in relation to all your remarks above about a fellow editor.

Sadly, we don't seem to be getting any closer to a consensus. In the scientific names of plants, the component dendro (or variants) does mean "tree", the component glottis (or variants) does mean "tongue", the component tricho (or variants) does mean "hair", and the component phloia (or variants) does mean "bark". Simple changes, like replacing "word" by "component" are often all that is needed to ensure that accuracy is preserved while meaning is explained.

The sloppy etymologies provided by classically illiterate present-day botanists: this kind of attitude towards sources and the authors of those sources is not useful in an encyclopedia devoted to re-presenting information rather than generating it.

I can only repeat that it would be much more productive if we all spent our time working on some guidelines which would be helpful to less linguistically knowledgeable editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: And again, your are ignoring the problems with Gderrin's etymological edits. One clear question: Is my assessment that "Gderrin in the aforementioned cases clearly made mistakes and seemed to misread his sources and fabricated in a few instances an etymology." not true? Wimpus (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of unsourced material by TAPCLAPgamefansince2018

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.

---

A few days ago, new user TAPCLAPgamefansince2018 (talk · contribs) started adding unsourced pronunciations in articles about US place names. They contained quite a few errors, so I corrected the ones I could and removed the others, and left them a note explaining the errors. But when I asked for further clarifications after they continued adding/restoring unsourced pronunciations, they said they "just assumed" some of them. This cast serious doubt on the accuracy of their contributions as a whole, so I warned them about verifiability here (to which this was their response) and here, and removed all of their unsourced additions except the ones I could find a source for and fix accordingly. Then the user reverted some of my removals even though they had said i'll provide a reliable source for it just ride the my skateboard then we can talk. I warned them about verifiability, specifically WP:BURDEN, again, and reverted their reverts, again linking to WP:BURDEN in the summary. Their response was: BUT THOSE WERE UNSOURCED I JUST DIDNT FEEL LIKE PROVIDING THE SOURCE NOW SHUT UP ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU LOSE YOUR EDITING PRIVILEGES INSTEAD. Several hours later they reverted removals again, without providing any source despite having asked Kbb2 for recommended sources for pronunciations and received an answer.

It seems they added spurious pronunciations for Petersburg, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Peru, West Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia, etc. because they think such places should be referred to using pronunciations that differ from the more famous places—notice the use of should and has to in this response—which obviously runs counter to WP:NOR, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SOAPBOX. They have also made WP:POINTy edits at Tow, Texas and Vienna, Georgia, where they removed pronunciations which were unsourced but had stood for years, and removed them again even after I added sources for them. They also have marked all their edits as minor (which, in their defense, they haven't been warned about) and disregarded my warning about WP:SIGLINK, even reverting SineBot.

I have assumed good faith, as can be seen in my warnings (I think), but my assumption has reached its limits. The fact they have continued restoring challenged material without providing a reliable source despite having said they would, as well as remarks like this, this and this, and the POINTy behavior like this and this, demonstrates WP:NOTHERE intent IMHO, and thus I ask admins for an appropriate sanction. Nardog (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing their edit history, I have blocked this editor until they agree to stop adding unsourced content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 5 October 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.

Sir Joseph topic ban violation

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.

---

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being banned from antisemitism and the Holocaust, and accusing editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, Sir Joseph has decided to blatantly violate his topic ban. This is after these hints at it [201], [202], where he says he can't say anymore because he'll be blocked. The only thing he can't say anything more about is antisemitism. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you respond to me and mention the TBAN, then I think it's appropriate I can mention it. I do understand that you have a need to get me blocked or banned, but I do think you need to stop already. Your bias against me is really getting out of hand. And again, you accuse me of "hinting" at it, when I do no such thing. Where in those diffs do I violate any TBAN? What I suggest is a BOOMERANG and a one-way IBAN at this point. Your behavior towards me is shocking and unbecoming a sysop and functionary. Notice how you don't mention I am responding to YOUR comment where you mention the TBAN, why is that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, please see WP:BANEX. Someone mentioning your TBAN does not give you permission to violate it. – bradv🍁 02:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial (taken from Tony's first quote) - this is almost word-for-word what the topic ban explicitly says you cannot say. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  How else am I to respond to an admin then who mentions the TBAN at a page when he is requesting a comment for Election Commissioner and he brings up the TBAN? Note how I didn't bring up the TBAN, I just said at first that I can't say anything, and then TB, brings up the TBAN. It's extremely unfair to have an admin, and a functionary, bring up a TBAN and then say, "too bad, you can't respond." That's called baiting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  You could have stopped at Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, but that is not my issue with you. The bit in the middle is what's currently landing you here. I see no evidence that Tony was baiting you into talking about or violating your ban. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  I was responding to you to give people context as to why you were commenting about Vanamonde93 and myself, which given the criticism you leveled, I think is fair. You could have said "My TBAN from antisemitism isn't what this is about. Instead you said all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Additionally, saying that you can't comment anymore or you'll be blocked when the only thing you can be blocked for commenting about is antisemitism, is just a clever way to imply that you have issues with someone surrounding antisemitism.

  Also, as to your claim below, I don't know why I'd be trying to relitigate: the community agreed with me that you accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Further, TB is trying to relitigate, I never accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and I ask him to strike those claims immediately. It's clear he needs to stay away from me. That is why I want a IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, did you really think that comment wouldn't be a violation of your TBAN? You're clearly aware of your topic ban, and what it prohibits. I'm rather curious, because it would seem you're taunting the admins into blocking you. This comment doesn't even remotely fall under WP:BANEX. What are you really trying to accomplish here? Waggie (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you're not just topic banned from accusing people of antisemitism - you're banned from "the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed". This is a clear violation, and your comments at ECom and here are simply about revenge. Don't try to relitigate it - accept that you made a mistake and maybe this won't end up with a site ban. – bradv🍁 02:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Then ask TB to LEAVE ME ALONE. I get how you and him want me out, but that is not how it works. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, hate to break it to you...but you started this. Nobody made you comment on TB's ArbCom election entry, but you did, he replied, and now here we are. creffett (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is how it works, Sir Joseph: the community had a very long, very contentious discussion about your behavior, in which you participated vociferously. The end result was a topic ban. For whatever reason, you decided that you could violate the topic ban under the present circumstances, despite it not being an exception allowed by BANEX. For that, you will be blocked, and if you do it again, you will again be blocked, for a longer period of time. The third time you do it -- if there is a third time -- there will undoubtedly be a call to site ban you as being unable to control yourself and follow the restrictions the community placed on you. I have no idea how that discussion would end up, although I have no trouble predicting that it, too, would be a contentious discussion. That is how it works, Sir Joseph. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Like a cancer, I guess, it's a slow process, right? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, what is this supposed to mean? – bradv🍁 03:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Bradv:That is referring to one of the nasty and vile names BMK called me on the ANI thread that only recently was revdeled by El_C (after my request), even though many admins saw it but didn't bother to do anything about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• So you asked to have my comment rev-del'd, and it was -- to which I did not object [203] -- but, despite the fact that it so offensive to you that it had to be removed from Wikipedia, you feel free to refer to it when ot gives you a chance to jab at me? So ... your rule seems to be that you can do anything you like, but others must be held to a higher standard? Not only that, but you claim that I called you other "vile names", but no one can determine if that is factual or not because you asked for the comment to be rev-del'd! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, are you seriously trying to cast yourself as a victim here, after a comment of yours was found to be so offensive that it was rev-del'ed by another editor, who also admonished you about it? Are we supposed to be grateful that you did not object to that disgraceful comment being rev-del'ed? Here come the Suns (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Are you serious in saying -- as you did below -- that when Sir Joseph wrote "all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial" [204] he wasn't violating his topic ban from "the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've said what I had to say on the proposed ban and alternative sanctions, below. What I am saying here, is that someone who calls another editor "a cancer" is not going to get any sympathy from me, and should consider himself lucky he's not being up for a community ban. If it were up to me, you would. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I consider myself very lucky that I get to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a great project of tremendous social value. I also consider myself extremely concerned about editors of all types who are more attached to promoting their political and ideologcial points of view then they are to actually improving Wikipedia by the standards it holds us all to. I come across those kinds of editors every day, they come pushing many different ideologies, and they are all dangerous and debilitating to Wikipedia, every single one of them, without exception. I spend a great deal of my time removing their biased editing from the encyclopedia, and dealing with them is sometimes frustrating, because as true believers, they are all highly motivated to get their "truth" in front of our audience. When the chance comes to stop one of them from editing, I applaud that effort, and am glad to do whatever small part I can to help eliminate POV editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• A clear, unambiguous violation by Sir Joseph, which was not enticed, baited, or entrapped. Sir Joseph could easily have expressed his concerns about Vanamonde and Tony Ballioni, as Primefac demonstrated above. Sir Joseph has been on Wikipedia for over 14 years, so there is no conceivable way that he couldn't know that referring to the subject that he was explicitly banned from discussing is a straight-forward no-brainer violation of his topic ban. The claim that Tony Ballioni is trying to "relitigate" anything is absurd on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's an obvious violation of the tban, made worse by the fact that Sir Joseph is trying to pin the blame on Tony. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying I was responding to TonyBallioni who first mentioned to TBAN, not me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SJ, please, calm down. You are not in a good mood to edit Wikipedia. Really, why cannot you take some break? Nothing terrible will happen in one month. Just stop responding, and everything will be ok.

When a discussion about lifting of your TB will be initiated, I will vote for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:People are trying to not just block me, but SITE BAN me below just for a TBAN violation. That is why I'm upset. I didn't mention my TBAN, TB did, so I responded. He then brought me to ANI and this all happened. As I said, I just wanted to voice my opposition to his candidacy, and that was it. And I note that I only made a few comments in this section explaining my comments, that I just responded to his comment, nothing that would justify a CBAN. I do think TB needs to leave me alone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, Tony Ballioni is not topic banned from "the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed", while you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) You are complaining that Tony needs to leave you alone, even though it was you who went after Tony on the ECom page. You can play the victim all you like, but the diffs don't lie. Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban

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 entry boils down to an editor who violated a TBAN and does not seem to be getting why their action was problematic. Looking at their block history, this isn't the first time this editor has had problems with a TBAN, and has had several AE blocks. When confronted in these cases, Sir Joseph's reaction seems to generally be to blame others for causing the issue and to bludgeon and wikilawyer. Instead of going through that process yet again, I'm cutting to the chase: as an uninvolved editor, I'm proposing to CBAN Sir Joseph for repeated disruptive editing in controversial areas and knowing TBAN violations. creffett (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support SJ's responses here clearly indicate that no lesson has been learned. We can kick the can down the road or take decisive action now. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support sigh, here we are again. Sir Joseph has asserted above that if others respond to his comments about them, they are at fault for whatever he says, and that his response should be allowed to violate sanctions and policy. He has also decided to call for sanctions in response to his own sanctions violations. Since the last thread, he has attempted to gaslight anyone he can about the cause of his ban, and tonight he attempted to game the ban by saying "he couldn't say more", before deciding to comment directly on the thing he was banned on doing from the first place. This is someone who is completely and utterly incompatible with a collaborative project, and no amount of sanctions is going to change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – it's clear that SJ isn't going to take advice from anyone here or acknowledge his mistakes. He is not going to accept the result of the previous TBAN discussion, nor do we have any evidence whatsoever that he intends to abide by it. I see no other option. – bradv🍁 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose of course. If there is a violation, then TonyBallioni knows how to proceed, but bringing it to ANI 1)is overkill knowing that proposals can open up, 2) CBAN is not the first course of a TBAN violation and 3) I never said I didn't violate anything, I just said I was responding to TonyBallioni who first brought up the TBAN. There is absolutely no reason for a CBAN and no reason for a block, people just need to chill out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose- I'm sorry, but I don't see how the links provided above by TB are a violation of the Topic Ban. Saying a candidate is not suitable for a position of trust or power is not a comment on antisemitism or the Holocaust. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Here come the Suns, did you miss the part where he mentions antisemitism and the Holocaust? – bradv🍁 03:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  See the comment below , by Levivitch. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  That portion of their post wasn't the issue, it was the comment about antisemitism on Wikipedia that is the concern here. Waggie (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support: I keep thinking that short term blocks, or topic bans, etc., will help Sir Joseph realize that his overly confrontational behavior isn't constructive. Then I keep looking back at the block log, and the discussions on their talk page, the previous ANI discussions, and at the various talk pages SJ frequents. I'm concerned that SJ is contributing to a toxic atmosphere with their behavior. I would hope that they will back off a bit and start listening to and collaborating better with people that disagree with them. One doesn't have to agree with folks in order to get along with them and/or work with them. SJ simply doesn't seem to understand why he keeps getting sanctioned, and I can't see why it's not obvious to them. I really hope they get it, but I don't see much to be done for it at this point. I'd rather have a month-long block, though, in the hopes that they would have a chance to regroup and realize that the encyclopedia won't fall apart if things don't go entirely their way. Waggie (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I should hope the people commenting SUPPORT are commenting on THIS action and not on the prior ANI and trying to get the prior site ban discussion re-opened. Where in the above section is the proof for a CBAN? That's what you should ask yourselves before voicing your opinion. I made a few comments in this ANI discussion and that's about it. Nothing to warrant a ban that I can see.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• But, then again, you didn't think you had done anything that merited a topic ban, and the community disagreed with your evaluation and levied a topic ban anyway. What the community needs to decide here is whether this instance, a clear and straight-forward violation of your topic ban, is an indication that you are incapable of following that ban and it should just mvoe ahead to what would then seem inevitable, and ban you from the site, or whether, as Waggie says, escalating blocks would be effective in getting through to you that there are now two subjects about which you cannot refer to anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the circumstances outlined in WP:BANEX (which you should read, if you haven't already). In making that determination, the community can take notice of any data they wish to use, including your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on the previous AN/I discussion (in which the proposal for you to be site banned had 20 supports and 25 opposes, [205] not enough to enact, but not exactly a landslide in your favor either). It does not need to take heed of whatever self-serving restrictions you wish to put on it, and probably will simply ignore your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Your attitude surrounding the topic ban and your long history of failing to understand why you are being sanctioned is the reason people are proposing this, nothing more and nothing less. Please take it down a notch, because all you're doing now is making it worse. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• One issue is that bringing it to ANI is not the proper venue and TB knows that. He could have told me to remove that one sentence, he could have asked an admin to block me, or something similar, or he could have even gone to AN, but going to ANI knowing that ANI is out of scope of the TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  wikilawyering. Beyond My Ken (talk)W

  No, it's not wikilawyering to point out the correct venue and escalation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, there is no "correct venue" for drawing administrator attention to a TBAN violation. Any uninvolved admin could have blocked you for that comment. – bradv🍁 04:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's my point, TB chose to bring it here, knowing that ANYONE can open a proposal. Maybe someone should ask TonyBallioni to also take it down a notch, not only is he an admin, he is also a functionary. Let him act like one, it does take two to tango. I note I made only a few edits to the section above, explaining myself. Nothing remotely that justifies a CBAN, yet you and others jump to that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, so it's Tony Ballioni's fault again. Is nothing ever your fault? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  It has long been the case that ban requests which are started from scratch are opened in AN, but when a ban proposal flows naturally out of a discussion which has already been opened on AN/I, it is kept there, and not moved to AN., to avoid the disruption that causes. So, yes, it is Wikilawyering, and bad Wikilawyering at that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that this is not the correct chain of escalation. Blocks starting with short to long are the next steps. SJ's last block was 60 hrs. I would suggest 1-2 weeks in this case. Springee (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Springee, the issue is that Sir Joseph is completely and utterly incompatible with the behavioural standards of the English Wikipedia. If we block him, we will be back here indefinitely until he is banned. A block would only help him because people will forget about this once he's blocked, and he'll then find new ways to insult people claiming he's learned. That's exactly what happened this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you won't forget about me, that much we can see already. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as over-escalation at this point. If Sir Joseph does not understand or accept after a one-month block that he needs to be rigorous about avoiding the topic, then strong action can be taken. --RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support If this was just about the TBAN, I think escalating time-limited blocks could be effective. But this isn't just about the TBAN, and this isn't the first time Sir Joseph's been down this road. SJ has recieved numerous blocks for various types of tenditious and disruptive editing, and it continues right into this very discussion. That's the behavior that needs changing, and I don't think a one month block will change anything. The only block lengths that would have a net positive effect on the encyclopedia would be functionally indistinguishable from an indef. Since indefinite blocks after community review are considered community bans, that leaves me here. Oh, and for the record: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This counts as both. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This editor needs to be gone, per Tony Ballioni and bradv. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Over-escalation. The offending words were: Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. I don't see how that's siteban-worthy. He's not calling any editor antisemitic or a Holocaust denier. – Levivich 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • He is not topic banned from "calling other editors anti-semities or Holocaust deniers", his ban reads:

    Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed.

    Is it your position that

    Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you.

    is not a violation of that blanket, broadly-construed ban, or simply that it's not egregious enough to warrant a sire ban? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Beyond My Ken:, it seems SJ took my advice and stopped responding at ANI page. I think it would be fair to tone down this discussion, for it is obvious SJ is a very emotional but straight person, and he is not in an appropriate emotional state after he was topic banned. I think it would be noble to agree to stop, and to limit sanctions with 1 month block. Nobody prevents us from returning to this story later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

    • It is my position that there is a scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian about this exact situation: [206]. – Levivich 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Levivich, if it were just about this one TBAN violation, I would agree with you. I proposed a siteban only because SJ's past behavior and block log (including a past TBAN violation) suggests to me that this is a recurring problem which is not going to be solved by a warning or even a timed ban. Those have been tried before and clearly weren't sufficient since we're here again. Further, SJ either should have known that his post would be problematic and didn't, or knew it would be and went ahead with it anyway, neither of which I find acceptable for someone who has been around as long as him. Now, if I thought some lesser ban enforcement would work here, I would pull my support for a CBAN and vote for that. I wish there were something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffett (talk • contribs) 06:47, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
        • I see the statement as a pretty minimal violation of the TBAN, Creff, which I opposed in the first place because I read the statements (on TB and Sandstein's talk pages) that led up to the TBAN as not being particularly problematic, because they described a general issue on WP, and were not explicitly directed at any particular editor (though community consensus was that they had a clear-enough implication of such). But in my view, it's a minimal violation of a questionable TBAN. Going backwards from there, there was a month of no issues, and the O300 thing in early August (IIRC). A month before that was a block for another TBAN violation that I also rather strongly disagree with–an instance where SJ called a statement antisemitic which I agree was antisemitic. About two months prior to that (again IIRC) was the AE TBAN for basically repeating a famous quote attributed to Golda Meir (I disagree with the sentiment of the quote and I agree that an article talk page isn't the appropriate place to debate politics). Before that, the previous block was February. So it's like two sanctionable statements in six months, is what I'm seeing. That's not siteban worthy–many, many editors say much worse things much more often and don't get anything more than a warning. I don't see the ongoing serious disruption or incivility that others see–I see a couple of instances of crossing the line, and a whole lot of false alarms and exaggerated offenses or ABFing. SJ and TB need separation so I'd support a warning to stay away from TB or an IBAN at this point, but not a block or a site ban, because SJ's not actually going around accusing people of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, although he may be using those words. It's like stoning someone for saying, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova". – Levivich 07:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I think I get your point of view on the matter now. No opinion on the merit of the TBAN, I don't think I paid much attention to that discussion. The reason I proposed sanctions is because, to me, SJ's actions here (and in the past) look to me like intentionally dancing right up to the line of the TBAN (all of those "I can't comment more" statements in particular) , which is definitely a bad-faith action in my book, and then it's compounded by blaming others for something he instigated. Is a CBAN too harsh for that? Perhaps, I think this is actually the first time I've proposed CBAN, and I'm open to the possibility that I suggested too severe a sanction. At this point in the argument it's looking like "no consensus" or "consensus to not CBAN," and if that's what the community decides I'll accept it and remember this for next time I want to propose a CBAN. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I didn't notice who proposed it when I opposed it, and let's be honest, if you hadn't proposed it, 100% someone else would have. I get that you made the proposal, as you said, "as an uninvolved editor", which would spare other editors who might have made the proposal from the accusation of axe-grinding. I more or less agree with your approach for those reasons; I've done similar things myself (and sometimes I've received a lot of backlash for it). I also agree that SJ has been dancing up to the line–as if saying, "I'm going to keep talking about this until they kick me out for it", and an ever-increasing segment of the community is willing to oblige. I disagree with the TBAN, but it passed, there was no need to poke the hornet's nest by bringing it up in the course of opposing TB's nomination for election commission. The part of the statement, but that is not my issue with you, gives that away: if that's not the issue, why mention it? Anyway, despite my minority contrarian opinion, community consensus on how to handle this is becoming clear. I agree with Guy's comment below that if there is a next time, the CBAN proposal may pass easily. – Levivich 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support SJ does not get it, and does not get why the original behavior was disruptive. A simple ban is the best remedy, one which can be appealed in six months with a firm commitment to avoiding the problem. Use another website to complain about how awful editors are, and how unfair Wikipedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I voted for the second proposal, so I am not sure if my vote here can be counter, but just in case...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we are not at this point quite yet, I view the one month block as appropriate for a last chance. SJ needs to stop mentioning anything to do with this TBAN outside of an appeal, and find a less contentious area of WP to edit, there are lots to choose from. Agent00x (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban for a first breach of a TBAN is excessive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban for a first violation is indeed excessive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian overkill. --Ermenrich (talk)
• Oppose too much for first violation --Shrike (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This witch hunt has gotten tedious. The overreactions and quest to crucify for what is essentially a spitting on the sidewalk offense done by an editor in the recuperating stages of a preposterous penalty have reached the harassment stage.--MONGO (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per AntiCompositeNumber, Johnuniq, Lepricavark, et al. This is far from the first time that SJ has exhibited this exact same behaviour when called out for knowingly breaching a restriction they've been under. Enough is enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have some sympathy for this proposal, inasmuch as it's obviously not for a single topic ban violation, but for Sir Joseph's history, illustrated by his block log, his combativeness for years (and seen in this very thread), the quote at the top of his talkpage, and, to mention a slight I took personally, the time he called my home country a shithole. And so on. He does that kind of thing a lot. But I still think a one-month block, per below, is more proportionate at this time. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC).
• Support per AntiCompositeNumber and Johnuniq stwalkerster (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Of course, I sympathize with the proposer and supporters. It's rather clear to me to Sir Joseph has indeed violated his topic ban. I don't believe this is the correct action, however: by and large, as much as I don't enjoying kicking the can down the road a bit more, it's not the right time to enact something so definitive and final as a WP:CBAN. Naturally, should his behavior continue in this scornful manner, I will gladly consider increasing levels of stringency. But, for now, it's simply too much. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bish and Boing! I hate timesinks like this. Miniapolis 23:28, 6 October 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.

Proposal: One month 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.

---

As mentioned above, I would prefer a one month block, as TBAN enforcement is generally done with a block, rather than a site ban. While I recognize the reasoning for the community ban proposal, I'm hoping that a less drastic option may yield fruit. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: All those involved here need to take it down , several notches. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless as blocks are meant to be preventative, and nothing would be prevented by a time limited block. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the correct next steps. I'm not sure 1 month vs 1-2 weeks is the correct number (last block was 60 hrs). Springee (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I'm still undecided about a ban, and am hopeful that SJ won't talk themselves into one. But at the very least, their behavior needs a strong rebuke and perhaps a very last opportunity to rethink their behavior so that step isn't necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly support. My rationale is as follows. SJ seems to be not a pleasant person. However, to write balanced content, we need users whose views are similar to SJ's views. In addition, SJ's aggressiveness may be a result that he feels he is surrounded by enemies. We must demonstrate that is not the case, and that should be a message to all other users who are fighting against real or perceived antisemitism.

I think we should block SJ to protect him from his own actions. By doing that, we are giving him an opportunity to calm down after that ban story. It seems he is a very emotional person, and his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself (as this thread demonstrated). However, we definitely have to let him know that he is welcome to Wikipedia in one month. SJ, consider this block a non-voluntary sabbatical. :-)

@TonyBallioni: In your case, a solution could be just to ignore SJ for a while. I believe you see he is really very emotional (but open and honest) person. Believe me, it is not that hard: I am telling that based on my own experience. Yes, during your last exchange SJ's behaviour was by no means appropriate, and your behaviour was formally ok. However, you are a reasonable person: don't you see that SJ reacts at you like a bull on a red rug? If you haven't answered, all conflict would have stopped.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I think you should re-word your phrase: his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself - it conjures images of self-harm. If you do that, feel free to remove this post-of mine. starship.paint (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so: we all are reasonable people, and we all understand that I meant only a harm to an account "Sir Joseph". Nothing what happens here can lead to any physical harm to any real person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the appropriate next step in this circumstance. If Sir Joseph does not understand or accept after a one-month block that he needs to be rigorous about avoiding the topic, then stronger action can be taken. --RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Paul Siebert. Lupin VII (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unless SJ gives us some indication that we won't be back here in a month. – bradv🍁 04:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  I advised SJ to stop responding, because his responses do not improve a situation. I believe if he will follow my advise, that can be an indication that you want to see.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  +1 – Levivich 04:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Support as second choice. – bradv🍁 18:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - second choice, if site ban fails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Suppose per Brad and BMK only as a second choice, no sanctions is obviously not the correct choice here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: - you voted Suppose. starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - last chance - let's escalate appropriately. starship.paint (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - at this point I really wonder if he's getting some sort of amusement out of this... — Frood (talk!) 06:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Same reasons I posted under my oppose in the prior thread. Namely, Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. is venting about a recently-imposed sanction, and we generally don't block editors for doing that. I would support a warning for SJ to steer clear of TB and possibly an IBAN. – Levivich 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, they've vented plenty about their recent sanction. I don't really have a huge problem with that, I get it, they're pissed off and think they've been wronged. The problem is that they directly violated their topic ban by discussing the topic they had been explicitly prohibited from discussing. "I'm upset about my recent topic ban because I don't see the evidence showing what they say it does." is NOT equal to "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <insert topic-banned topic> like I believe it should." Do you see the difference between those two things? It was already pointed out above that if they had stopped at "Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia." then we wouldn't be here now. Waggie (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I really don't see any meaningful difference in those two statements. I understand not editing articles related to antisemitism or the Holocaust, I understand not accusing other editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers, but I don't understand why "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <insert topic-banned topic> like I believe it should," should lead to a sanction. It's not hurting anyone for SJ to have said that. – Levivich 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia draws a distinction between behaviour and content. SJ was sanctioned for behaviour. That can happen when you are 100% on content (e.g. ScienceApologist, who was banned for advocating correct content in a way that was impossible for others to work with). We don't actually sanction based on content, with limited exceptions (BLP violations etc). The admins and ArbCom leave content to the community and only address behaviour. Guy (help!) 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not exactly though. This ANI thread is 100% because SJ's edit contained the following four words: "antisemitism and Holocaust denial". See BMK's excellent illustration of this in the previous sub-thread. Multiple editors have said that if SJ's statement didn't contain those four words, it would have been non-problematic. So... tell me again how it's not about content? I mean it's literally about four words in a sentence. That's content, not behavior. The behavior is, or was, accusing editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers. Note emphasis on the verb–"accusing"–and not on the use of any specific "banned words". That's the difference between behavior and content. If we sanction somebody for doing something, we sanction behavior. If we sanction someone for saying something, we sanction content. Here, we're sanctioning someone for saying "banned words", and not for actually engaging in the behavior the TBAN was intended to prevent (making accusations). Editors don't want SJ to say the words "antisemitism" or "Holocaust". OK, consensus can do whatever the hell it pleases, but don't expect me to think that's not weird, cuz it's weird. – Levivich 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, he's topic banned from the Holocaust and antisemitism, broadly construed. That means he can't mention those things anywhere on Wikipedia, except to appeal the ban. The behaviour in question is the mention of those topics, full stop, not only their mention in accusatory terms. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivitch, besides for violating his tban with those words, SJ was making the accusation that WP itself condones antisemitism. That is egregious behavior. StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: That is a interesting questio. I think it would be interesting to check AE/ANI history and calculate how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for antisemitsm/Holocaust denial, and how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for throwing false accusations of antisemitism. Right now, I have no time to do such research, but I think we will have a right to characterize that SJ's statement only after some neutral and independent validation of it will be performed. So far, we have a couple of reliable sources saying that, yes, there are some serious problems with coverage of some Holocaust related topics in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul, the point is both of these behaviors need to be handled with equal severity. And false accusations of antisemitism have a way of creating more of same. StonyBrook (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is that it seems the validity of accusations are much more difficult to prove than the validity of the fact of an accusation. As a result the user who throws this accusation is at greater risk that the one who is accused. And, under "false accusations" I meant the accusations that were recognised as unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, my analysis of SJ's ANI thread demonstrated that at least some accusations of false accusations of antisemitism were in reality false accusations of false accusations of antisemitism..--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand, and as I said in my earlier post, this is just like the Monty Python's Life of Brian "Jehova" skit: [207]. If an editor is TBANed from "Jehova", broadly construed, and they say, "My TBAN is a disgrace!" that's OK, but if they say, "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!" the community may exclaim, "He said 'Jehova'!" and issue sanctions. This is silly, as the Monty Python skit well illustrates. No one was harmed by SJ saying Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. – Levivich 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, SJ did not say: "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!". If he had, I probably would have written it off as venting and wouldn't have started this proposal for a block (and supported a CBAN as an distant second). He took a direct potshot at Wikipedia, making it clear that he disapproved of the way it handles antisemitism and Holocaust denialism (or at least his perception of it). There's a substantial difference there. He was "topic-banned from the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed" yet he brought up the Holocaust and anti-Semitism directly, and made a critical statement about Wikipedia as a whole while doing it. Wikipedia as a whole is harmed by such comments. Your concerns about TBAN enforcement in general may have merit, but this really isn't the hill to die on. Waggie (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not a question of whether anyone was harmed. SJ is tbanned from discussing the topics in question and he discussed them anyway, albeit briefly. It's difficult to entertain an argument for overlooking this when SJ clearly knew what he was doing. He even admitted that he could not say more, and then turned around and did it anyway. Mind you, most of his reply to Tony was not a violation of the tban and he didn't need to include the problematic excerpt, so he actually could have said more without getting in trouble. To take it a step further, he wouldn't be in this spot right now if he hadn't decided to play the 'I don't like these people and I can't say why' card in this first place. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  It should be a question of whether anyone was harmed. Otherwise, we're sanctioning for a technical but harmless violation, which we should not do. – Levivich 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's not how topic ban enforcement works and we are not going to change the rules for Sir Joseph. He's already been repeatedly protected from the consequences of his sanctions. Enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. I've been expressing disagreement with how topic ban enforcement works, in case you missed that in my numerous previous replies. Anybody else want to explain Wikipedia to me again? Or do you guys just want to let me express a dissenting opinion without explaining to me "how things work around here"? Disagreement does not come from ignorance, my dear colleagues. – Levivich 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  I get that, but I don't think it's feasible to only enforce topic bans when someone is harmed. That's a subjective metric and I fear it would open the door to endless wikilawyering. Lepricavark (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I voted against their recent community ban, and still think they should not be outright banned for 1 violation. I think a one month block should provide a long enough cool off period for this violation. Agreed with above users that this is last chance. Agent00x (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, if he removes the quote from another editor about anti-Semitism he placed at the top of his UTP. Otherwise, I go with a community ban. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much for the first violation week is more then enough. --Shrike (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: Have you even read the thread? This is far from a first violation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shrike, if it gets to the point where there's already a TBAN in place, it's not the first violation. Since 2014 he already has nearly a month of blocks under his belt, including an indef for apparently calling somebody a terrorist, and another indef for a legal threat. Almost two weeks of that comes from the last year. — Frood (talk!) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Excessive overkill.--MONGO (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Having looked at the interaction, I don't think any sanction is warrented. I essentially agree with Levivich. Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TonyBalloni's candidacy if he wants to and this was clearly venting. Sir Joseph should be warned to be more careful in the future.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ermenrich: Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TB's candidacy, he doesn't have a right to break his topic ban and, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, it would have been trivial to do the first without doing the second. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice per Brad, BMK, etc. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice. Per all the evidence presented in the thread, this is just yet another instance of the exact same behaviour that has been exhibited every other time they've knowingly breached a restriction they're under. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I believe a siteban is over the top at this time. Perhaps a one-month block will give SJ leisure for reflexion on the things that have brought him to this pass. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC).
• Support as second choice, as this isn't the first time this issue has arisen. stwalkerster (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Regardless of SJ's presence on this website during that time. Far more proportionate response than an immediate site-ban; the punishment certainly fits the crime. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support SJ needs to take time off and understand the issue with the comment made and how it violates policy. It is apparent that SJ cannot stop themselves when it comes to this area (hence, the TBAN), but since it has already failed, the next step is to de-escalate the situation (an one-month block). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Despite some creative efforts to rationalize SJs behavior, this was a blatant violation of their topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It's gone on too long now. SJ needs to actually drop the stick, otherwise a CBAN is going to pass easily. Guy (help!) 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Appropriate escalating response to an obvious TBAN violation. One can hope that a cooling-off period will work to change behavior, but if it doesn't, a site ban remains an option. StonyBrook (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as last chance. SJ should be made aware that a Community ban will probably be on the table for him unless he seriously change his ways, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Standard remedy in response to a topic ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as a more-appropriate sanction at this time. Miniapolis 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• SupportAn outright full on block is a bit much. This was the point made last time and a part of the consensus. The theory was that we could perform escalating blocks or bans for any violations. I would have suggested less than a month, but I can also see the fence testing that everyone else sees.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just fence testing after all. The evidence clearly shows that Sir Joseph sought out TonyBallioni and initiated his own violation and now not only claims innocence but he's a Victim. He was also claiming innocence and and that he's a victim in the post that started this. While the month should probably be shaved by half, in the event of a consensus the closing admin should perhaps also consider and indefinite block. An indefinite block until such time that Sir Joseph can show that he understands why his actions were inappropriate here and that he understands the sanctions placed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, a bit harsh for a first time violation of a T-ban. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per proposer. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose No. A month-long block at this point would be purely punitive, especially for a first time TBAN violation. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (supporting instead) OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi OhKayeSierra, just to clarify for you and GoodDay why I thought a 1 month block was appropriate here. If you examine SJ's block log, you'll see this would not be their first TBAN violation, just their first violation of this TBAN. In addition, given that this TBAN violation happened so quickly after the TBAN itself, it's clear that they need time to cool off, they are clearly upset about the situation as they see it. Waggie (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Site ban for this particular instance is OTT but I don't think what happened falls within the usual latitude given for venting. Given the previous history a block of this length seems appropriate. Scribolt (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Disruption regarding the core problem has been ongoing for a long period and no clear understanding has been demonstrated even in this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sir J clearly violated the t-ban. This isn't a last-straw situation, but it's clear there needs to be a response. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per norm of escalation following TBAN violation. I'm not sure why this is controversial. WMSR (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support but prefer the block were indefinite. Sir Joseph's retaliatory behaviour has been reprehensible, and we should have some assurances that it won't continue before they're allowed to edit again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support (switched from oppose above) Reconsidered my original rationale. It's clear that Sir Joseph clearly and willingly violated the TBAN, and it's also clear that there's an ongoing history of tendentious editing and harassment, and a clear case of just not getting it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for a blatant violation, although I doubt their battleground attitude will be much different when they return. Should be an indef.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Brad and BMK - It's a blatant violation and the only person that started all of this was SJ ..... Clearly he's not understanding his topicban so having a months forced break might let the TBAN sink in..... –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich, but recommend an IBAN between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni. There is clearly nothing positive that will ever come out of this, the two hate each other, it's time to just stop this entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - clear violation, not first offense, and should be tried before site ban. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• A 1 month siteban might be effective in cooling down the situation, giving them time to re-assess their approach. And it makes clear what comes next.Lurking shadow (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Despite Levivich's opposition (which I read with great interest), the problem is that he was told by the community to stop discussing such topics. While I don't particularly agree with the previous TBAN, it seems clear to me that he knew where the line was and intentionally crossed it. I also think that TonyB was baiting SJ and his input/reference was unnecessary goading. Given previous blocks for other such failures, yep, 1 month makes sense. Buffs (talk) 05:15, 8 October 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.

Proposal: boomerang interaction ban

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.

---

After a 21 September 2019 support for CBAN by TonyBallioni against Sir Joseph failed (under a section TB had started), TonyBallioni again on 6 October 2019 supports a CBAN against Sir Joseph (under a section TB had started). That's a difference of 15 days. I propose a one-way interaction ban between TonyBallioni and Sir Joseph in case the CBAN proposal fails again. I do not have an opinion on the exact situation here, but many editors do and I am seeing significant opposition in the above CBAN proposal. It will likely fail and in that case I am proposing something no one else probably would since Icewhiz has been blocked for having the audacity to fix a 15-year-old hoax. wumbolo ^^^ 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: - for the record, Icewhiz was banned for because ArbCom said they received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. starship.paint (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. wumbolo ^^^ 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see any reason to prohibit TonyBallioni from interacting with SJ. Tony did not initiate the interaction that led to this discussion. I should add that there is nothing wrong with supporting a CBAN. Are you suggesting that I should be 1-way IBANned also? I voted support in both the referenced proposals, too - and everyone else who has done the same? That seems pretty absurd to me. Or are you saying that someone bringing another editor to ANI to raise behavioral concerns (that have clearly disturbed multiple editors - enough to warrant a TBAN) is problematic? Waggie (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wumbolo - CBAN section is currently 8 supporting and 6 opposing. It is not an unreasonable proposal worth an interaction ban. Were it unreasonable, there would not be such support. Tony did not start this incident, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission#Comments about TonyBallioni. The previous boomerang proposal was effectively snow closed. Simply put there is no egregious activity by Tony warranting an interaction ban. starship.paint (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ludicrous Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as I pointed out above, TB didn't start this, and his decision to vote in two CBAN discussions doesn't justify a one-way IBAN. creffett (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: No. Violation was clear. Tony didn't start it. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think this is how boomerangs work. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose SJ is a problematic editor with a significant block log and Tony is an excellent administrator who has done nothing wrong here. Tony should be keeping an eye on SJ. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but support a boomerang sanction against Wumbolo for this rather obvious bullshit. Guy (help!) 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – while I think there were better ways for Tony to handle this than filing the two ANI reports, both reports were prompted by interactions that SJ, not Tony, initiated, so a one-way IBAN of Tony against SJ is not necessary or justified. But I strongly disagree with Cullen's statement above; TB shouldn't "keep an eye on" SJ; rather, both editors should keep their distance from each other. I actually think the kind of thinking that Cullen's statement expresses–that one editor should keep an eye on another editor–is very dangerous, and leads to all sorts of hounding-type issues (issues with which we are all familiar and have just dealt with extensively). – Levivich 17:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Tony has done nothing wrong here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Thryduulf. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose what Wumbolo failed to mention is that both threads arose after Sir Joseph went after Tony. That's an important detail. Lepricavark (talk) 19:48, 6 October 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.

Proposal: One way interaction ban enacted on Sir Joseph to leave TonyBallioni alone

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.

---

• Both this thread as well as the previous ANI thread about SJ were the result of SJ showing aggression toward TB. Re-posting part of what I posted before because diffs are no longer available due to oversighting, "Tony had declined the invitation to run for Arbcom more than 20 minutes before SJ decided to interject into a thread with "criticism" where the issue was already resolved. He brought heat and no light because he cannot drop the stick. Logically, if Tony isn't going to run then there is no reason to butt in after the fact to explain why SJ thinks he wouldn't make a good candidate. ADMINACCT is for queries of admin actions but that wasn't what this was. There was no constructive criticism and the timing is badly off. What he did was tried to hijack a thread by butting in off topic as it had since become a discussion of other potential candidates. It was impulsive and part of a larger pattern of problems as exemplified by his lengthy block log to treat WP as a battleground."

• What SJ tried to do this time was poison the well in the Electoral Commission selections and his motivation is clear. "I just don't want you to get selected to this commission without someone voicing disapproval." (diff) It was more about vengeance than the suitability of the candidate.

• SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again. Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin.

• Support as proposer.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support in spite of the truth of everything written above, SJ had the nerve to suggest that Tony needs to leave him alone. Let that sink in. Lepricavark (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again. I agree. SJ has been unfortunately "pursuing" TB and while I think the reactions to that have been mostly over-the-top, it's SJ who initiated both interactions, and it's causing disruption. (It's also distracting the community from actually tackling non-neutrality problems in Jewish-related articles.^[Euphemism]) I would have hoped that SJ would have agreed to steer clear of TB voluntarily, but without that, an IBAN seems necessary and justified (though I continue to disagree with the TBAN, a CBAN, or block). – Levivich 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Whether or not any other proposal passes, this one should. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – What they said. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support in conjunction with one month block. SJ is pretty consistently the antagonist in every interaction he has with TB. — Frood (talk!) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, per below: SJ's problems don't appear to be limited to their actions surrounding TB. Berean Hunter even says "...the patience of the community is wearing thin" (emphasis added). This is affecting the community at large, and the comment that led us here was SJ taking a potshot towards the community at large, not just at Tony. Waggie (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Waggie, this proposal is designed to accompany other sanctions above and not displace them. It isn't an either/or situation but an additional measure to be enacted and opposing does not elevate the support of other proposals above. They are not mutually exclusive. He needs to leave Tony alone.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying, Berean Hunter. I modified my oppose, with the understanding that it would not exclude any other proposal here. I do agree he needs to leave Tony alone, but I still think that this goes well beyond their interaction with Tony and that a 1-way IBAN wouldn't really accomplish much on the whole. Sorry we don't entirely agree here, but I'm glad to discuss with you, regardless. It looks like I'm part of the minority, anyway, and that's fine with me, too. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as necessary, in light of the above. Miniapolis 00:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Under the circumstances this seems apt.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, considering that SJ clearly sought TB out in order to denigrate him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. I think that such an interaction ban would seriously help prevent future issues. Vermont (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looking at SJ's contribs, I don't think this user should be touching the site for a while. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm not too fond of one-way IBAN's (IMHO, they have a tendency to create more issues than they solve). In this instance, however, I don't see a better solution, and this is most likely the most effective way to curtail disruption. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per HurricaneGeek2002 in case the one-month block proposal fails. Sir.Joseph has tied up enough of admin time on ANI. Lupin VII (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support because it is the right response, but I don't think it will help (generally per Waggie's comments). Sir Joseph seems to be putting everything else aside to pursue this vendetta against Tony, which is well into harassment territory. Whether we add another limited ban on top or not, this looks like it's going to be an indef block before Thanksgiving. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the only way short of an indef to get SJ to stop hounding TB.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Something tells me SJ's going to be sitebanned before he even gets to test the IBAN but either way this is better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. If the block fails to reach consensus this will be needed in very short order, if the block passes this will hopefully prevent the need for a follow up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose SJ has a right to oppose an admin who initiated actions against him; I see no reason to disallow that and the community should be able to distinguish consensus. I support a 1 month block for his TBAN violation. Buffs (talk) 05:09, 8 October 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.

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.

Paid editing

Taras Dron article is shown in the portfolio of the company that proposes writing articles for money. Please help to put appropriate template. see the article PrintScreen in the page bottom--Anntinomy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Machine-translated from the article on the Ukrainian WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• And the creator of the article was blocked last March as part of this sock farm. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• And here's a list of other articles created by the same user (including one that was deleted, but has since been recreated...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Hit a few articles with {{UPE}}. Can anyone identify the articles on the website to see if (1) they're telling the truth, and (2) we've tagged them as spam? MER-C 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have nominated one of their creations, Allset, for speedy deletion per CSD G4 since it is a recreation of an article that had previously been deleted at AfD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The company claims (on their web site) to have created 224 WP articles, and "protected 72 articles from being removed", most probably by using multiple socks at AfD. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazyalien could give a clue to how many articles they have created here on en-WP (the sock that created Taras Dron created a total of 10 articles here, and there are many more socks listed in the SPI...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would have AfDed the article, since the sources are shaky at best, but I have already so many times been accused recently in being anti-Ukrainian editor and even in using my admin bit in promoting anti-Ukrainian interest that I will give it a bye this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub for a new listing of accounts.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Cross wiki harassment

WP:LTA Multi IP handler 85.85.58.215 again into cross wiki harassment.

Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• The complete /16 range would be Special:Contributions/85.85.58.0/16. Some admins have recently blocked some individual IPs within the range. It would take some study to figure out if a wider block would be justified. es:User:Ezarate has already blocked Special:Contributions/85.85.56.0/22 on the Spanish Wikipedia for one month. Here on Enwiki, User:Berean Hunter has blocked Special:Contributions/85.85.56.0/18 for two weeks. The guy's edit summaries frequently say they are reverting User:Asqueladd. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Daily cross wiki harassment

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.

---

83.213.202.229

WP:LTA Multi IP handler again into cross wiki harassment. He/she does not really like me.

Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70 & 85.85.58.215 85.84.112.122.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked, all edits reverted. We might need a long-term range block here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked 85.85.0.0/18 and 83.213.200.0/22. The blocks are not that long considering this person has been at this with Asqueladd for some time. I did not block the range for 85.84.112.122 as it has not been used heavily.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 6 October 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 to re-open RfC

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 RfC was recently closed assessing consensus. The close has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and there seems rough consensus there that the close is unsafe (but I am involved in that discussion). I have requested that the closer re-open the RfC [208] but they have not responded.

But the close is now being cited (example) as establishing a new guideline.

I am therefore requesting that the RfC be re-opened by an uninvolved admin, to be closed in due course again by an uninvolved admin.

There is no suggestion of behavioural problems. It is just honest disagreement. I have informed the involved editors of this discussion. [209] [210] Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is this naming dispute at ANI? Why not just start a new RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a naming dispute. It is of course relevant to some recent moves in which you are involved, in that you have cited the RfC to justify them, and if the close is reverted then these will of course need to be reviewed in the light of that... as another editor has already pointed out to you.

A new RfC would be borderline disruption IMO if the disputed close is OK. But if the close is not OK, and if that new RfC closed as no consensus then it would mean that in practice the bad close was affirmed. And either way that's not a good process!

So if there was in fact no consensus in the RfC and the close was in error, as I and others believe, then the first step is for the close to be reverted. There have been discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Reopening an RfC and elsewhere as to how this should be requested, and the result of those discussions is this request. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• This thread is on the wrong page. RfC close challenges are entertained and resolve at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to move it there, as was initially suggested. I actually began to raise it there, following discussion at wt:RfC, but as described there I then saw the edit notice at WP:AN which reads in part If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you. So I cancelled the edit and came here instead, because it seemed to me that this was a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator). Happy to go with consensus here, and if no other opinions I'll take your word for it. But there must be some way of requesting a review of an RfC close, and I'm of the opinion that the good folk at WP:AN would be well within their rights in sending it back here. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Andrewa: this board says at the top that it is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which the "The" disambiguator issue doesn't seem to fall under, except insofar as pages still seem to being actively moved by one or two editors. I don't really know what the procedure for challenging RFCs... not sure there even is one, WP:RFC is silent on the matter. But it seems like enough people have now said the RFC in question should have been no consensus, and RMs attempting to implement it have not achieved consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a procedure: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. But it is vague. According to this essay WP:AN is one appropriate board. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If you believe the RfC closure should be edited or overturned, then you should post at AN: the history is at WP:AN#Closure review archive. I think CLOSECHALLENGE is actually pretty explicit on this: it's in the section Challenging other closures. You would post here if you were asking for a review of editorial behavior relating to the close. (And as you have noted, a new RfC would not normally be appropriate, unless e.g. you aren't challenging the previous result but you believe that consensus may have changed.) Sunrise (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all who have participated. I'll try WP:AN. Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Done.

I request that this thread be closed and archived, so I can point the new request to the archived version. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 7 October 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.

New editor of to a bad start

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

Could I get someone to try and get User:GrandLucky talking. As seen here they are hard pressed to remove maintenance tags from an article (Mexico). I have tried to engage the editor ...but to no avail. I see User:Muboshgu has also tried to talk to them with zero reply yesterday. Should we nip this in the butt or get them talking?--Moxy 🍁 04:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Competence is required, and this user isn't demonstrating it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've left the user a uw-3rr warning. El_C 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No luck they are now reverting other reverts on other pages with zero attempt of real communication.--Moxy 🍁 04:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. El_C 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful fast response. .....thank you !!--Moxy 🍁 05:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Now blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 9 October 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 altering Content assessment importance values at a fast clip

GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) (reg. 2017; 684 edits) has altered the "importance" value assessment of about 75 articles in the last couple of days. I've dropped them a note about it, and will add a template to advise of this notice shortly. As of this moment, it's every Talk page article from now back to this edit of 15:36, October 3. I haven't examined every single one, but the ones marked "+15" that I spot-checked, are all the same, and all add "importance=low" to a WikiProject template.

Noting this similar discussion from Archive 1016, and pinging @NinjaRobotPirate: who acted in that case. In the meanwhile, is there a bot that can be run to remove these? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is unrelated to the previous case. As long as people don't engage in outright trolling or vandalism, I don't generally consider it a big deal if people want to reassess articles. If they do a very poor job of it and refuse to stop, the community could topic ban them, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. My sense from looking at Wikipedia:Content assessment Project is that assessment is a more deliberate process and requires some experience at the encyclopedia before taking it on, but perhaps I'm mistaken. As GeneralPoxter is relatively inexperienced, and appeared to be assessing rapidly, and constantly assigning the same assessment ("low") with no apparent rationale, it looks like it's not well thought out. My first inclination would be to revert all of them, but I'd prefer to hear from some members of the Content Assessment team, to see what they think about it, and also from the editor, to find out what his intent is or was, as none of these edits have an edit summary. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if these edits should be retained or reverted. There are some quite substantial changes to Wikipedia:Assessing articles there, one of which I reverted because it seemed to be stating that MILHIST's grading scheme was the standard to follow, rather than being noted as a tolerated anomaly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as an anomaly; MILHIST has rating-sharing agreements with other projects, including Australia, Aviation, Colours, Ships and Spaceflight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at several of GeneralPoxter's edits linked at the top. All were adding an importance rating where there was none before to poetry articles, and doing nothing else. This can certainly be done very quickly with subject knowledge, which I rather think he has - importance is a rating of the subject, not the article, and it isn't strictly necessary to look at the article at all. By no means all were "low". I saw several "mids", some possibly a tad generous, but all for more than averagely important subjects. The great majority of ratings should be "low" - over-rating is the usual problem here. Frankly his edits are a great improvement on the typical mass-rater, who shows no sign of subject knowledge, and rates quality only on length. Since in practice importance ratings below "high" have virtually no effect on anything, the main question is whether he realizes he is wasting his time. As to the different editors at Wikipedia:Assessing articles, I'd be inclined to revert back hard. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This sort of assessment can easily be done very quickly by an experienced editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue raised by Johnbod concerning possible reverts at Wikipedia:Assessing articles (unfortunate shortcut, there) seems like a separate issue, unrelated with GeneralPoxter's edits.

I must've missed the "mids", because I merely spot-checked a few that all seemed the same. GeneralPoxter has a Poetry userbox on his user page, so maybe there is domain knowledge there. In his last 500 mainspace edits, I see a lot of music and art, some military, a bit of sports, no poetry that I can tell— but that's also easy to miss, especially if the edit summary doesn't offer a clue.

OTOH, as far as who does assessment of importance and how, what I see here is this:

This is judged using both manual assessment by a WikiProject member, and "external interest" judged by links-in, interwiki links and number of hits. For more details, and the formula used to balance these parameters, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot.

That seems a bit more than just subject knowledge without a look at the article; but I admit to being unfamiliar with the assessment project, so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. In any case, doesn't seem like any action is needed here. If there's nothing else, I'm content to let this be archived. Thanks for the feedback. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (who you quote) is a wholly separate process from Wikiproject ratings, and now a completed process. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That could well be; I don't see any recent edits there. I followed the links from Content Assessment (from the first sentence) and ended up there; maybe the CA page needs their links updated. Not sure if there's a "Version 2.0" page somewhere that should be linked instead, or where the instructions for assessing "importance" might be, if that's not the right one anymore. The parent page does have edits from yesterday, however. If that's the current project, would be good to tighten up the project pages, and give some clearer guidance on how this is all supposed to work, and by whom; and maybe archive or mark "obsolete" any pages that aren't relevant now. The whole thing seems a bit fuzzy. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CS1 error - Italic or bold markup not allowed in publisher

Seem to be a lot of red Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= CS1 errors appeared ... has someone done a change ? I'm colour defective so I don't notice this stuff so good on some screens. Could be me being stupid. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this, but the issue is that you shouldn't use italics with the publisher parameter – that's what the website or work parameter is for (they italicize automatically...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall thankyou for that information, I wa really seeking if a change had been made than the fixing of content that may or may not have been my doings, though in the use case I first seen it was mostly likely mine (Walt Disney World News) but it other examples I suspect not. I might raise at the village pump. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: markup is indeed not allowed in the publisher parameter, there was an extensive discussion about it here recently and may still be ongoing at Help talk:CS1. The rule of thumb is if you want that information to be in italics, do not use |publisher= but one of the periodical paramaters (|journal=, |newspaper=, |website=, etc.). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Dispute

Smoothswim and I have been in a dispute for several days. It started when I was new page patrolling and found an article he had created, Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics, which I tagged for a deletion discussion because it violated notability policies. He reverted my notice of the deletion discussion on his talk page, saying it was "vandalism." We argued with a back-and-forth for some days. He was problematic, to say the least: he reported me for vandalism (and thus implied that he accused me of bad faith) and tried to educate me about AfD, plus commenting on AfD's talk page that it would be the downfall of Wikipedia (obviously a silly statement, considering that it started more than a decade ago and Wikipedia's still around and improved). Finding him problematic, I looked at his contributions to ensure that he was not blatantly violating more policies. I improved some articles that he had been working on in good faith, but he reverted them and called them vandalism. Please help resolve this dispute, since this drama is taking us nowhere. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Smoothswim is reacting aggressively and throwing accusations of vandalism and trolling around rather too liberally: their entire debating style here is combative and repeatedly comments on the other editor rather than on the merits of the article under discussion, and they have resorted to reverting constructive edits by AnUnnamedUser with edit summaries of "vandalism" e.g. here and here. Smoothswim is a new editor and clearly passionate about their favourite subject, but they need to start assuming good faith; I have given them an AGF notice. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Response by Smoothswim

Not sure if this is the right place to post this here but anyway:

I feel that I and potentially others (new to Wikipedia and less likely to want to defend themselves against trolling attacks) have been seriously grieved by AnUnnamedUser. Within four minutes of the first commit to the newly created page Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics, AnUnnamedUser flagged the page for deletion. I then requested a response as per guidelines via the talk page for the article. It took a while but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Skateboarding_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics where AnUnnamedUser refuted that the page's three sources confirmed the provisional inclusion of Skateboarding at the 2024 Olympics. AnUnnamedUser used the term "crystal ball".

The person's tone concerned me and made me not want to login to Wikipedia any more. Never the less, I added reasoned arguments against deleting the page, despite AnUnnamedUser attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball." By that point I could tell that something about AnUnnamedUser was not right. I scanned their public commit history and found that they were flagging numerous articles for deletion. My concern became not about the page Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics but about AnUnnamedUser's conduct on the website. Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete, four minutes after they were created is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time - And I'm someone who has been to the alt/far right and asked them about why they have the views they do to try to understand their behaviour.

After the exchange on the talk page, which I consider a considerable waste of my own time, I then witnessed two pages I had been working on (one I had created) had been vandalized by AnUnnamedUser. Some were petty (2 instead of two) and destructive edits which changed the tone of the article and it concerned me that:

• A: AnUnnamedUser had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject.
• B: AnUnnamedUser had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article.
• C: That AnUnnamedUser was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited. AnUnnamedUser even added a flag which meant that they had not visited enough of the linked sources to understand the topic at hand at all.

After spending so much wasted time communicating with AnUnnamedUser, where I feel that there has been a concerted attempt to victimise me for creating a single page here and then defend the reason for it's creation, I feel that Wikipedia has missed out on content i would have added instead during that time. AnUnnamedUser's tone concerned me so much that I started editing without logging in because I could see all the signs of a pattern of trolling.

I warned AnUnnamedUser on their talk page about their vandalism on Wikipedia And should they continue on their destructive path I would attempt to pursue a block.

I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia: I feel that the quality of content, especially Skateboard related content is very poor and often at times, hardly relevant. The skateboard community does not find Wikipedia credible enough to store their history, evidenced by the lack of activity documenting it, the lack of sources, huge number of missing articles, etc. I came to Wikipedia to try to sort this out and add as much as I can about my history and the fantastic and amazing people I have shared seriously happy times with. The kind of experiences which need to be shared using facts, especially the organic movements which happened around my time growing up as a skateboarder and part of the evolution of skateboarding. Please check my commit history. I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothswim (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Smoothswim: Please read WP:Assume good faith. One way to practice that is to read other people's messages in the nicest tone possible, as if you were writing them to someone else.

It took a while -- This is an international and volunteer driven project, immediate responses are the exception and not the rule.

but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply -- You are imagining the aggression.

despite AnUnnamedUser attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball." -- Don't take other users' comments out of context to build a victim complex, that's just bringing a bad time on yourself.

Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete -- That's not trolling, that's required maintenance.

is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time -- You've seen literally nothing, then. I don't care if you've had pleasant conversations with Nazis.

A: AnUnnamedUser had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject. -- That's not vandalism. To call that vandalism is toxic behavior.

B: AnUnnamedUser had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article. -- Not actually a requirement.

C: That AnUnnamedUser was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited. -- Not relevant at all, or else most of this encyclopedia's geographic articles simply would not exist.

I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia -- Your intentions are fine and we try to assume everyone's intentions are until they give us reason to believe otherwise (a courtesy you clearly never even considered giving to AnUnnamedUser); you just need to make an effort to learn how things work here.

I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll. -- AnUnnamedUser is neither a troll nor engaged in vandalism -- if you continue to apply those words to them, you could be blocked for making personal attacks.

'Pay close attention (to this if nothing else): You're clearly looking for reasons to get angry because you imagined you're some kind of victim instead of considering the possibility that you are welcome to edit here if you are willing to make an effort to learn how to do so. I've written a guide that covers a variety of issues new users face, including a section specifically on writing articles that won't get deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You are attempting to vilify me here. There is a toxicity in your response which is nothing short of Fascist. Telling people to read things, Exhibit A. I have said all I want on this issue. May history judge you more fairly than the courtesy you extend to others. Smoothswim (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see the irony in using text to say that telling people to read things is fascist? I mean, nevermind how ridiculous the argument "telling people to read and improve themselves is fascist" is alone, using text to make that argument is so laughable that you've just burned away any sympathy you might have garnered. Have fun making things harder for yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Expecting people to read is toxic, and even fascist? Oh boy...you're going to have a very brief wikicareer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Smoothswim - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Obviously you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know either, so you should pay some attention to those who do know. Otherwise you will not be around long enough to know the difference. Read Yelling Vandalism. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute does not win, because it is a personal attack, and those lead to indefinite blocks. Try listening first before yelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Given this user’s repeated personal attacks, their belief that the project is “toxic”, and that they refuse to collaborate with the community, I suggest that we move straight to a community ban. This person clearly doesn’t have what it takes to work with us here. Their belief that crystal ball somehow is referencing an actual crystal ball or psychic powers, is rather stunning. We should respectfully show them the door before they do damage to the project. This clearly isn’t the place for them. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just give Smoothswim an only and final warning. He's acting in good faith, and we should give him another chance. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AnUnnamedUser. Smoothswim is very new with a lot of misconceptions about how wikipedia works. Whether they're willing to learn is up to them, but I think they should be given the chance. Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A ban seems a bit premature. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, a one-time-only final warning is sufficient at this time. If they continue their behavior, a CBAN can be considered. Their rhetoric of "toxicity" is unfortunate, but they would hardly be the first to make that claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A ban before we've even tried a block seems VERY premature... Buffs (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Oookay friends. I’m glad that there is so much patience. I just wonder how fair we are going to get with a user who has no intentions of abiding by community standards. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• What's interesting is that he cherrypicks what policies he wants to follow. For example, he accused me of a misleading username (unnamed = IP? of course not), but he rejected AfD's mission. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld and ENGVAR

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.

---

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

HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld was edit-warring at Kaliningrad trying to impose British English here (the article is written in American English). I reverted them a couple of times, saying that since Kaliningrad has no relation to any variety of English, the consistency argument, that all articles on Russian localities are written inAmerican english (for the reason I am completely ignorant of) takes precedent. They opened a discussion at the talk page, did not get support, but still claimed to have obtained consensus for British English [211], and continued reverting me. I went to WP:3RRN, and on 28 September EdJohnston blocked them for edit-warring for 72 hours [212]. They also remarked that the ENGVAR issues are a concern and have been going for quite some time, and they continued to impose their variety of Engish even as others disagree [213]. HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld|HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld never accepted that, they think this was a bad block, and that I am bullying them [214] [215]. Today, they returned to editing and edited a number of articles imposing British English, including Tver [216] (where they have previously made the same edit) and Leo Tolstoy [217]. Whereas I am in principle prepared to discuss ENGVAR, and it should be done not just article by article, but for large groups such as all Russian localities, this guerilla edit-warring is really annoying and we have to stop this. I am afraid topic-ban would be the best way to stop the edit-warring, but may be someone has better ideas.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined to block for a week for immediately resuming the same problematic behaviour following a 3 day block. Fish+Karate 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A block seems wise, perhaps indef. Judging from both the username they have chosen and the pattern of edits, I don't think they are here to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Immediately resuming disruptive behaviour which got you blocked less than a week ago merits an indef and assuring the community that the behaviour will not continue before they are unblocked. Any admin is welcome to do so if such an explanation is forthcoming. I will post a note on the user's talk page momentarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Heck of a username there, I must admit.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree Totally with User:WaltCip. That's way too long of a username, perhaps a name change should be done as well. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it's named after an article. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

After a song--a really, really good one. The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld is still on regular rotation in my household. I see now that I noticed this user before. Good name! Drmies (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

... purple and red and yellow and on fire... I looked to see if there was a YouTube video that wasn't a copyright violation to link here, and couldn't find one. For the record: please remember to not link to media that is a copyright violation. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone want to revert the move of Air and Space Defence Academy back to it's original page? 2604:6000:FFC0:54:8555:75:4E1C:461 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fish+Karate 08:55, 10 October 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.

Mikko101

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.

---

• Mikko101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikko101 has repeatedly created pages and added info using unreliable sources such as stock photo descriptions and small local websites even after he was blocked for that previously. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnUnnamedUser: It would help if you would supply diffs of the additions that concern you. You don't appear to have reverted any of their recent additions, nor have you reached out to them with your concerns on their talk page (except to leave a PROD notice). Equally, you have not properly informed them of this post, per the notice at the top of this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. For example, take a look at Miss Asia Pacific International 2019, where another editor has pointed out already that there is only one legitimate source. Most are blogs and small unreliable websites. Also look at Miss Asia Pacific International 2005, where a stock photo image description has been used as a "source." He has already been blocked for this (check User talk:Mikko101) and has written these articles along with other similar ones. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have warned this user about poor sources multiple times in the last 30 days [218][219][220]. The user was blocked 01:54, 8 October 2019 by Scottywong. When the block expired 31 hours later, they resumed substantially similar editing, adding blogs and web forums [221]. This is disruptive & they haven't engaged on any talkpage that I can see. We don't know if they simply don't understand our sourcing requirements, choose not to communicate, or are here for some other purpose. – Bri.public (talk) 18:45, 10 October 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:Siri30k creating multiple drafts that are identical with very similar names

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.

---

Siri30k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created multiple drafts under the name Zaki#. Examples include Draft:Zaki8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Draft:Zaki7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Draft:Zaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and many others. I am requesting an admin to delete these. Thank you. CalOtter (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks very bewildering, indeed. It seems that they've created a dab draft for "Zaki" in the Zaki2# series of drafts. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 22:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

They just deleted this section. I reverted the edit. CalOtter (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is an EC-buster account given that. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is an EC-buster account? CalOtter (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A sleeper sockpuppet created specifically to circumvent extended-confirmed protection. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 22:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

They have now copied multiple mainspace articles into drafts. CalOtter (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) got 'em. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 22:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: thanks for blocking him, could you also delete the pages he created? CalOtter (talk) 22:59, 10 October 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.

Nonsense from Malaysian IP continues

Update regarding #Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans:

• 2001:D08::0/34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• List of seven relevant /40 ranges is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans

This post, mocking Gundam5447, is really something. I think we should do as they ask so we can devote the time spent mopping up after them to more useful endeavors. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Potential conduct issues with User:Simmerdon3448

At 2018 in American television, I had reverted an edit by an IP editor ([222]) for unsourced content pertaining to the show Pig Goat Banana Cricket ending. Simmerdon3448 then proceeded to re-add the information ([223]) citing a Twitter user as a source. Per WP:RSP, Twitter is classified as a generally unreliable source - in this case, it was exacerbated by the account not being verified nor being a subject-matter expert. Two reverts later, Simmerdon re-added the information without a source ([224]). It was at this point that he started taking on a passive-aggressive nature when confronted about the reliability of their sources.

Later on, at 2019 in American television, they added that Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was moving from Nickelodeon to Nicktoons, citing a copyright-infringing YouTube upload of a promo ([225]). After I reverted the edit, he restored it and said that "You can’t call everything you don’t like as 'unreliable'" - it's not that I "don't like" the source, it's that the source was violating Wikipedia policy. Once more, after the second revert, he reinstated it without a source ([226]). He later reverted me a fourth time, passive-aggressively saying "You’re LUCKY that Nick Animation’s Director of Current Series and Development is so active on Twitter that they were able to clarify this" ([227]).

Additionally, there is currently a talk page discussion on Talk:2018 in American television regarding the citations for PGBC - I feel like it's self-explanatory once you delve into it.

Honestly, I feel like Simmerdon3488 does not have the emotional stability or competence required to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. He brushed aside my legitimate concerns about the reliability of his sources as me "not liking them", even though I cited Wikipedia policy in my statements, and when confronted about it, he acts in a passive-aggressive manner. Should any disciplinary action be taken? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 05:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What makes it appropriate exactly to question my competence and claim I’m not a positive contributor without ever looking at my contributions? You have come at me with hostility, I try to calm you down and you think it’s okay to report me to admins just because you disagree? Even when I did the work to actually find a source that meets your standards, you still mark it as a demerit. How am I ever supposed to get along with anyone if you’re going to paint me in such a negative and biased light?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simmerdon3448: - when you're in a hole, don't keep digging. Acknowledging your errors and trying to avoid them in the future is an alternative. starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What hole? Why am I the only one who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m the only one being judged? Because he reported me to a place I had no idea about and only learned about after he reported me?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simmerdon3448: - Whataboutism will not save you. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There are no examples of Whataboutism in my argument. Please don’t disrespect me like that--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, restoring and edit warring over unsourced content isn't exactly a good way to be constructive on Wikipedia. Surely you realize that? I spent quite literally thirty seconds looking at your contribs and see several such instances. You should, before anything else, acknowledge that this is a violation of WP:V. Arguing in edit summaries that consensus is needed to remove unsourced content is absurd, WP:V is a policy. The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, but if you fail to understand WP:V and why it's important, you're really going to be fighting an uphill battle here. Waggie (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simmerdon3448: - you asked Why am I the only one who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m the only one being judged? That's pointing to other users - a form of whataboutism. That also avoiding self-reflection of your own issues. From the diffs above, it seems like you need to read WP:VNT and WP:RS. Reliable sources can be found at WP:RSP or search WP:RSN. starship.paint (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I already had. The thing is, I’m not the only one at fault here. I made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean nobody else did, and no, that’s not a Whataboutism argument, that’s asking you to assess a situation fairly and not just go after the reported person just because they were reported to be bad--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"I already had." Oh really? The edit you made *right* before coming here was this, reverting The Grand Delusion to restore unsourced content. Come on, just relax, learn from your mistake, and we can all move on. Waggie (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Tell me, was I not supposed to restore the content that was the focus of a “More citations needed” template at the top of the page? The mistake was removing the content instead of doing what the template suggests. I even did add a source for one of the items, which means it was then reverted back in spite of it. Framing every single one of my actions as a demerit against me when it was one step in a process is really the wrong stance to take--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:V, as policy, takes precedence over guidelines and maintenance tags by a long way. So to answer your question, no, you were not supposed to restore the challenged and unsourced content, period. That was a pretty big mistake on Wikipedia. Just acknowledge that and move on. As I said, The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, either, but your refusal to accept constructive criticism is completely overshadowing that right now. I've only referred to your re-adding unsourced content, that's not "[f]raming every single one of [your] actions as a demerit." Being offered constructive criticism does not imply a "demerit". Simply not understanding policy is not a "demerit". Refusing to acknowledge that constructive criticism is a demerit and continuing to not acknowledge it could lead to sanctions - we take WP:V violations very seriously. Please listen and learn, I'm really trying to help you here. Thank you and best wishes! Waggie (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that at 2015 in American television, Simmerdon reinstated unsourced content that I removed ([228]), saying "You can’t do that just because you’re done. This is a community project". Apparently he has the audacity to make a backhanded accusation of WP:OWN against me, when I'm just following WP:V. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I too have had issues with the user, and can support a report against their conduct behaviour. They have constantly reverted my edits across three articles (Change Your Mind (Steven Universe), Steven Universe and Steven Universe: The Movie), and when presented with a discussion (see Talk:Steven Universe#‎End date) and reliable sources that support the edits that I made (and when they reverted these edits, I reverted them in response, but later had to cease to make the edits to prevent an edit-war with them), they based their edits solely upon the contents of other articles instead of any guideline or policy, created fabricated claims, "shouted", feigned ignorance after being presented with a source (after which I had to repeat myself and the source), misinterpreted the source and then claimed I misinterpreted what they said when I corrected them and tried to dodge the subject of the source's comment.

I understand that the editor in question may want to contribute to the site and edit articles, but they need to understand that the articles are not theirs to command and control, and their edits may come into question and when they do, they have to act collaboratively, not edit-war and discuss civilly. This is only proved further above when they only responded with "what about" replies, instead of focusing on their conduct issue, which has now been comments upon by multiple editors. Unfortunately, my response will undoubtedly be responded to by the reported editor with something along the lines of "what about you" and "you did this" and "I didn't". -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not to close this out but just wanted to mention that both The Grand Delusion and Simmerdon3448 have received short blocks for edit-warring from NinjaRobotPirate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like some related ban evasion may be happening here. Would an admin please care to take a look and handle appropriately? Waggie (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Article briefly semi-protected. I doubt it's block evasion, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was apart of the dispute that was going on at the Steven Universe page, and I'm disappointed that this is what it's come to. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-opening: Simmerdon continues to refuse to accept responsibility for his behavior, and it has become apparent that he has no intention of ever changing - see User talk:Simmerdon3448#Ok then. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Users are allowed to engage in thoughtcrime. If it moves into actual disruption, the editor will be blocked again. Please don't report users for engaging in thoughtcrime. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalist editor NachtReisender

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

The user has 53 edits and none of them seem to be good, only pushing pro-Ukrainian POV (replacing Russian with Ukrainian where it is not appropriate, edit-warring etc, examples: [229], [230], [231]). Could we please stop this before it escalates further? I believe an indefblock per WP:NOTHERE would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• “Ukrainian nationalist NachtReisender”, you baldly did it xD Where does this conclusion come from?

In my defense, my edits are not unfounded and have sources. For example, the same Potebnja and Dovzhenko in other wikipedias are labeled Ukrainians, I just unified it. The user Ymblanter gives a mythical reference to the rule of Wikipedia, which seems to prohibit pointing the nationality of persona. Then, why the honourable user is okay with Scottish people and do not editing them into British? If my edits don't seems good to you, Ymblanter — well, sorry about that. —NachtReisender (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS is very clear that the ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lede. You are aware of this, you just do not think this policy has to be respected. Concerning unification with other Wikipedias - well, we definitely do not want to unify for example with the Ukrainian Wikipedias. where until recently it was stated that WWII had three sides, and still states, in Wikipedia voice, that Donetsk Peoples Republic is a terrorist organization.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm not telling you about Ukrainian wikipedia only, just check the other versions. And for what reasons you have canceled my edit on 'Passions' film, which was justified as possible? When did Kira Muratova manage to become Russian? Who is nationalist now? xD -NachtReisender (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    The fact that you can not understand this is actually a good argument that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

    I also suspect that you do not speak English.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Ymblanter, would you care to strike that last comment? NachtReisender obviously has a sufficient command of English, better than a number of native English speakers I know (not talking about anyone on Wikipedia, for the record).

  On the topic of this ANI, I don't see a nationalist POV agenda or WP:NOTHERE in NachtReisender's edits so far. Time may prove me wrong, but as far as I can see the three diffs given don't support the accusation of NOTHERE behaviour. This diff, for example, is just a wikilink correction from a red link that's never going to exist into two accurate blue links to existing articles. With the other edits, MOS:ETHNICITY says not to include a person's ethnicity, but nationality is a different issue - MOS:OPENPARABIO says The opening paragraph should usually state [...] Context (location or nationality). A country with as complicated a history as Ukraine does lend itself to needing that kind of clarity when it comes to biographical articles. Any disputes over what that person's nationality should be in the article belong on the talk page ... which hasn't been used at all in this case. Actually, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion between these two editors outside of edit summaries and this ANI. Unless I've missed something really significant, I'd say this is a content dispute, not a behavioural issue. Marianna251TALK 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  The diff you mentioned is off by one; the correct diff is the previous edit. (Forgive Ymblanter for making a common mistake; quantum physicists aren't known for precision.) – Levivich 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  I have striken the language comment, though I still have doubts, but this is not the main point anyway. The Ukrainian issues are indeed complicated, and we have a number of users who are ready to discuss them, look for proper sourcing, and generally to help creating patterns to be used across our project. Unfortunately, we have many more users who just show up, change Russian to Ukrainian, Russian romanization to Ukrainian romanization, making ridiculous claims such as that Vladimir the Great was the "King of Ukraine", and when reverted and reminded about our policies, they start edit-warring, at best using edit summaries. I have a number of such pages on my watchlist, and it is really frustrating to see that once in several months a new user comes and makes the same edits without even caring to look at the edit history, without using the talk page, and without presenting any arguments. They really think that there are grave errors in most pages related to Ukraine, and in 20 years on the fifth popular website in the world nobody noticed that. This is related to a number of events in the recent history of Ukraine, and I can partially sympathize with its population, but what happens here just needs to stop, the earlier the better.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Levivich - that makes a lot more sense. I feel daft for not checking that. I've struck out that part of my comment above, since I now see the issue Ymblanter was raising. Thank you to Ymblanter for striking the language comment, as well - I really appreciate that.

I completely understand and sympathise with how frustrating it is to monitor pages and see the same unhelpful edits made over and over again. I've got a number of articles on my watchlist like that myself, some for the stupidest little things that just keep being changed over and over and over again. It's annoying, wastes time and sometimes makes me want to chuck my keyboard out of the window. I just don't think it's blockable behaviour except in extreme cases and I don't think this is one. A lot of the time I've found it to be a new editor genuinely wanting to help, who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works (and let's face it, Wikipedia is a bizarre, complicated mess at best). Like I said above, NachtReisender may well prove me wrong and turn out to be the kind of editor who needs a NOTHERE block, but then again they might not. My view is that they haven't had enough WP:ROPE yet to show either way. That's my tuppence and as always other editors will see things that I don't, so I'll leave things here and go with whatever decision the community makes. Marianna251TALK 06:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of us can not reliably predict the future, but on the basis of the battleground behavior I see (and we are talking about a user with only 50 edits), I see at best the potential to develop into smth similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#KHMELNYTSKYIA, accompanied with an enormous waste of time of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• The initial three diffs (1) change "Russian" to "Ukrainian" and change the spelling of a city from Russian to Ukrainian spelling, (2) change "Russian" to "Ukrainian" again, and (3) change "USSR | Soviet" to "Ukrainian SSR | Ukrainian", and (4) this fourth one changes "Russian-Ukrainian" to "Ukrainian". None of the diffs include a change in sources. So unless the sources in each of those examples was wrong in the first place, and NachtReisender can show that his change aligned with the sources, these are all unsourced changes. So far, NachtReisender has said the sources supporting the change are other language Wikipedias, and of course, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so that raises a WP:CIR concern, as well as an WP:NPOV concern. Another concern is that these are just four diffs, how many more are there like this? – Levivich 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang, warning for Ymblanter: There is absolutely no communication with the user on their talk page telling them that their behaviour might be problematic(History of the user talk page. There is absolutely no communication with the editor beyond a one-off edit war with both editors communicating by edit summary instead of on the talk page, that stops when Ymblanter reverts and asks for them to come to the talk page. And what did Ymblanter do, instead of raising their issues with their edits politely on their talkpage?

Run straight to ANI, calling them a nationalist editor. That's a good way to drive good - faith editors away, and definitely conduct below what I would expect from an adminstrator.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I actually have left a message at the talk page, which was a DS alert. Their only response to the message was to go back to the article and to revert my edit. However, I see that their only edit after this discussion has been constructive, so may be I overreacted indeed and there is some hope that they could become a constructive editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, a DS alert is just a template notification, but it expressly says that it's not an indication of wrongdoing. Everyone but the worst vandals gets at least one warning about their behaviour on their talk page before they are being reported to AIV. Even if a person clearly pushes a POV exclusively that doesn't mean that they don't change their behaviour when you give them a polite message on their talk page why they should stop. After all, they might erroneously think that what they do is good(and often do). Doing that instead of blocking or banning right on the spot not only helps retaining potentially good editors but also increases the chance that people without potential leave Wikipedia peacefully.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And, please don't use phrases like "nationalist editor". It's better to say what's wrong with their edits instead of labeling the contributor. That only increases tensions and doesn't comply with WP:CIVIL.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• No boomerang or anything else for Ymblanter. Of course. This is nationalistic editing, just as Ymblanter said, of a type that we have seen far too much of over the past few years, on all articles that are even tangentially connected to Ukraine. We do not rewrite history, we do not change nationality retroactively, and we do not add material that isn't supported by reliable sources (and what other Wikipedias say is totally irrelevant, since using Wikipedia as source, regardless of language version, is explicitly forbidden). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, we don't do all those "not" things. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to skip steps in the dispute resolution and to go to WP:ANI without discussing the problem with the editor on their talk page first if it was never raised on their talk page before. If the editor got clear warnings in the past, sure, you can go to ANI. Even if the person is only on Wikipedia to advance their views and has no interest in anything else here a polite message that this isn't allowed and why is a much better method to make them leave Wikipedia. And if the person is actually interested to contribute in other ways then going to ANI right away increases the chance of them going away and not coming back.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course we do not rewrite history, and that's why I, basically, did my edits, to file true statements. And I got reliable sources for every edit of mine.

• Barbara Karinska - Robert Greskovic, Ballet 101: A Complete Guide to Learning and Loving the Ballet; Timothy R. White, Blue-Collar Broadway: The Craft and Industry of American Theater
• Oleksandr Dovzhenko - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aleksandr-Dovzhenko, https://www.moma.org/artists/32230; Joshua First, Ukrainian Cinema: Belonging and Identity during the Soviet Thaw
• Alexander Potebnja - John Fizer, Alexander A. Potebnja's Psycholinguistic Theory of Literature: A Metacritical Inquiry; American Association for Applied Linguistics, Meeting Handbook; Bohdan Rubchak, Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States -NachtReisender (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I was editing without communication with my 'thought opponent', and I'm sorry about that. I needed to have a discussion with them at the first place -NachtReisender (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you refer to the director as Oleksandr Dovzhenko when the article is named Alexander Dovzhenko and the sources you provide also use that form of the name? And why did you repeatedly ([232], [233], [234]) change his nationality from "Soviet", linking to the USSR, to "Ukrainian Soviet", linking to the Ukrainian SSR, when no such nationality, i.e. "Ukrainian Soviet", has ever existed? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Thomas.W, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia lists Dovzhenko as "Ukrainian Soviet". It was and a common way of describing identities both in the Soviet times, and surely also after the Soviet Union has collapsed. NachtReisender has NOT changed Dovzhenko's nationality retroactively, although the attempt to describe "8 New Dates" as a Ukrainian movie is admittedly nonsense. Latreia (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now I doubt that you read the article at all -NachtReisender (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) In the example of Dovzhenko, if you look at Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko, you would see that the Britannica arguments have been already raised by your predecessor (who is currently on their track to get topic-banned from all Ukrainian topics), and they receivend an explanation that this is the style issue, and our WP:MOS does not (and does not have to) coincide with that on of Britannica. Moreover, I mentioned WP:MOS in this very tread (and previously in our exahcnge). but somehow you were not interested in following it, you were more interested in the edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, it feels like you're allergic to anything that contains the word "Ukrainian", Ymblanter :p -NachtReisender (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No one here is "allergic to the word Ukrainian", but we're sick and tired of people changing everyone and everything to being Ukrainian (up to and including claiming that Vladimir the Great, who lived a thousand years ago, was "king of Ukraine", linking to the modern-day countrry of Ukraine; you haven't done that though, AFAIK...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions??--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Whereas I generally agree with @Ymblanter:'s position about Ukrainian nationalism, and I myself have to fight against them on WP pages, I think we need to think twice in that situation.

• If we compare Ukraine vs Soviet Union/Russian Empire and Scotland vs UK, we see many parallelisms: they amalgamated into a single state approximately in the same time, the joint state was ruled by leaders of Ukrainian (Khruschev and Brezhnev) or Scottish (James I) origin, both Ukraine and Scotland had a right of secession, which Ukraine realized in 1991, and Scotland tried to realize (without a success) few years ago. Again, there are a lot of parallelisms, and, if you see WP articles about Walter Scott, or James Clerk Maxwell, they are described as Scotchmen, not British, and nobody claims that is nationalism. In connection to that, "Ukrainian Soviet" seems to be correct in many cases. Even Kira Muratova, whose ethnicity was Russian, but who lived, worked and died in Ukraine, and associated herself with that republic/country, should probably be considered "Ukrainian Soviet", not Russian. Whereas I agree it would be incorrect to use just "Ukrainian" here.
• As far as I know, currently, Ukrainian Wikipedia is fully dominated by nationalists, and it is in a very bad shape. One possible reason to partially help to that project is to allow some nationalists to stay here and to mentor them (for some of them are acting in a good faith, their problem is that thry are poorly educated). That is why a topic ban of such users may create a situation when they will focus all their activity on Ukrainian Wikipedia, which will become a ghetto ruled by extreme nationalists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Whereas I do not completely disagree, the Kira Muratova case is not black-and-white: She obviously was am Ukrainian citizen since 1991, but before that she studied and started her career in Moscow, and shot some of her important work in Leningrad. At the very least, removal of the Russian category would require a discussion. Unfortunately I just often see editors with a low edit count, who appear out of the blue, make a cavalry attack by replacing a dozen instances of Russian by Ukrainian without any discussion, and then disappear for months. I am afraid we have such a case here. Though of someone wants to try mentoring them, I obviously would not object.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That is why I wrote she was "Ukrainian Soviet", nor just "Ukrainian".

In addition, it is necessary to keep in mind that the meaning of the word "Russian" changed since early 1900s. Previously, "Russians" were Orthodox subjects of Russian Emperor. There were three types of Russians: Great Russians, White Russians, and Little Russians. (BTW, the term "Little Russians" was hardly derogatory, for, e.g. "Little Poland" means the historical core of Polish land.) Modern "Russian" is an equivalent of old "Great Russian", whereas old "Rissian" is closer to XX century's "Soviet". --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the edits by NachtReisender, I think this not a case of WP:NOTHERE. Bias - yes, maybe, but not even remotely at the level that would require an immediate block. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• I got into this discussion after someone proposed a boomerang for the OP, i.e. Ymblanter, a proposal that IMO is so ridiculous that I just couldn't stay away. Editors with a Ukrainian nationalistic POV (up to and including direct falsification of history) is a big problem here, with lots of articles in a very sorry state (one of them being the article about the Ukrainian language and articles directly relating to that, where I've just done some cleanup), so something has to be done. And I do not share Paul Siebert's views about allowing the POV-pushers to edit here just to keep them away from the Ukrainian WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree: there is no any reason for the "boomerang" either. Yes, any obvious misrepresentation of sources could be a reason for sanctions, but the worst I have seen was this and this. First edit is at least partly defensible: the subject was an expert in lingustics and therefore being a Ukrainian may be relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Disruption is continuing: [235]--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, "disruption", listen to yourself, Ymblanter! I just put a template next to the controversial statement, that's all. I would never think that you are such a impressible person. I still cannot grasp how you managed to transform such a tiny misunderstanding into the full blown scandal. Clearly, calling Vladimir the Great Ukrainian is not correct. Conscious people understand this, it is, like, obvious. All I did was clarify the affiliation of people who had an obvious relationship with Ukraine. You are trying to accuse me of something like insulting, but even you all have no internal understanding. To take at least your local conversation about Kira Muratova: are you saying that this is not an identical case with Dovzhenko? User Ymblanter considers himself a fighter for neutrality, but all he does is swap one shortcut for another through his own preference. And then pinning a nationalist label to the editor, for sure. I am not trying to offer the community some pointless nationalistic or whatever idea that has no source. This is the point. —NachtReisender (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of examples to show what NachtReisender is doing here: they claim that 8 New Dates is a Russian-Ukrainian movie for no other reason than that one of the actors is Ukrainian (in spite of production company, producers, director etc etc being Russian; by that logic hardly any American movie would be American, since they all have one or more foreign actors in the cast), claim that another movie (Passions (1994 film)) was Ukrainian (first claiming it was Russian-Ukrainian and then changing that to only Ukrainian) for no other reason than that according to them the director, Kira Muratova, was Ukrainian (which by itself is a ridiculous claim, and is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she was of Russian and Romanian descent, born in Romania, educated in Russia etc, but lived part of her life in the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times), and then repeatedly ([236], [237]) changed the nationality of Alexander Dovzhenko from Soviet, linking to the USSR, to Ukrainian, linking to the Ukrainian SSR, in spite of there not existing such a nationality, and also did the same in other articles. Etc, etc. All in around 50 edits (not counting the ones here), which is nationalistic POV editing, and not acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would appreciate uninvolved eyes on Ukrainian literature, see page history and what I posted on the talk page of that article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Umm, honourable Thomas.W, you probably did not notice, that production company of 8 New Dates, Kvartal 95 Studio is Ukrainian? -NachtReisender (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, no. According to the article the production company is Central Partnership, which is Russian, and Imdb list it as a Russian movie. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDB is the most immovable source or what? By the way, the same site submits Kvartal 95 Studio as one of the production companies. -NachtReisender (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Imdb is better than no source at all. So where are your reliable sources for either of the movies I mentioned being Ukrainian? Or sources for any of your edits, for that matter. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Better than no source at all", who would doubt it. It seems like you only notice what you want, Thomas.W, because I was demonstrating sources on this same page. Speaking about "8 New Dates": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 -NachtReisender (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

None of which supports your claims, stretching no farther than saying it was a co-production between Kvartal 95 and a Russian company; and this Ukrainian source you provided (and also links to above) directly contradicts your claim, by stating that the movie is Russian. Did you really believe that no one would be able to check/read the sources just because they're in a foreign language? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, my colleague, I was hoping that the sources would read, but not everyone seems to read them with due care. I quote the source you are talking about: "The film "8 new dates" (2015) is a joint brainchild of Russian and Ukrainian filmmakers". I ask you to re-read the submitted sources, this time more carefully -NachtReisender (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Joint brainchild" is totally irrelevant for deciding the "nationality" of a movie, lots of American movies were the "brainchild" of people of other nationalities, and/or entirely based on books by people of other nationalities, but are still American movies. So who do you think you're fooling? You added a fake claim, with "sources" you knew didn't support your claim, hoping that no one would check them. Period. And that's a clear violation of the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter writes: "no such nationality, i.e. "Ukrainian Soviet", has ever existed." Funnily, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia calls Dovzhenko "a Ukrainian Soviet cinema director". I think this is enough to show that User:Ymblanter engages in erasure of other nationalities, which I cannot see any other way than being nationalistically motivated. Dovzhenko's name is Oleksandr because he is a child of Ukrainian peasants who wrote books in Ukrainian, so the fact that he became known to the outside world through the language of the empire is no reason to translate his name into Russian now that the empire is no longer there. The empire itself, in its initial stages, supported the self-expression of different nationalities, which is right about the time when Dovzhenko's artistic genius was in full swing. (It is only later, starting from the second half of the 30s, that the bans on everything Ukrainian began to be re-introduced.) Dovzhenko's script for "Ukraine on Fire" was banned on the grounds that it "encouraged Ukrainian patriotism instead of Soviet patriotism." In his diaries, written in Ukrainian, he notes (p.36) that he is not a nationalist (after having been accused of being a nationalist and removed from the committee that decided on awarding the Stalin prize to films), he simply loved his people. This situation here is a deja vu of being accused of being a nationalist on the grounds of simply being as one is. On page 786, Dovzhenko writes, "I am a son of the Ukrainian people." On the same page, the previous diary entry laments that in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, teaching in universities is conducted in Russian (he also refers to Lenin's policies, which belong to the time when nationalities were allowed to develop, and speaks of "cruel deceit" (being incorporated into a "brotherhood of people", where then all peoples except for the Russian one were gradually forced to give up their identity)). Do I understand it correctly that while Wikipedia will use the pronoun "she" for trans women like Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning because they wish to be known as women, a person who says "I'm a son of the Ukrainian people" will be denied the right to be called Ukrainian because an empire, and a Wikipedia editor who belongs to the people who were the bearers of imperial policies (and who says that something that even an imperial encyclopedia acknowledged—"Ukrainian Soviet", doesn't exist), say so? Latreia (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The above user has 316 edits in total, 12 this year, the previous one was in June. Thank you for the original research performed here and for your appearance out of nowhere to defend a disruptive compatriot, but I am afraid you completely miss the point, on several counts. To start with, you clearly presume that I am Russian and defend some obscure imperial views, which is an incorrect assumption.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And, for a starter, the Dovzhenko article discusses his ethnic origin in quite some detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit count proves what exactly? Will you please study my edits and topics they are focused on to determine whether your attempt at an ad hominem could even theoretically pan out? And leaving the ad hominem waters, do you have anything to say about the non-OR part of my argument, namely the reference to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which clearly states something that you said is a non-thing (and you included NachtReisender's repetition of what the Great Soviet Encyclopedia syas in the list of your charges against NachtReisender being nationalistic)? Back to ad hominem at yourself: your userpage says Russian is your native language. This proceeding here is a POV against a POV. The Dovzhenko article may discuss his ethnic origin at great length, however, we are talking about an identity here, not about something that you apparently view as second-rate circumstances. Being a "Ukrainian Soviet", "Estonian Soviet", etc. was a common way of giving a most general description of identity even in Soviet times (I was 13 years old when the USSR fell apart, and by that time I've read enough books including encyclopedias to not see "Ukrainian Soviet" as anything strange, while you seem to be unfamiliar with it). An article about Caitlyn Jenner may discuss that she "was born Bruce Jenner" and describe her "chromosome origins", but here we are talking about identity, and about your attempts to erase said identity in the case of Dovzhenko. Apparently trans people should be described according to their own chosen identity, while Ukrainians do not have that right, eh? (In the case of Ukrainians, the "chromosome identity" coincides with the "chosen identity", but some people keep wanting to erase it.) Latreia (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A postscriptum of a general nature, not as part of bickering with Ymblanter: I will limit my objections only to the Dovzhenko matter, as calling "8 New Dates" a Ukrainian movie is admittedly exceptionally silly, and I haven't gone through all the other examples of NachtReisender's alleged "wrongdoings" to present a position on all of them. My aim here is to show that not all of NachtReisender's edits are nationalistic, some of them are actually grounded in fact (as per the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Dovzhenko's own statements about his identity), and in that particular case (of Dovzhenko), it's Ymblanter who is POV-pushing in a manner that amounts to nothing but identity erasure (and since Ymblanter is Russian, it is safe to call this a nationalistic POV). I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's "legal system", so I'm unsure as to what this particular proceeding here is supposed to end in, but I submit that the accuser is themselves nationalistic in at least some of the charges that they are making against NachtReisender, and at least some of NachtReisender's alleged "missteps" are something that requires other Wikipedia editors to take off their imperialistic goggles. Everyone here needs to be educated. Latreia (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not Russian, as I clearly mentioned just forty minutes ago in this thread. And I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia manual of style (which is btw in Russian) has absolutely, whatsoever no relation to WP:MOS. The same way as the fact that Britannica mentions ethnicity of Dovzhenko in the lede does not mean we should. And, again, the article discusses his ethnicity in quite some detail. You edit count just means somebody outside the project just provided you with a link to this discussion. As simple as that.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Your haplogroup has no relation to your identity, Ymblanter. Your first language is Russian.

2. "Ukrainian Soviet" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality. The Ukrainian SSR was (yes, formally, but aren't you trying to appeal to the formal rules here?) a state that co-founded the United Nations. Cmd+F'ing "national" through WP:MOS, I'm not finding anything that relates to the issue here.

3. And finally, that someone provided me with a link here is a BS accusation. I was on Reddit, reading someone's musings on Protonmail. The discussion mentioned Riot/Matrix, which is something that is new to me. I googled what it was. Matrix protocol led to XMPP; as someone who used to have a Jabber account I decided to look through the article to see whether it mentions current popularity of XMPP; then I looked on the talk page to see if someone mentioned the need to update the article with respect to whether XMPP is dead or alive, and as I'm a linguist, my attention was drawn to this discussion, which had a link to ANI, so I clicked on it, and what do you know, there is a Ukraine-related discussion right at the top of the page. It is an absolutely normal case of a Wikipedia rabbit hole. I tend to, from time to time, get embroiled in discussions on Wikipedia, as evidenced, e.g., by my edits from Nov. 20-22, 2017 (go ahead, check them out), where I decided to take down a self-promoting writer of Bengali science fiction who was publishing articles about his non-notable short stories, and exposed a sockpuppet ring that he was running. (The articles were removed, the sockpuppets were banned.) The behavioral pattern is clear: I edit only occasionally, but sometimes get into discussions. I will once again disappear once this thing here is over (or even before that). Your accusations are BS.

— Latreia (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to answer this flow of bad faith. What haplogroup? Did I mention any haplogroup? Concerning the sources, you miss the point again, sorry. You need to read the manual of style before you continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess this would be a clear example of my imperialist pro-Russian POV pushing. Just today several hours ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What bad faith? You've accused me of having been provided with a link to this discussion (thus alleging a concerted effort), and it's me who's in bad faith? And if you are using ad hominem arguments, then it's fair game for me too, you are claiming to not be Russian while your userpage lists your native language (the only one) as Russian. At this point I'm guessing we need to get into a discussion of whether you mean "Russian" as an ethnicity or a nationality. And the outcome of this discussion will probably be closely related to whether Dovzhenko is "Ukrainian Soviet." If I'm missing the point, please, be so kind and against just stating that I'm missing a point, lay out where I'm missing it. I usually try to lay out my arguments, you clearly feel no need to do so—and you are accusing me of bad faith? Once again, state where WP:MOS prohibits stating a person's nationality. (You haven't addressed my point that "Ulrainian Soviet" is not an ethnicity.)

Re your recognition that Crimea was annexed, hat off to you. But sometimes you need to recognize that you may be evolved in one respect, but not in the others. I can see that NachtReisender is in fact making some absurd edits to the tune of "Jesus Christ was a Hutsul", but not all of them are like that, is my point. And I feel that, in the same vein that someone up here suggested educating Ukrainian Wikipedians, there is a space for other Wikipedians to be educated where they write that "no such thing as Ukrainian Soviet ever existed" and erase an identity of an artist who felt strongly about that identity, who was oppressed in the Soviet empire... while the empire himself did not deny him the right to be named "Ukrainian Soviet" (as the votes in the UN were important).Latreia (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

First, my apologies. In 99.9% case an appearance of a new editor in this discussion means an external invitation (and we have seen Ukrainian editors specifically invited not just to discussions, but to edit-warring in order to trick the 3RR). I am glad to hear that you are in 0.1%. Second, concerning my edits, you miss the essential point again. In the example with Crimea, it is absolutely irrelevant what I think about the subject. You do not know and will never know what I think about it. What is relevant is what is consensus of Wikipedia editors. In 2014, I, together with other responsible editors, invested a lot of time into producing consensual formulation for this kind of events related to Crimea. This is not just one article, it is the whole bunch of articles related to all various aspects. This consensus was worked out and implemented. (It is also documented somewhere, though I would have difficulties finding it, there must have been some RfCs deep down in archives by now). My business is to implement this consensus, not my own political views. When a pro-Russian user comes and changes to "annexation" to "ascension", I revert. If they do it in multiple articles and repeatedly, and do not know how to stop, I block or present them to ANI if I am too much involved. If a pro-Ukrainian user comes and writes about state treason and all Crimeans being criminals, I revert. If they do it in multiple articles and repeatedly, and do not know how to stop, I block or present them to ANI if I am too much involved. That's it. Nothing in this workflow depends on my own political views. The same is in the Dovzhenko article. There is consensus, written down in WP:MOS, that ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lead. There is consensus among uninvolved editors (and you have already been clearly shown this down the thread) that, according to consensus, there is no such nationality as Soviet-Ukrainian. This means that, at least until consensus has been changed (for which one needs to go to the talk of WP:MOS and open an RfC), the lead of the article can not define him "Ukrainian filmmaker" or "Ukrainian Soviet filmmaker". The body of the article can, and, actually, already does. This is the consensus I uphold. My own political views do not play whatsoever no role here. I can think that Dovzhenko was Russian, Ukrainian, Soviet, Nigerian, or Valinorian. This is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is not what I think but what WP:MOS says, and how it is currently being interpreted by the community. If you look through my contributions (and have some patience, since there are currently 145K of them), you will see that I consistently revert Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Indian, Pakistani, Israeli, Palestinian, and sometimes even Valinorian POV pushers. The only thing I care about (in this context) is the policy, and the policy is very clear on the matter we are discussing here. Now, finally, third. You made some personal comments about me, based on the only piece of data you have - that my mothertongue is Russian. I mentioned that your conclusions are incorrect. You insisted that they are correct (implying I am lying). Let me try again. I AM NOT A RUSSIAN CITIZEN. Is this sufficiently clear? I believe you own me an apology on this point, otherwise we are moving to the casting aspersions and personal attack territory.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Ymblanter I apologize for having alleged that your stance is motivated by whatever connection you have to whatever understanding of what "Russian" means. The thing is, I still maintain that there is not a clear case of applying WP:MOS guidelines but a matter of interpreting them in a certain way, a matter of perception, this perception being a case of an international blindness to Ukrainian issues, precipitated by the policy of narrative of erasure pursued by, first, the Russian Empire, then, the later stage of development of the Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation (the narrative of "we are one people, and Ukrainian language is an invention"). The thing is, once again, WP:MOS deals with "ethnicity", and the matter here is whether "Ukrainian Soviet", or "Latvian Soviet", or "Uzbek Soviet" is an ethnicity. Arguments used in this discussion about how "Ukr. Soviet" isn't a nationality provide analogies with Idaho or California, which are, again, not co-founders of the UN. Neither User:Paul_Siebert, nor myself have heard an explanation for why the status of Scotland in the Union under the British Crown is different from the status of republics within the Soviet Union; there is no Scottish citizenship that I'm aware of that is separate from the British citizenship (so far); and yet, for the English Wikipedia, Robert Burns is "a Scottish poet". I'm seeing a clear case of double standards (and the only explanation I can come up with is people having fallen prey to the Russian/Soviet propaganda of "there is no such thing as Ukraine" and ignorance about Ukraine). Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines is there (or I haven't been shown) an explicit rule saying that "Kazakh Soviet" or "Estonian Soviet" are ethnicities and thus barred from being used in ledes. I guess if I were feeling disruptive I could go ahead and edit the article of Robert Burns to say that he is "a British poet" and get some editors from Scotland in a tizzy. But, given the double standards, I think I need to aim for an explicit consensus on whether this designation is an ethnicity or not. I'd be grateful if you could point me to a manual of how one initiates an RfC for WP:MOS. Latreia (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, like now you are the only person around here who thinks that Soviet Ukrainian qualifies as nationality in the context of the English Wikipedia. Your edits on the Dovzhenko page have been already reverted by two different editors, which means you should start with reading WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. I have no idea about Scottish / Welsh nationality, I know that some people are oversensitive to these issues, and we also have of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, if indeed you want to start an RfC to change WP:MOS, you should be doing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe the issue of double standards merits discussion. Moreover, from the practical standpoint, the reason that you are getting so many editors who do disruptive stuff like describing everything and anything is Ukrainian, is that there _is_ the problem of erasure, so people overreact. It's not that I'm dead set on including "Ukr. Soviet" or "Estonian Soviet" in the definition of nationality, as one probably wouldn't be able to achieve the same with "Scottish", given the modern English understanding of "nationality". I just think that there is a merit to, in cases of "nationalities" in oppressive empires (or not so oppressive?? as the UK was/is clearly a more civilized entity than several latest incarnations of Russia), to include the person's identity in the lede. Apparently, no one sees a problem with that with respect to Scotland. Thank you to the link to the talk page of MOS, I'll get around to this in the nearest future. Funnily, there is currently a discussion there about particles in names, and there are question being pondered like, "Is van der Merwe South African or Dutch? At which point does a name become Australian? Are the names that came over with William the Conqueror now English?" These things are complicated. Thus, your (and Thomas.W's) categorical assertion of "this thing doesn't exist" is far from being a clear-cut and undisputed truth. People are also bringing up "arguments" like "being unhistorical", but it's them who are being unhistorical. Under Lenin, the Soviet Union was not that much different from the UK. There was Union Treaty creating the Soviet Union (like Acts of the Union in the UK). The definition of the Union citizenship in the Soviet Constitution did include the concept of "citizens of the republics": (1924) "For the citizens of the Union(-constituent) republics, the single Union citizenship is established"; (1936 & 1977) "Every citizen of a Union(-constituent) republic is a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". There was a concept of a "citizen of a Union(-constituent) republics". Anyways, I'm not expecting that you will change your entrenched perception about something that "doesn't exist" (although mentioned in the USSR Constitutions), and this is not my practical goal. Thanks again for the pointers to how to approach this matter (through an RFC). Latreia (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. The reason why we get so many disruptive editors is not because they understand some fine details of MOS which we do not or because they want to compare Ukraine with Scotland. The reason that they know THE TRUTH and they try to get ot to the articles, and they do not care so much about the policies (only inasmuch as the policies help them to get THE TRUTH to the articles). I do not think I should discuss hete fine details of MOS. It is enough to make it clear that currently consensus is that Ukrainian is not nationality until 1991. If you want to discuss and change this, please go to WT:MOS.- This is not the right place for discussing policies.-Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please do not twist my words. I haven't said that editors become disruptive "because they understand some fine details of MOS which we do not" or "because they way to compare Ukraine to Scotland". I said they (at least partially) are overreacting because there is a pervasive narrative of erasure, and this is a point that it would do you good to ponder in one of those moments when/if you sometimes get philosophical about life and whether you are fair and just to other people. It was me who brought up the finer points of MOS, not Nachtreisender. Besides, the matter of whether a policy is correctly interpreted and applied is totally fair game in a quasi-legal proceeding. I have simply come to a conclusion that against such a large blind spot and such egregious double standards there is a merit to trying to get the policy to explicitly say something, and in a wider circle of discussion than here. I am not the only one in this conversation to think that using "Ukrainian Soviet" in the lede is proper, and it was you who hasn't proved that "Ukrainian Soviet" is a designation of ethnicity. Only then would your mentioning the WP:MOS (relative) prohibition of mentioning ethnicities in the lede be applicable; I contend it is not, because we are speaking of a concept that is best defined as identity, not even of whether "nationality" (in modern Western understanding—that for some reasons has exceptions for some exceptionally deserving nations) applies. "X Soviet" is not a designation of ethnicity. For example, Effendi Kapiyev is a "Dagestani Soviet" writer, who was "of Laks origin/ethnicity", so "Dagestani" refers to the administrative unit within the Soviet Union, first an oblast, then an autonomous republic (anything that has "stan" refers to a country, not to a people). The fact that "Ukraine" does not have a "stan" in it doesn't mean it is a designation of ethnicity and not of a belonging to a country (that was one of the signatories of a freaking Union Treaty, and later was a freaking co-founder of the freaking UN). — Latreia (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I already cited WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you still, after so many iterations, do not get the point I am afraid I can not help. May be someone else will be more successful here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is you who are not getting the point. There is consensus on WP:MOS, but you need to prove that this policy applies. If policy ("in general") prohibits citing ethnicity, you need to show that it's ethnicity that was cited. WP:OTHERSTUFF is partially applicable in the Scotland analogy (and there we need to examine double standards), but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not applicable here in the "Dagestani Soviet" example. I'm not saying "because someone is cited as Dagestani Soveit, let's cite ethnicities", I'm showing you that this language usage is not used to describe ethnicities. You are clearly not a lawyer and have trouble understanding of how cases are adjudicated and that you cannot just point to a "law", you need to show how that law applies in the particular case. I'm also afraid I can't help you understand it, and for anyone who understands (I suppose administrators should understand these things), I've said enough, so I rest my case :). — Latreia (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Get real. Before the break up of the Soviet Union there was no Ukrainian nationality (by the definition used in English), so any and all mentions (in English, which is what we're discussing here, on the English lannguage Wikipedia...) of someone being Ukrainian before then referred to ethnicity, not nationality. And there's no way for you to get around that, so you might as well find something else to do. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

See both above and below. Above for the fact that the concept of "citizens of the Union(-constituent) republics" is contained in the Soviet Constitution (and btw, there was a Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), and below, after "Another arbitrary break", for a demonstration of how your claims about what "English-language usage" is are clearly conjured out of thin air. You need to educate yourself about history before claiming that there was no this or no that. The fact that hardly anyone in Idaho was knowledgeable about the constituent republics of the Soviet Union during the Soviet times, and that the intricacies of the Soviet constitution(s) were not discussed to the degree that "the perfect call" is being discussed now, doesn't mean there was no "unitary one-party socialist soviet republic" (as English Wikipedia, in what I presume is a consensus, defines the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic). — Latreia (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, now that really starts getting disruptive, WP:IDNHT. You were told three times that this is not an appropriate venue to discuss the issues of ethnicity vs nationality, and you still continue discussing them. Now everybody can see for themselves what editing in Ukrainian topics actually means. Any moment an editor with 300 edits can appear out of nowhere and start building walls of completely irrelevant text even after being told to stop. And of course they know everything, and everyone else josu do not understand Wikipedia policies and must prove them that they are not correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet another arbitrary break

Not sure what this "boomerang" thing is that some people have mentioned here, but at this point User:Ymblanter is removing a sourced (from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia) edit about Dovzhenko's nationality/identity as "Ukrainian Soviet", and the number of their edits to that effect is already at least three; so we are dealing with a nationalistic POV-pushing that goes against authoritative, reliable sources. Latreia (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Which would make sense within the Soviet Union, just like a website or encyclopaedia aimed exclusively at Americans would stress if someone was from Idaho or California, or whatever, but makes no sense whatsoever in an international perspective. There is no "Ukrainian Soviet" nationality, and has never been any. And stop the "boomerang" thing, it's just plain silly. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Ukrainian SSR was a state that co-founded the United Nations, unlike Idaho or California. (Latreia, on mobile and not logged in) 37.73.213.88 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't change the central argument - that there was no "Ukranian Soviet" nationality distinct from a Soviet national identity at the time. Trying to impose such is unhistorical and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how there was no distinct identity. For internal consumption, there is the identification as provided in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (and I’m told it’s irrelevant). For the outside consumption, there was the subject of international law, the Ukrainian SSR, that was presented as a separate entity. Yes, both cases were lip service (although a greater degree of national self-determination ‘’was’’ in fact allowed for at the initial stages of the Soviet Union’s existence). But these are all matters of legal fiction, and legally, the Ukrainian SSR was a separate entity that had the right to leave. And here I would like to return to the analogy mentioned above by User:Paul_Siebert. Acts of the Union between England and Scotland were adopted in 1707. Robert Burns was born in 1759. Why is he a Scottish poet??? Or is one nationality/identity that is within a “Union” (the Soviet Union was a freaking ‘’’Union’’’) intrinsically better than the other? Again, legally the situation is indistinguishable from Scotland. It’s just that the cultural and political ‘’narratives’’ were constructed in a way that erased anything but Soviet and Russian. So the problem here is not the legal status, it’s your ‘’perception’’ that allows you to deny someone the right to a nationality/identity that you accord to others. (again not logged in, Latreia) 37.73.213.88 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The problem seems to be in a different meaning of the word "nationality" in Soviet Union and in a modern Western world. Under "nationality" we mean "citizenship". A nationality of a person named Takeshi Watanabe (an arbitrary name, not any concrete person) is American is he has an American passport, and Japanese if he has a passport of Japan. In contrast, according to Soviet standards, his nationality would be Japanese, but his citizenship would be American, Japanese, etc, depending on a colour of his passport. A formula "Ukrainian Soviet writer (actor, artist, etc) " was quite common in Soviet time, which meant "A Soviet writer of Ukrainian ethnicity". In Soviet Union, the concept of nationality was strictly separated from a concept of citizenship. It was equivalent to our "ethnicity", although there was one more nuance. The term "nationality" was reserved for those ethnic groups that had some officially recognized autonomy (either Soviet republics, or Soviet autonomous republics), whereas ethnicity was related more to those small ethnic groups that had no own official autonomies (although that was not strict).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And since this is the English language Wikipedia we use the "international" definition of nationality (i.e. citizenship), mentioning only the nationality/citizenship in the lead, and then specify their ethnicity further down in the article. Just like it is in the Dovzhenko article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Thomas.W I'm aware of the "international" definition of nationality. So, what do you say about the British poet Robert Burns? Latreia (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Latreia: In the English language England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland are, based on a long-standing tradition, exceptions to the normal rule, and treated as separate nations (as can be seen also in the world of sports, where they, in many sports, have separate national teams...). But they're the only exceptions there are in the English language (which as the name implies originated in England...), and thus nothing you can compare Ukraine to... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: See my reply below. — Latreia (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I'm not referring to the Soviet-time definition of nationality. The issue here is how the current wording of either "ethnicity" or "nationality", as used in the current WP guidelines according to the modern-Western-world understanding of either of those words, correlates with the reality that we are trying to describe when we are writing about people like Oleksandr Dovzhenko in the English Wikipedia, and how and why the application of these guidelines is different when we are talking about similar realities in other countries like Scotland. I'm not aware that there is a Scottish citizenship distinct from the UK citizenship, starting from 1707 and at least until now, and yet the English Wikipedia writes about Robert Burns as "a Scottish poet". Why? Latreia (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

See my reply above. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a rule of the big English, or just of the British English. I believe majority of Anglophone population is not aware of that. In addition, if I am not right, and this exception is universally accepted, Ukraine, as well as other post-Soviet republics, may also be considered an exception, for they were parts of a bigger state and then became independent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It's "common use" that controls what can and cannot be used in English, and which exceptions there are and aren't, and seeing England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland as separate nations has been in common use in the English language for centuries, while there is no chance for seeing the Ukrainian SSR as having been a separate nation during Soviet times to become common use in English, since that period in history is long gone. So learn to live with it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: It is my understanding that the rules of the English language, which originates in England, have until very recently mandated that the pronoun "she" be applied only to persons with the XX chromosome pair. This has meanwhile changed. This is a matter not of the rules of language, but of identity, and the fact that some people continue to be unaware of a separate Ukrainian identity which was there long before 1991 does not mean that they can continue to carve out exceptions for some identities. According this right to Scots, who joined a Union, but not to Ukrainians, who joined a Union (Dovzhenko was a fighter in the Ukrainian People's republic of 1917-1921, and being of Communist convictions, he was part of a political movement that gained the upper hand in Ukraine and was the one that joined Ukraine to Russia (that had recognized Ukraine's independence in December 1917)), is plain racist. Several consecutive Constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have spoken of "citizens of Union(-constituent) republics". What we are dealing here is just the fact that you don't know this, and not the rules of the English language. Latreia (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope that was intended as a joke, because it was probably the silliest comparison I have ever seen on WP, comparing the generally accepted right for people to self-identify when it comes to gender identity, to an imaginary right for Ukraine to decide what "common use" in English should be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is about the right to self-identify in both cases, and in both cases the groups that were originally denied a such a right had to fight an uphill to change what "common use" is against "grumpy old farts" (I'm quoting your user page and your self-identification, so I don't think I'm offending you in any way). That said, you seem unable to refute the fact that the Constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contained a concept of "citizens of Union(-constituent) republic" and that there was a Union Treaty; either that, or you seem unable to grasp the significance of that; or we have a willful refusal on your part to try and grasp the significance of that. And that is a political stance, not a stance of someone who cares about "common use". Again, the N-word was common use at some point, and the change of what's common use in the English language occurred because of the fact that some people of non-English origin were not happy. But you can continue treading in the steps of your predecessors who were protectors of common use. — Latreia (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has degenerated to nothing but silliness. We, that is the English language Wikipedia, go by a strict definition of nationality (with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being the only exceptions, for historical reasons, as has been pointed out to you), so anyone born, living in and a citizen of the Soviet Union was "Soviet" (regardless of if their enthnicity was Russian, Ukrainian, Tajik or anything else), anyone born, living in and a citizen of Austria-Hungary was "Austro-Hungarian" (regardless of if their ethnicity was Austrian, Hungarian, Croat, Ukrainian or anything else), and so on. So it's not just Ukrainians that are being "unfairly treated", but also a lot of other people. And the reason for it is that we do not rewrite history, and do not apply nationality retroactively (how can anyone be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist during their time?), as you and a whole bunch of other Ukrainian editors want to do. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: What you are saying is untrue on multiple counts. Austria-Hungary existed as a joint nation between 1867 and 1918, which is barely over 50 years so it's hard to find someone whose lifetime was strictly within these limits, and it is questionable whether Hungary was more subordinate to Austria before or after the Ausgleich, but you laid out some claims mentioning specifically Austria-Hungary, so here goes, to show that your claims are empty invented bluster: Endre Ady, 1877-1919, called Hungarian or "Hungary's", not Austro-Hungarian in English-language books: 1, 2. Mor Jokai, while born in pre-Ausgleich Hungary, was most prolific in the Austro-Hungarian times. He is called a "Hungarian dramatist and novelist" on Amazon.com, a website from an Anglophone country. Even as Jokai was still alive and his works were translated into English, he was called "the Hungarian master" and "the Hungarian novelist" in the preface to a book published by Doubleday in 1899, in the heyday of Austro-Hungary. Sándor Bródy, who was 4 years old at the time of the Ausgleich, is called "Hungarian author and journalist" in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia published in New York, again while Austria-Hungary was still in existence and there was no need to bow to demands of newly independent Magyars. So your theory about "only Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland get a pass" is clearly your private invention meant for use in this particular discussion, and not "common use English" or "a rule."

No one retroactively rewrites history, it is you who are either ignorant of history or willfully trying to erase history. After being a citizen of the Russian empire, Dovzhenko was first for a short time a citizen (and even a fighter in the army) of the Ukrainian People's Republic and then a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which (I'm presuming by consensus) Wikipedia calls a "unitary one-party socialist soviet republic", and which was a founding member of the UN, and which joined the Soviet Union by signing a Union treaty. The modern state of Ukraine didn't exist at that point, which is why I'm not calling him Ukrainian (although by the example of Sándor Bródy, Endre Ady, and Mor Jokai called Hungarian in the Anglophone world, I don't see why we couldn't). But the designation "Ukrainian Soviet" (for a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) is completely reasonable.

Please cite some historical facts and provide some logical chains of what follows from this or this fact or designation instead of postulating "silliness" and "retroactively rewriting history", otherwise it is you who are looking silly, inventing non-existent "rules of the English language" (evidently hoping that with your supposed authority as a native English speaker you will crush a foreigner.... only the foreigner happens to be a linguist and able to research sources).

— Latreia (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet another wall of irrelevant text, in the usual Ukrainian way. I'm sure it's possible to find a book or two that will "prove" literally anything, heck, you can even find books claiming to "prove" that Earth is flat or that Obama was a Martian, but "common use" isn't a single book, and using nationality in the lead instead of ethnicity is Wikipedia consensus, so I can't see how anything of what you wrote above has anything to do with what we're discussing here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep showing your condescension and racism ("the usual Ukrainian way")—this is a wonderful way of showing who you are (I'm not saying "Anglophone people are", I'm not racist). "Common use", among linguists and not lay native speakers of a certain language, is routinely proven by showing _several_ examples of usage, which I have done as a counterargument to your theory which you've pulled out of thin air (without bothering to show at least the same number of examples that I've provided). Why make provably false claims about tangential topics (Austria-Hungary), if you then declare that counterarguments are irrelevant? And then you try to put my stance alongside obviously absurd things like flat-Earth or Obama being Martian. That you can't see how what I've written applies—well, here I agree. You can't. Have a nice evening. — Latreia (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Since all Ukrainian editors who pop up here to beat the same dead horse over again, for the umpteenth time, post walls of text that is usually both incoherent, illogical and irrelevant it's hard to interpret it as anything but "the usual Ukrainian way". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Open proxy

• 89.248.248.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Joshua Wong Anti-mask law: account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. I know the IP is blocked, but it should be blocked for at least one year, since it fails WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• As a better idea, since there are likely to be many proxy issues here, I have semi-protected Anti-mask law for a month. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that it is an open proxy and should have been blocked on that basis alone, although I personally don't normally block open proxies for as long as a year unless there have been previous blocks. I should probably just go ahead and block, but I would feel more comfortable given my existing 48h block for "vandalism" (which probably should have been for disruption or some other weasely basis) if another admin did so. For one thing, we have a very belligerent IP on our hands at the moment. In addition, I don't think things will improve after the 48h block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm happy to block the proxy (it's somehow related to https://vpn.hkfree.org (not related to Hong Kong) but I've no need to confirm more than that). There is a complication in policy I should point out - a proxy block in cases like this is not aimed at the user, so even if I block the IP for a year the 48 hour block will stand for the user, unless someone lets them know otherwise. Thus it'll just be shifting the problem down the line. I will add a note to the unblock request, but not formally respond to it. On a side note, this is all very sockish. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Late arriving comment, but this appears to be sockpuppet of Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

During my previous research here, I noticed an pattern of long-term abuse.

In addition to these, there is also this and this.

I don't have time right now to go into detail on all my observations, let alone set up a proper WP:LTA file. But in addition to the unusual topic overlap shown between the above accounts, also look for frequent and aggressive edit-warring and reference, usually in a manner that misrepresents the actual policy, of WP:BRD and WP:WIKIHOUNDING among others in edit summaries. Given another 48 hours I may find the time to give more details if requested, but I'm sure there are others more qualified than I to dealing with this situation.

Also pingbacks are probably useless as this is a dynamic IP, best to all. 2601:5CC:8301:FD00:F1AF:15FB:104:4B6C (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Image with incorrect License Info (Potential Copyright Violation?)

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.

---

Hello,

This image appears to have mistakenly been uploaded with a creative commons license instead of a fair use one. I think it is also too big. I am unsure what to do with it and I think an admin needs to take a look at it.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's on Commons, so nothing for enwiki admins to do. Why do you believe it is non-free? If you have such a reason, you can tag it on commons with {{SD|F1|Your explanation here}}. ST47 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's an album cover. Yeah, just use that tag for it, explaining it's an album cover and the uploader hasn't provided any evidence that it's actually available under creative commons. ST47 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 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:Bankster edit wars over terminology

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

This user has had a recent pattern of engaging in changes in terminology on television channel articles that contradict regional terminology (particularly, using "pay television" as a catch-all term to denote any channel not carried FTA - despite the term being synonymous with "premium" services, e.g. HBO). There has been consensus against the changes among other users, as they, as mentioned, do not align with the terminology used in their respective broadcast areas. Bankster performs little meaningful communication with other editors regarding said edits, often not using edit summaries on their reversions. Though at one point they admitted to me on my talk page that this was an effort to "standardise" these terms across all articles.

On October 4, Bankster had been given a 72-hour block for edit warring of this nature on Freeform (TV channel) (generally the U.S. uses the term "basic cable" or just "cable channel" to refer to channels of this nature, and services such as HBO actually are pay television or premium television). On October 6, a second user, Goliathmob (talk · contribs), performed a similar edit to Freeform's article using "subscription television" this time, but linked to multichannel television. Which is a bit more reasonable but not quite, as you usually don't have a choice to subscribe to individual channels. They're usually forced upon you in packages and tiers).

Goliathmob was given a checkuser block as a sockpuppet of User:Architect 134. On October 8 in their first edit after being unblocked, Bankster reverted an IP's reversion of Goliathmob's change of "basic cable" to "subscription television".

Do you think we need to take a further look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If it's edit warring, make a proper report (see HELP:DIFF at WP:3RRN. It doesn't have to break 3RR to be edit warring or to be reported there. If its resumed edit warring as soon as the block expires point that out too and mention WP:Gaming the system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit on BET Her where they switched the term "African-American" to "Black American" was definitely an example of them thinking their opinion meant more than the local vernacular. They never responded to any of my talk concerns brought up several times on their talk page, so this and the socking makes this a good block. I'm really getting worn out by editors who think being a mime and not using talk pages works here. Nate • (chatter) 05:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Vitas Varnas

• Danozzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.76.176.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.187.131.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.187.131.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Danozzz and multiple IPs are edit warring at Vitas Varnas and across multiple other articles, with multiple reports at WP:AIV. The IPs appear to have concluded that Danozzz is a promotional (self-promotional?) account whose purpose here is to promote a non-notable individual. I think they might have a point. Perhaps some admins can have a look and see if page protection and/or blocks are needed here. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP users shouldn't be edit warring, but Danozzz seems to be spamming this person's name into as many articles as possible. I've indefinitely blocked pending an explanation and possible COI declaration. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the subject of the BLP notable enough for a page? Though there are lots of references in the article, the sourcing seems weak at best. Peacock (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, in addition to the now blocked Danozzz, all other wikilinks to Vitas Varnas were added to articles by AnonUser1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Peacock (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Danozzz has already appealed their block, with a less than impressive explanation (well, no explanation) for their interest in adding Vitas Varnas to a range of articles, and I have declined. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC).

IP editing other user's sandboxes

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

Not sure what is going on here, but this IP editor has been editing several logged-in users' sandboxes in their user space, one of whom (User:JCC the Alternate Historian) has already complained about this (rather theatrically) on the IP's talk page. The sandboxes they edit all contain content about 'alternate history' so there's a good chance it's some kind of alternate history roleplay thing and thus a waste of everyone's time, but either way I figured I should bring this to your attention. Kinetic37 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like we have several editors using sandbox space for massive amounts of complete nonsense pertaining to their alternate history hobby. I encourage other editors to take a look. I suggest deleting all of this garbage under WP:U5 unless someone sees some realistic potential that this material might actually be used to improve the encylopedia, which I doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I deleted User:MTR850/sandbox, and others presumably should follow the suit. I am also going to block the IP, whether the sandboxes are up for deletion or not, it is clearly not their business to edit them, especially after warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Note that the sandbox I deleted has been previously edited by two different IPs.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 to U5ing the lot of them - as well as being in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST some of the content is not in great taste.-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've speedied quite a few of the "sandboxes" as webhost/hoax material. ST47 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary deleting those sandboxes. They were private, were not real wikipedia articles and did not cause any harm, so does that really go into WP:NOTWEBHOST?. When I notified Kinetic37 of this vandal IP, I did not intend for this to be the end result, I just wanted a vandal blocked or deterred. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lochglasgowstrathyre: "private, not real articles" are what WP:NOTWEBHOST is meant to prevent. The deleted pages are textbook examples of what is disallowed by policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely there are other wikis where this alternate history hobby would be more appropriate. Reyk _YO! 19:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I just think about the hard work gone forever, not even a chance to save the source text, right now I honestly wish I had never brought notice to this vandal, i feel ike a monster, i could have kept reverting him. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The content is not gone forever; any admin can access the deleted history and email it to the editor upon their request as long as they assure us they won't attempt to repost it here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You were right to notify someone about this IP editor, because they were vandalising after all. The only reason I didn't simply warn them or report them to WP:AIV is that I was confused by the content of these sandboxes and wasn't sure if they even belonged on Wikipedia at all, but that was my decision, not yours. Kinetic37 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

IP Addresses (possibly same person) keeps adding incorrect information to List of programs broadcast by YTV

Someone (an IP user) continues to add Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own to List of programs broadcast by YTV. I would send the user a message but their IP Address keeps changing - the most recent IP Addresses this user has had are 2001:BB6:521C:7558:2866:D86D:E4B3:7135 and 2001:BB6:521C:7558:857F:66D9:2AED:B04E. I have stated in my edit summary when I reverted one of the edits they made (listing Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own) that there is no reference that this TV Show is coming to YTV anywhere. This user (using different IP Addresses) has added this false information several times now. Could an administrator do an IP Address block range so this person won't be able to add false information? I am also going to request page protection on the page specifically for that request since there have been other IP Addresses adding fake information; one did it a few minutes after I reverted the edit 2001:BB6:521C:7558:2866:D86D:E4B3:7135 made; this time it was a different IP Address adding another fake TV Show (another user reverted those edits).

I hope a range block can be put in place; this is getting annoying. TheBlackKitty (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There's just no point to IP blocking here; they'll just wait to find a new IP and resume anew. With these 'list of shows on kid's network' articles, WP:RFP has proven to be the best long-term solution to hoax entries rather than playing whack-a-mole with IPs. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the /64 for a week. If they pop up on a new range, just ping me and I'll semi the articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo (talk · contribs). I hope the page is protected; that's what had to be done with List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV and List of programs broadcast by Teletoon since there were IP Addresses adding false information. TheBlackKitty (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Snak2f: centuries old map disproves modern archaeology?

Snaf2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's (undeleted) contributions consist of posts to Talk:Babylon and Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah, where they use a map from the 1600s to try to find the city of Babylon, noting "it's exact location is still unknown".

For those who don't know, the ruins of Babylon were re-discovered 200 years ago. All research in that area since then as confirmed that, yep, that's where Babylon was.

When told this, they argued that "there is no accurate "professionally-published mainstream academic sources" for the region that existed 2,000 years ago" and that those ruins are probably Persepolis, which we've known the location of for about 400 years. There's literally nothing in the articles Babylon or Persepolis saying "but some scholars are open to the hypothetical possibility that maybe these ruins could be different cities" because it's beyond WP:FRINGE.

Maybe Snak2f just need to hear from other users that modern academic sources are not only a thing but the thing that we use here, but past experiences like this tell me that we have yet another user who doesn't need to be anywhere near history articles, because they cannot even process the possibility that their interpretation of a single outdated source could be anything other than correct while academia was once wrong, always wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I'm in the middle of drafting them a response which I hope might assist. I hope to post it shortly, despite the late hour here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute on Ivar Lovaas

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.

---

See this discussion for more information. Ivar Lovaas was a researcher who claimed that he could make autistic people "normal" by beating them and shocking them with cattle prods. He had a large cult following and some now-debunked research to back up these claims. I fixed the article-- here is my version. But Alexbrn has reverted the article to its previous state and removed references to his human rights abuses, and involvement in gay conversion therapy, all with no discussion on the talk page. This editor appears to be acting on a personal grudge against me. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Largely a content dispute, but I do find interacting with Wikiman2718 problematic, particularly if they are going to go all WP:GODWIN on me.[238] Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In content disputes, radical changes are discussed on the talk page. You have no right to take control of the article like you did. And please read that diff in context so that it make sense. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your point "radical changes are discussed on the talk page". While you did comment on the talk page, your comment seems to just be telling people how bad the subject's work was. I see no recent discussion relating to changes to the article on Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas. Why on earth are you on ANI complaining about a lack of discussion on the talk page when you are just as guilty? Discussion is never going to happen if no one tries and it's incredibly lame to argue over who should have initiated discussion just like childish "well the other person started it" fights. Some just do it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I see the confusion here-- there was no need for me to discuss the issue on the talk page because I was the only editor on the page at the time. However, alexbrn's massive revert occurred with no discussion or consensus. Please read this for more context. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No I don't think you the confusion. I don't really give a damn whether or not you should have initiated discussion before making changes. I do give a damn that you're wasting our time at ANI complaining that Alexbrn did not discuss when you did not discuss either. There seems to be no consensus or discussion on the talk page for either of your edits. One of you needs to initiate discussion. And you all need to work towards achieving consensus on what the article should stay. Stop wasting our time complaining that someone else did not discuss when you did not discuss. Just bloody discuss. The FTN link just makes the situation even more confusion. There clearly is discussion with multiple people including Alexbrn involve. This discussion should continue, probably moving to the article talk page when it gets to the nitty gritty. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine then we can discuss on talk page, and meanwhile, I would like to make a case for harassment by this editor across multiple pages. Obviously, that's going to take a while do give me some time to get the diffs together. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's up to you. I strongly suggest you drop it since it's going to be difficult to make a case when you started off with wasting our time complaining that someone wasn't discussing when either you weren't yourself, or you both were discussing and it just needed to continue perhaps with more dispute resolution as needed. If you cannot handle a simple WP:content dispute in an acceptable manner, then there's a good chance whatever else you are concerned about is not worth our attention. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please withhold judjment untill after I have made my case. In the meantime, for a small taste of the kind of "content disputes" I have been having with Alexbrn, check out Talk:Cupping therapy/Archive 1#Consumer_fraud. I will try not to respond further until after I have made my case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC) As an additional point, I really don't think you want to be drawing attention to any discussion where you said "Alexbrn decides to join the Third Reich, and Roxy the dog is right behind." not to mention the the other concerning aspects of your behaviour at the FTN. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Check out this diff. Apparently he's defending vaccine denialists now. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Alexbrn is now doing the same to discrete trial training. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• The evidence isn’t sufficient to support the conclusions of the original poster. This needs to be approached as a good faith content dispute. If there is more, it will eventually become apparent. Jehochman ^Talk 08:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to show studies and have a debate on this issue. However, the article was reverted without consensus, and I was not given the opportunity to defend my edits. A fringe discussion should be held. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You do have the opportunity to defend your edits. Open a bloody talk page discussion and do so. Stop wasting our time telling us that someone else needs to do so and just bloody well do it yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is obviously directly related to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ivar Lovaas, and a quick look there gives me the impression that it's the OP who is doing the fringe pushing, not the editor this complaint is about; the messages on the OP's talk page also show they never drop the stick, and never accept they're wrong. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Title

• As I have stated several times, this is about harassment. Please do not rename the thread. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The title was changed by an admin, Jehochman, since you haven't presented any evidence for harassment. So if you want to change it again, discuss it with Jehochman first, before changing it again! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Jehochman: I am in the process of collecting evidence of harassment. As you may know, harassment is often a pattern of behavior across multiple pages, rather than a single post. Therefore it will take me a while to put together the case. In the meantime, I would like for the section header to reflect the real reason that I made the report, as I stated here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time here. Evidence should have been collected before you posted here, and presented along with your initial complaint. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please let the posting admin respond. Anyone who has ever been harassed knows that it can provoke angry responses. It is not appropriate to see those responses and immediately blame the victim. I will get around to collecting these diffs as soon as the subject of this thread is rectified. This discussion is not likely to be very fruitful if it is viewed as a content dispute on just one article. I deserve the right to make my case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So make it and quit quibbling over the title. Right now, all you're doing is edging toward a boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The title is an attempt to deprive me of my right to make a case for harassment. That was my intention when posting here. I realize that I should have collected the evidence before and not after-- but I hardly think that it is "quibbling" to argue about an attempt to change the subject of my post. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Claiming that an admin is attempting to "deprive" you of rights is not going to go over well. Strongly suggest you drop this unless & until you have solid evidence. Right now, you're digging a deeper hole. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I do have solid evidence of harassment. I recognize the consequences if I am not believed. I want the right to make my case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Then make it, and pronto. As for the title, accusing someone of harassment in the section title without presenting any evidence for it, is you making a personal attack against your "opponent" (see WP:NPA, which states that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for this, but "pronto" may be a problem. This is not a diff, but a pattern of behavior. It will take some time to put the case together. As for the accusation, it's already out there. Changing the title (and therefore the subject of the post) will not take it back. I want to make my case. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Again, I would like to apologize for having done things out of order. I recognize that everyone here (save those I intend to accuse) are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, I work weekends (forty hours in three days), so I may not have time to make my case as speedily as we all might like. I may have some time to edit at work, and I will do so to the best of my ability. In the meantime, I promise that I will not make any further edits to the encyclopedia until this issue is resolved. I hope we can agree to put all this on hold until I have made my case so that we can do things in the (not quite) right order. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Asking for "a chance to make your case" seems to be a bit of a pattern with you, since you seem to be piling up a list of accused parties.[239] Are you going to do both of these "cases" (mine and Bbb23's) at once I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I dropped that issue, but I now see that dropping the stick is seen as an admission of being wrong. I will have to make the case against him too in order for my edits to be understood. Since that case is going forward, I would appreciate if Bbb23 did not act in the role of an admin in this discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718 (talk · contribs) - For what it's worth, if this thread ends up being closed or archived before you return, you're free to make your complaint in a separate thread. There's no reason to feel like you need to post it under this same subheading if you have finish drafting it next week or something. In my experience, it's better to take your time and draft your complaint as succinctly as you can, with specific links to edits as supporting evidence; if it takes more than a few days, so be it, but you can always post a new thread when you are finished. There's no deadline or need to rush to get it done while you're busy in real life. Just a friendly bit of advice. 107.77.204.58 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IP. Since the consequences of making this many high profile accusations falsely would probably be a block or a ban of some sort, I have "thrown all my chips in the pot", so to speak. It may be best that I do not jeopardize my future as an editor of this encyclopedia my making a report too hastily, as I did here. It is best that I take my time. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, if I wasn't editing on a phone right now, I would close this case and I hope another admin does. You indeed might have a case to make over harassment but we do not leave complaints open here indefinitely (although some cases seem to go on forever). But it is clearly going to take you a while to compile your evidence and life goes on and apparently your content dispute has been resolved or, at least, you know what the next steps to take are. So this should be closed with no prejudice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 12 October 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:Hunter Hutchins

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.

---

On October 4, User:Hunter Hutchins made the following revision to Name of Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Name_of_Ukraine&diff=919534809&oldid=917363401

He (I assume this user is male) did not give any reasons for this revision. And I did not think this revision was entirely necessary either, as I will explain later.

So yesterday (October 9), I undid this revision - telling him it was not entirely necessary, unless he could explain why he thought it was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Name_of_Ukraine&diff=920420376&oldid=919534809

His response? To restore this revision - and to actually *refuse* to explain why he thought it was necessary, instead saying "Undoing this revision unnecessary, unless you can explain why it is."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Name_of_Ukraine&diff=920499223&oldid=920420376

To me, that's a pretty appalling attitude to have. When you make *any* kind of significant revision, how difficult is it to explain to other users - regardless whether or not they ask you to - why you think this revision is necessary? Not giving any kind of explanation can be unhelpful for other users, and saying something like "Undoing this revision unnecessary, unless you can explain why it is" is *definitely* unhelpful - not to mention plain rude.

As for why I didn't think this revision of his was entirely necessary? I believe the original form of the passage he edited, "Ukraine is one of the few English country names traditionally used with the definite article, alongside The Sudan and The Gambia (also The Bahamas and the Netherlands, where the article is necessitated by the plural form)" gets the point across perfectly - and hence there was no real need to add other country names that are usually used with "the" (or, indeed, to replace the definite article before "few English country names" with the indefinite article).

He clearly thought the opposite, that there *was* a real need to add other country names and to change it to "*a* few English country names". Well, it would have only taken him a few seconds to say so in the edit summary box - either when he first made this revision on October 4, or when he restored it after I undid it. It would have been a much better attitude to display, instead of choosing to be rude and unconstructive and just saying "Undoing this revision unnecessary, unless you can explain why it is."

And, obviously, I wouldn't have felt compelled to report his behavior on here. 2604:2000:1102:C183:D460:2AAE:291E:16C (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your first step should be to take this to the article's Talk page and attempt to discuss it there.

What Hunter Hitchens did was turn your own edit summary back on you: you said the revision was unnecessary unless they could explain why it is, and Hunter turned around and gave you the exact same reasoning. To be blunt, if you think their response was rude, how do you think your initial edit summary came across? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely concur. You need to engage in discussion with this person (you haven't even attempted to talk to them on their user page). Buffs (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, all right - when I reverted his revision originally, I should have been straight to the point and said "the original passage is fine" or "two country names are enough."

I guess "not entirely necessary, unless you can explain why it is" *does* come across as being a bit rude itself. But, honestly, I had no intention of being rude here - sometimes in the heat of the moment, it's quite easy to do or say the wrong thing without realizing it. Also, this illustrates one of the drawbacks of the written word compared to the spoken word: it can be *very* one-dimensional.

All that said, I still fail to see why Hunter had a right to turn my edit summary back on me. If he felt I was rude, that's absolutely fine - but being rude back is not the answer, is it?

I stand by my view, too, that when you make any kind of significant revision, it shouldn't take more than a few seconds to explain to other users why you think this revision is necessary. There may not be a rule that states that you *must* make such an explanation, but doing so *is* very useful and helpful for other users - and shouldn't lead to rudeness (intended or not), appalling attitudes, edit summaries being turned back, urges to contact the administrators, any kind of bad blood.

I do hope Hunter learns this. This might not be the way he would have liked to have learned it - but hey, perhaps some things are best learned the hard way. 2604:2000:1102:C183:D460:2AAE:291E:16C (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I do hope Hunter learns this. This might not be the way he would have liked to have learned it - but hey, perhaps some things are best learned the hard way. It sounds like you're not listening. You complained about a user who did the exact same thing you did. And you still haven't engaged on the article talkpage or Hunter's talkpage. Why in the world should he be sanctioned and you not? Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

^^^ He's right you know... Buffs (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what? Forget it then. If I'm going to continue to be treated like a criminal who just cannot be trusted, even after willingly admitting to my mistakes - while Hunter continues to be treated as though he has done absolutely nothing wrong, and had every right in the world to turn my edit summary back on me - then I'm staying away from Wikipedia in the future.

I do not wish to spend any more of my time on a site where genuine, intentional rudeness is tolerated in any way, where people do not pay any attention at all to the drawbacks of the written word over the spoken word, where they can get away with not learning anything constructive (the hard way or otherwise), and - it seems - where the rules are not the exact same for absolutely everyone, even though I'm pretty sure they're supposed to be. I've come across too many of these sites in my lifetime - Facebook, Twitter, numerous fansites and forums. And it saddens me to see that Wikipedia is one of these sites, too.

From now on, when it comes to online encyclopedias, I'll be going to the likes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Not one that can be edited by just anyone - and hence not one that allows for genuine, intentional rudeness, or for one set of rules for one person and a different set for another. And I'm sure I can find good, decent sites, too, for things that Wikipedia covers but these other encyclopedias do not.

With that, I take my leave. Not worth replying to this comment directly (that is, in the second person), because I'm not going to be around to see it. 2604:2000:1102:C183:D460:2AAE:291E:16C (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What entitlement. I expanded an existing section of the page to improve it. I classified that as a minor edit. What's rude is reverting my edit without specific reasons that go beyond preference. As in, an error or an argument about style. I could see it either way, the comprehensive list of countries or the sampling thereof; the article has flaws. Perhaps I have added to them. Speaking of appalling, being attacked here for trying to improve an article is quite the downside.

Thank you for your forbearance. Hunter Hutchins (talk) 09:24, 11 October 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 restore the stable version of MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis

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.

---

The stable version was damaged by recent deletions of highly relevant information as if it was unreliable. The motives seem to be personal and the abusers are not inclined to discuss. I think that the version before 2019 must be restored and the page must be protected from hypocracy. 90.154.70.193 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:MacCullagh ellipsoid is empty. It's therefore very difficult to conclude "not inclined to discuss" unless we're referring to everyone including you. No one seems to have tried. Further, in terms of the editing of the article, this edit summary [240] is completely useless since it calls edits WP:vandalism which clearly weren't so we have no idea why that edit was made. These edit summaries [241] [242] by comparison given policy based reasons for the changes, which aren't so obviously wrong. (To be clear, I'm not saying those links weren't RS. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. They aren't so clearly RS to made the edit summary obviously flawed. Disagreements about whether or not those videos are RS can be discussed somewhere appropriate. By comparison, it's trivial to see that those edits weren't vandalism. They were clearly a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia whether or not they did.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Since no action was taken, severe vandalism persists. There were no edits since 2018. Only deletions. The page must be restored as it was before October 2019 and vandals must be severely punished since they are not new to the Wikipedia 2A02:2168:B00:EFF:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

As a creator of the page I confirm that it was recently (October 2019) intentionally attacked and vandalized by biased, incompetent, self promoting editors, who are depriving wikipedia readers from important information. Indeed, such editors must be punished and stripped of all their privileges. Cocorrector (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This again? There have been problems with refspamming of Adlaj for a while, see for example Talk:Ellipse/Archive_2#Edits_of_the_Adlaj_formula and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FeelUs/Archive- MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What do mean by "this" and "again" and who makes you think that Adlaj's formula is refspamming? Do you have a proof? Cocorrector (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I linked it above. Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sandro78/Archive, which I just found. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not a proof nor a permit for MrOllie to vandalize. Acting on delusions before consulting a specialist is not wise. Markioffe (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Markioffe and Cocorrector have been blocked, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 11 October 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:Slatersteven

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 don't know if this is enough for a administrator intervention but this user has now for 2 times stopped discussing with me at the talk when proven wrong. I think he is trolling me and just want an admin to condemn him so he stops doing it. If you read these two talk discussions [243] and [244] (especially the last messages) You'll understand what I mean. Thanks. KasimMejia (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

When did I stop discussing with you? If you mean this [[245]] there is no requirement for me to respond instantly, I do have other things to do. As to the other, the last comment was mine so it is hard to see how you can claim I stopped discussing with you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I will admit its getting to the stage of having to bite my keyboard (to paraphrase).Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Editors are not required to respond to talk page comments, and they most certainly are not required to respond to a talk comment within 8 minutes. To expect such a thing is beyond ridiculous and is certainly not an Administrator Noticeboard issue. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move to close before this boomerangs. It's clear that Slatersteven was just enforcing core policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:NPOV and WP:RS) and tried to explain it to KasimMejia in good faith. This isn't an ANI issue. SITH (talk) 12:53, 12 October 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.

Ruining a RfC (canvassing)

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.

---

Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has pinged editors who are known for having anti-Iranian opinions. Ruining the RfC. What steps should be taken?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:All people who I have pinged are from Talk:Houthi movement/Archive 2 (only socks and banned users haven't been pinged). Your opinion is complotist. You are not able to prove your allegations. But you are clearly not neutral because you attemps to exclude users who have not the same opinions than you. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014, You have selectively pinged unrelated to the discussion editors who are known for having anti-Iranian opinions.--14:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: your claim is a lie. I have pinged all the users who have participated to the previous discussion. If I had pinged only users who have pro-Iranian opinion or only anti-Iranian, it is a selection. Not here. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014 You have ruined the RfC because of your obvious canvassing. Admins should do something with this.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: again, you are not able to prove (the so claimed obvious canvassing, we must bring proofs or stopping your allegations) your allegations because they are false. Whether you like it or not, I notified everyone. Point bar. So stop lying.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014, You didnt ping a lot of users who were in the archive. Only those who you saw have anti-Houthi point of view. You have ruined a RfC.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:Again, you are not able to prove your allegations, so stop now only if you have proofs against me. I pinged all of the non banned users from here. You are not able to give the name of the "forgetten users". A lie repeated a thousand times does not become a truth.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you two please stop this aimless back and fourth. Who wasn't pinged, SharabSalam? Please feel free to ping them now. Panam2014, the pings were not really necessary, the RfC was seeing enough participation. El_C 14:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014, You can find a lot of non-pinged editors like Drmies. Where is Drmies in your canvassing ping? Drmies should block you for not inviting him/her.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam and El C: Drmies was an administrator (like to others admins). He was an arbitrator not a participant to the discussions. Stop asking admins to block me, I is not a constructive action.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014 Yea. Drmies had a neutral point of view; not gonna ping them. I didnt ping blocked editors, Lets ping Icewhiz a blocked editor. too much to believe-SharabSalam (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Drmies should block you for not inviting him/her — don't be absurd! El_C 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Its sarcasm!.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay — that was not clear, though. At any case, please don't further undo my closure of this report. El_C 15:06, 12 October 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.

Apologizing to El_C

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 here by apologize to El C for what I said in my talk page. I said something that I shouldn't have said. I totally regret what I said. I think El C is a reliable admin and he holds a neutral point of view. I was frustrated because of Panam doing convassing in a RfC. I bare all responsibility for my action and I am so sorry. I hope El_C accepts my apology. Please continue your work in Iran-related topics and ignore what I said. I am sorry.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for that. El_C 15:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my apology. I am so grateful.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:36, 13 October 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.

184.98.237.86

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:184.98.237.86 is making legal threats. CLCStudent (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A user (that IP) apparently impersonating John Queeley has been making threats on this page to delete it "or else." But couldn't you just AIV him?From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not feel it is obvious enough to go to AIV, but if you feel it is, you can report her. 17:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 17:11, 12 October 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 Kredsdr

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.

---

• Kredsdr (talk · contribs)

Edit-warring across multiple articles, apparently in protest of his sourcing being unreliable. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Let us give them a chance to explain themselves here, but if they fail to do so I am afraid we need to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 12 October 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.

73.101.168.123

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.

---

Blocked IP who keeps posting the same cack he got blocked for on his talk page. Needs TPA revoked. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 14 October 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.

Disrutive editing and personal attack by User:Tisquesusa

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.

---

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding links to deleted portals.

These don't display on the face of page, but are categorised in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and its subcats. These are cleanup categories, which I and others used to identify and fix errors in links to portals. It's a minor bit of housekeeping, but it's one I attend to in order to ensure that after a portal is deleted the links are replaced with a live portal where appropriate.

I initially dealt with these by simply removing the deleted portal, e,g, [246] to Mata Amarilla Formation, and sometimes pinging Tisquesusa to alert them to a problem which I presumed they were unaware of.

That didn't produce any response, so at 20:57, 12 October 2019 I posted an explanation on their talk page: [247]

Tisquesusa removed[248] that post at 21:38, 12 October 2019 with the uncivil edit summary remove spam.

This afternoon, I found that Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals contained about two dozen new entries which had been caused Tisquesusa adding links to the deleted portals. So at 16:20, 13 October 2019, I left a further note[249], saying that given the hostility I wouldn't now take the time to remove the errors, I'd just revert the edits.

I did so, and Tisquesusa reverted my edits. At 16:22, 13 October 2019 they also removed my second msg from their talk[250] with the edit summary remove spam, do something CONSTRUCTIVE with your time...

My final attempt at communication was at 17:26, 13 October 2019, when I left a message on Tisquesusa's talk,[251] asking What exactly are you trying to achieve by repeatedly adding links to deleted portals?

That too was removed[252] by Tisquesusa, at 17:32, 13 October 2019.

I then found that at 16:32, 13 October 2019 Tisquesusa had followed mr to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals and posted a severe personal attack on me[253]. I am used to extreme rudeness from editors who get angry about when there is consensus to delete of portals, but this is a new low.

Please can someone remove this PA, and try to direct Tisquesusa towards collegial conduct and away from the WP:OWNership displayed in the my portals phrase in that personal attack? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack reverted and revdeleted. I also left the user a uw-npa4 (only) warning. I would rather not involve myself further on the portal front, however. El_C 18:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, User:El C. However, the disruption and aggression continues:

I notfied Tisquesusa of this discussion at 18:07[254]. However, Tisquesusa has continued to disruptively add links to the deleted Portal:Prehistory of Europe:

• 18:14 [255]
• 18:14 [256],
• 18:14 [257]
• 18:10 [258]

Having done that, they also removed[259] my ANI notificaion with the edit summary not interested, stop disrupting my work.

User:El C posted an NPA notice[260], but that too was removed by Tisquesusa with an abusive edit summary.[261]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Tisquesusa for 72 hours for the behavior reported above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 13 October 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.

WP:NOTHERE by 68.198.161.155

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

I'm not even fully sure what to do with this, but this ip editor does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. If they are, they certainly are unable to adopt a WP:NPOV. Looking at the IP editor's block log, edit summaries, and filter log, they have a history of disruptive editing. While I gave them a level-3 warning just now, I think that the editing history strongly suggests this is one individual who, having received multiple warnings and one block, does not need a repeat of escalating warnings before a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. El_C 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a sock of indefinitely blocked user Jb3842. See this previous discussion (pinging @Tgeorgescu: and @DMacks:) Dorsetonian (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks!

@Dorsetonian: Good catch. I'll keep an eye on the IP. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Not even slightly HERE. DMacks (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Rogue or mistaken deletion of my sandbox

My sandbox was deleted because I supposedly asked to delete it [262]

In fact, I never asked to delete my sandbox. Why should I?

--Zadrali (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Except of course you did ask for the sandbox to be deleted. I have restored it now. In future please be more careful and approach the deleting admin first before coming to ANI. GiantSnowman 10:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Doh! Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

77.162.226.226

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

I would strongly recommend that an administrator checks all the edits made by a long term IP vandal 77.162.226.226, many of which I have just reverted as they were either definitely or possibly incorrect. Their edits seem to be nothing short of vandalism or deliberate inclusions of incorrect information. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours and other editors have reverted all their edits. If the problem returns after the block expires, please report to WP:AIV. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Idf22341 claiming a Wikipedia Employee ID #

As of this version of User:Idf22341, and this version of User talk:Idf22341, this user has claimed a "Wikipedia Employee ID #." Surely this can't be allowed? (As a side note, the user is already listed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farsi15 and, as of this moment, WP:AIV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I indef blocked Idf22341 for the obvious block evasion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On keeping off talk pages

Would someone please have a word with User:Notrium, who is persistently needling me on my talk page? - MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Couple of points:
  1. Removing that link wasn't "vandalism" as Notrium claims. It's just an editing dispute.
  2. Personally I think the link is a little bit spammish but mostly benign.
  3. If you don't want Notrium posting on your talk page, simply remove their posts every time they make one. They'll soon get the hint. Reyk _YO! 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In looking at this discussion it looks like User:Notrium has the support of an administrator as well as well. You might want to read what C.Fred's saying to you carefully. (struck for being incorrect) It looks like C. Fred is supporting Mr. Ollie as well, however Notrium's point is well taken, it's not "your talk page" and people can still talk to you under certain circumstances. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a novel interpretation of "So I endorse MrOllie's removal." - MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Eh? It looks to me as though C.Fred is agreeing with Mr. Ollie. Reyk _YO! 13:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I recently learned the hard way that ignoring a "stay away" (under WP:NOBAN) carries at least the appearance of WP:Harassment and even if you have a good reason (or think you have a good reason) to ignore the NOBAN request, doing so invites a lot more trouble than its worth. See also removal of other people's comments per WP:OWNTALK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Further, accusing an editor of vandalism due to a disagreement over content is a personal attack. Notrium should be made aware that further such claims could lead to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't specifically mention blocks, but I mentioned that it could be interpreted as harassment. I also encouraged them to continue the discussion somewhere other than MrOllie's user talk. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And they have complied; it's on my user talk now. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC).

Death threat by 201.231.232.178

The above IP made an apparent death threat ("shoots the head") in an edit summary ([263]). TomCat4680 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP address for a period of 1 week for vandalism and inappropriate edit summaries. Mz7 (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nate Speed. If the IP is static, a longer block may be warranted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a different LTA, actually. They're similar in some respects, but Nate Speed doesn't care about Regular Show. This one mostly adds hoaxes to cartoons that have ended their run. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a better place than this for long complaints?

I'm putting together a notification/complaint which is turning out to be lengthy, not least because it draws on extensive sources. I don't want to post it here if it's not the right place - what should I do? I've tried to edit it down and it's quite difficult. Vashti (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vashti: This board is for urgent, or chronic and intractable behavioral problems. If that's what your report is, it should be made here. You could also post it on WP:AN. But regardless, I recommend you keep your post as short as possible. Folks just straight up don't read long WP:WALLs of text. Condense it to the most egregious diffs and let them speak for themselves. While there is no official word limit here, you may find the advice of WP:AE relevant: keep complaints under 500 words and 20 diffs. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What about if it deals with off-wiki activity? Vashti (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case I recommend you to send it to ArbCom by e-mail, [email protected]. It's still worth keeping it as short as possible. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC).

I will do that. Thank you. Vashti (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, to be clear, length aside, any complaints which involve off-wiki evidence should not generally be posted anywhere on wikipedia with a small number of exceptions. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Revoke talk page editing for 71.13.112.146

• 71.13.112.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

After a temporary protection by Yamla, the IP has continued to spam more unblock requests several days after. Can an admin either put an extended lock to the page or just revoke their talk page editing privileges for the remainder of the block? Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material / BLP after final warning

Gopaljirai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On October 11: Continued addition of unsourced personal information about a living person after numerous warnings. Note there is nothing in the linked bio supporting this date of birth either. (This was reported to WP:AIV but redirected here for procedural reasons.)
Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef, until they begin to respond to other editors' criticism. 2280 edits with zero edits to a talk page (except to delete about 2 dozen warnings). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Kahisaleem

Kahisaleem was blocked a few months ago for creating unsourced articles. He has re-created a drafted/deleted article, Hildan. I recently added the BLP no references tag, but he has deleted it (see this). Meanwhile, he has refused to communicate with anyone and has showed no sign of responding to warnings. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the article (again) and salted it. If s/he intends to recreate it in the mainspace it'll either have to go through AFC or it'll be a good example of disruptive editing in which case we can block the user. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Kahisaleem has now created the article again, twice: as Hîldan and using an (arabic?) title that can't be Wikilinked [264]. 86.143.224.244 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I see that an article created by Kahisaleem concerning a satellite TV channel (or supposed channel - I can't find obvious evidence that it actually broadcasts, rather than being web-based), NewMax Tv, states that a Kahi Saleem is one of the owners. 86.143.224.244 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked now harshly:

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

05:07, 12 October 2019 TomStar81 talk contribs blocked Kahisaleem talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes: Persistent addition of unsourced content)

I suggest a close. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 15:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the solipsism block really justifiable, though? Such blocks are generally reserved for persistent sockpuppeteers or people who've exhausted the patience of admins at the talk page and the admins' email accounts. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 18:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that he's clearly meaningfully contribute to an encyclopedia? He would fit cleanly under multiple block rationales such as not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not communicating, and advertising. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That isn't my implication what-so-ever. Even if they're blocked for being a spammer, they should still have talk page and email access unless and until they abuse those privileges. Generally the only time that a first block also revokes talk page and email access is if the blocked user is a known persistent sockpuppeteer. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 23:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in Niger State and automatic tools

On 9 October between 18:40 and 19:09, an IP in a series of edits [265] removed the whole content of Niger State leaving only a hatnote. Apparettly, I was the first user to notice this five minutes ago. It is a reasonably high-profile article. The article stayed empty for about 40 hours. Whereas we all know that vandalism happens, and of course nobody is responsible for monitoring all the articles, is it clear why such an blatant and obvious misuse of the edit button was not caught by automatic tools? Should we do something about it?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you've blocked that IP, and there hasn't been any activity for a couple of days, I think wait and see is the best option, for now. (I considered sprotecting, but thought better of it.) El_C 13:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think automatic tools are just, generally, a hit-and-miss proposition. Needless to say, added to my watchlist. If enough ANI readers do so as well, I think the likelihood of this repeating again would greatly decrease. El_C 13:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not think the IP specifically targeted this page. My question is more how we can improve our workflow to avoid this - it certainly should be possible to catch page blanking?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I still think it's gonna be a hit and miss thing — though admittedly, this goes (far) beyond my technical expertise. El_C 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove jokes

Resolved

Can anyone remove this user edits [266] I feel like he is trying to make a joke.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That's just a vandal. Blocked for 48 hours. Thank you for reporting and for reverting the vandalism, SharabSalam. For another time, though, WP:AIV is better and quicker for vandalism reports than ANI. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC).

142.59.217.7, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and me

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

I have tried to be patient here, but the edits are becoming tiring. I've explained on my talk page why simply saying "terrorist" twice in the opening sentence isn't helpful or descriptive enough, but apparently I am a racist and a hypocrite if I don't agree with this user's edits, which are The Truth™ and made without any talk page input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Now we got a one year break from this IP, unless, of course, they manage to file a successful unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place

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. Idk if this is the right board to report this, but there's a User:Saulamway who is using a really offensive signature. They've been warned about it, looks like, and they ignored the warning. And all they seem to have been doing since creating their account today is spamming welcomes at people? Let me know if this is the wrong board. Daundelin❁ 20:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this Daundelin. Saulamway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only edits are adding welcome templates to editors (some of whom don't exist) talk pages. This is a) an attempt to become autoconfirmed and/or b) an attempt top get their offensive signatue on as many pages as possible. Early indicators are a WP:NOTHERE situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Could those talk page posts be batch deleted? The user is clearly just trolling, so a dose of WP:DENY seems called for. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have that nonsense permanently deleted from my talk page, yes. Oh and I did notify them on their talk page. Daundelin❁ 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has indefinitely blocked Saulamway as a sockpuppet. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:46, 13 October 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.

LTA activity on Talk:Chess variant and Talk:List of chess variants.

We are getting some LTA activity on Talk:Chess variant and Talk:List of chess variants.

Related: User talk:Antandrus#Which LTA? and [267]

Blocked users:

• Tolstoypushkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Absolutezeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chessvariant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LithiumFlash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Is this the same LTA? See [268])
• Lojbanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Is this the same LTA? See [269])
• Szymborskawislawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wislawaszymborska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected block evading IPs:

• 41.207.197.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.253.163.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.72.120.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.5.215.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (See the edit filter log on this one)
• 156.218.60.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I also got some vaguely threatening "I will expose you on social media!" emails from the same person, which I reported at the usual place.

Could someone please point me to/create a central place where I can document activity from this LTA? Thanks!

I purposely did not post ANI notices in order to avoid further email harassment. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

LithiumFlash and Lojbanist are not the same. Everything else appears to be him.

I've held off on recreating the LTA page -- kind of on the fence between WP:DENY and documenting a serious problem. Jimbo deleted the previous page here. Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

<ec>It's a WMF-banned LTA case, the less said the better. Admins should block on sight, everybody else should revert and ignore. They've been more active than usual over the last six months or so. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please apply DENY. Erecting a monument to their achievements will not help. Close this and archive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  The socks have been blocked, and there is little else we can do now as talk pages can not be pending changes protected, and disruption does not yet justify long-term semi protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that talk pages should be eligible for pending changes protection whenever that's a sensible option - what arguments are there against it? Anyway, I appreciate the care being taken here - this case is well known to me, with some real world consequences for non-Wikipedians. Happy to discuss with trusted people I know. Antandrus, historically, knows a lot about this one too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sports Hoaxes in Draftspace

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.

---

• Azurko125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Azurko125 has created about a dozen articles in draftspace which appear to be hoaxes about non-existent sporting tournaments. He also has created at least one in mainspace about a non-existent basketball tournament, which was turned into a somewhat less questionable redirect in good faith, which is now at RfD. There may be deleted hoax mainspace creations which I cannot see as I am not an admin. I could just G3 them all, but I wanted to get community input first given the circumstances. Smartyllama (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• All the Futsal stuff is complete nonsense and I have deleted them. I suspect the basketball tournaments are as well, but I have to go out now - I'll have a look at them when I get back if no-one else has. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  The EuroLeague one in mainspace is legitimate, although the version created by him was nonsense. The U-19 and U-20 ones are hoaxes as is the handball one I believe. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 14 October 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.

Portal updates reverted

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.

---

Noticed today a few reverts of portal updates (on my watchlist) by admin BrownHairedGirl with the edit summary "Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed". I took a look at a few to related the revert explanation with what happened prior. In the case of Portal:Ontario admin Northamerica1000 left a note at Portal talk:Ontario#Portal updated about the updates being selected from the old stock and new FA/GA articles and also replied to a post at Portal talk:Ontario#Portal status. At Portal:Latin America agree there was no talk (not that's its needed) but the revert has now left the portal in a state of disrepair as sub pages were deleted. So I look at how many were done and to my surprise many many reverts have been preformed... reverting what I believe most will think are good faith editions of one admin by another admin. I see that Northamerica1000 did leave some message on talks and explains were article selection came from despite the edit summary above as seen at Portal talk:Guyana#Portal updated - Portal talk:Cars#Portal updated.... is no prior announcement a reason for reversal? I fully disclose that me and Brown dont see I eye to eye on their approach of deleting portals one by one and have had heated words over this and the reversal of updates (sure I will be chastised despite the post not being about me or any reverts to my additions this time) . What can be done about these two admis that cant communicate with each-other? What can the normal editor do to preserve edits that are believed to be done in good faith if an admin is fighting with another admin?--Moxy 🍁 18:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Umm... to ask at the talk page first? Or are you already at the point when this is not possible anymore?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe my horrible relationship and prior interaction with Brown would lead to a disagreement over any productive talk...despite that I have posted at Portal talk:Ontario#Portal status hoping for more of an explanation...but also see that its on its way to being a mass reversal way beyond my ability to talk on many many talk pages.--Moxy 🍁 18:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy has given up any pretence at civil discussion with me, and just responds to me with pure personal abuse. Even when asked to strike the most blatant, Moxy refuses.[270].

Any further discussion on this is unlikely to be fruitful until Moxy retracts their personal attacks, and agrees to follow WP:NPA in future. Since Moxy brought this to WP:ANI, I think that WP:BOOMERANG may be relevant. I have more to add if Moxy wants to go down that path … but it seems to me to most unwise for Moxy to rush to ANI after a barrage of pure personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is called the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle: WP:BRD. NA1K Boldly edited; I Reverted; now we Discuss. Normal editing practice.

NA1K has restructured dozens of portals into a format which displays no visible, linked list of the articles on rotation … and has sneakily added dozens of new articles to these portals with no visible list anywhere of the articles which have been added, no link even in the edit summary. None of the changes I reverted linked to any discussion anywhere.

If Moxy or anyone else disagrees with these reverts, then they are welcome to open a discussion on the relevant portal's talk page.

I no see consensus anywhere that it is appropriate for one editor to wander around portal space, sneakily adding dozens of sneaky articles to many dozens of portals with no evident attempt at discussion or even at leaving informative edit summaries. Portal-space is not one editor's private list-making playground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

But as seen above and for example Portal:Latin_America action history they are saying whats going on in many cases. Can you explain how they are being sneaky and how adding GA and FA articles being trasculded is bad? Are you planning on joining ongoing talks he started?--Moxy 🍁 18:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: that comment is a great example of why you would do better to recuse yourself from discussions such as this, because you have a habit of missing the point and ignoring the facts.

You linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Latin_America&action=history Portal:Latin_America

Now see my edit summary: "Revert undiscussed change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed"

Note:

1. I said there was no discussion of the change of format. Am I wrong? If so, post the diff of the edit summary which links to that discussion
2. I said "sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed". Please post the diff of any edit summary on that page's history in which NA1K linked (or even named) an article they added.

Take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct as I already noted above in this case they did not post on the talk page first ...but its clear what they were doing adding FA and GA articles trying to fix up the portal that was tagged as needing updates. Now because of your edit its full of red links with empty boxes and now needs updating again. I know your not a fan of portals and of Northamerica1000 and I....but it looks as if your going out of your way to stop updates so portals are primed for deletion (just looks bad at face value).--Moxy 🍁 19:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, it continues to be very difficult to discuss anything with you when you continue to simply ignore the facts: that NA1K did not disclose which articles were added. There was no link in the edit summaries, and no list that you can identify.

Yes, NA1K did identify in some (tho not all) edits that they were adding articles FA- and GA-class ... but not which FA- and GA-class articles. The problem there has been widely discussed: that selecting articles solely on the basis of top quality means that the selection reflects the choices of editors of which articles to develop, and this often leads to a highly unbalanced set (see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump for an example of the huge POV bias which it caused on that portal).

Anyway, since you have once again reverted to your habitual assumption of bad faith, your welcome short break from simply responding "crap talk is not enough to make this discussion fruitful. I have set out genuine problems which I sought to address within the normal BRD cycle, and since you repeatedly fail to understand the problem and jump to your usual ABF, I will leave this discussion until a more constructive editor comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems your saying an edit summary like this would be ok...but not a generic note about adding FA/GA articles? Still odd one admin feels the need to police the edits of another admin. Are you willing to talk about selection of articles as many talks were open and awaiting input..because as of now it seems we cant move forward on any updates without your ok to do so.--Moxy 🍁 19:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I had previously raised with NA1K the uncollaborative nature of these "black box edits", which systematically fail to disclose what has been added to the portal. See e.g. this reply to NA1K on 19 Sept[271], in which I wrote Example text

Yet on 12 October, nearly 3 weeks later, NA1K was adding articles to Portal:Latin America without disclosing in the editsum which articles had been added, e.g. [272].

This has been happening on a massive scale. It appears that NA1K is busy trying to single-handedly take ownership of the article listings for a signifiacant chunk of portal-space, which leaving no directly-visible-audit trail of what they have done. Not having visible links to the articles added means that verification is a horrendously slow and difficult task, and NA1K already knows that a) it need not be that way, b) it's easy to avoid. This editing pattern from a very experienced editor like NA1K indicates either an editor choosing to be sneaky and uncollaborative, or an editor with WP:LCIR issues. (Personally, I suspect both, but that may be a separate discussion).

Reversion is just a starting point for discussion. I hope NA1K and any interested editors will now discuss:

1. what general criteria should be applied to the selection of articles for portals
2. How those criteria should be applied to any given topic
3. Whether relevant WikiProjects should be notified of any proposed mass changes to a portal
4. Whether it is ever appropriate for an editor with no demonstrable connection to or expertise in a topic to add masses of articles to a portal without an attempt at prior consultation, and especially whether they should single-handedly do this to dozens of portals

These are of course issues which should have been addressed years ago by the portals project, but this is just one of their many catastrophic failings which left portals in such disastrous shape that over 900 of the 1,500 pre-portalspam portals have been deleted as one or more of broken/abandoned/almost-unread/unsupported-by-a-project/redundant/too-narrow. It is sadly unsurprising that may actions here have been criticised by a vocal portal fan who neglected to actually verify my edit summary against the history which I had reverted, and that the lack of transparency in this stealthy mass-takeover of portals by NA1K is apparently of no concern. It's helpful that Moxy has taken a break at ANI from his stream of personal attacks, but the rest of it is a good illustration of why portal-space is so problematic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be better off, without portals. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100% better if they are all gone...but the community has repeatedly said no. So what are we to do when we have one admin trying to update portals and another admin reverting updates based on their personal criteria, dislike of portals and dislike of an editors good faith editing habits.--Moxy 🍁 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Usual ABF from Moxy, ignoring the substance of my concern, and misrepresenting my motives.

ANI isn't a good place to play that game, Moxy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thats way there is a post here...to find out why your reverting additions and leaving some portals all messed up (dont think its done on purpose just going to fast) . I posted here as we have a problem communicating and though it best others get involved and see if your reasoning for mass reverts of another admis's edits are based in logic or not.... because there was zero attempt from what I could see by you to join the chats Northamerica1000 already started about just this. As any one can see Its not like me and you could talk about this in a normal productive manner.--Moxy 🍁 20:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy,

1. I am not doing mass reverts. I am individually checking portals, and reverting to what appears to the latest version free of the sneaky additions.
2. the logic of my reverts was explained in the edit summaries. Even when I explained out that logic for you in detail here, you still failed to comprehend the very simple issues which I had noted in the edit summaries.
3. I have been fixing portals as I go. If you identify outstanding problems which I have missed, please leave a note on my talk.
4. Nobody has identified any other discussions.
5. You unwillingness or inability to conduct a civil, coherent discussion has not been resolved by a change of venue. You have just dropped the direct personal abuse, but you have neither gained coherence or desisted from your habitual ABF

... and you still haven't identified any ANI issue. This discussion should just be closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I belive I have outlined the problem well. I personally think your reverts were detrimental to most portals leaving them in a state ready for deletion. Not sure why the edits could not have simply removed any offending articles or why you have not join any chats that were already started. I am wondering if you can't communicate with Northamerica1000 about this perhaps best to leave this so called problem edits to others to review. It's hard for us normal editors to get involved when the conflicting administrators won't even speak to each other. If other think all is OK with your edits we can move on....but the motive looks very questionable in my eyes.--Moxy 🍁 20:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you continue to refuse or fail to comprehend the simple problem I have set out: that there is no visible list of what articles were added, and even editing he portal produces no linked list. I am astonished that you find this so difficult to grasp.

The only way to view such a list is to edit the portal, and manually copy-paste the links one-by-one into a search box, or process them in my text editor to make a linked list to save in my sandbox. I refuse to go to all that effort simply to review the work of an editor who refuses to use adequate edit summaries.

As your comment why you have not join any chats that were already started … for goodness sake, quit wasting my time until you read what was written. As I noted in my point #4 above Nobody has identified any other discussions.

It really is ridiculous to have ANI disrupted by a timewasting editor who repeatedly ignores what is written.

Over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - So I just took about fifteen minutes to take a look at a few of the edits. All I can say is: Yikes. The "undiscussed format changes" that NA1000 has been making, is removing non-existent DYKs, which BHG is re-instating. Refer to any of 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the past few hours. The other format change is adding in a section where good/featured articles can be featured, such as at Portal:New Zealand (5 – and read the edit summary, it's clearly explained). Let's just focus on one for this case, Portal:Panama. Compare the portal after NA1000's edits, to the broken state of the portal that BHG is reverting to. If this were any IP or normal editor, no-one would hesitate to call it vandalism. In the past three hours, BHG's made 19 such mass reverts (and they are mass reverts, NA1000 has made dozens of smaller edits to each individual portal, all of which have been reverted). Every page (while it exists) should be left in the best possible state they can be, and not reverted to a junk state. In my opinion, this is sanctionable behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude:

1. As you should well know, good faith edits are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND
2. 1, 2 did indeed have broken DYK sections. My bad; I had been watching out for that, but evidently missed those, and they are now fixed.
   3, and 4 were already fixed. You just didn't check the latest edit.
3. You wrote the portal after NA1000's edits, to the broken state of the portal that BHG is reverting to … but you sneakily didn't show the version my latest edit [273]. If you want to critique my edits, please don't misrepresent them by omitting my next tidyup edit.

Indeed, NA1K was often adding in a section where good/featured articles can be featured. However, as I noted in every edit summary of my reverts … neither in NA1K's edit summary nor anywhere on the face of the portal is there any link to which articles have been added to those section. So neither readers nor other readers can review what has been done. As I noted above, indiscriminately selecting articles by quality can produce hideously unbalanced portals, and NA1K's approach has created a black box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: note that all the portals you listed had edits which gave no explanation of what was being added, e.g.

1. Portal:Panama: "Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content"[274]
2. Portal:Croatia: "Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content"[275]
3. Portal:Somaliland: "Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content"[276]
4. Portal:Cuba: Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content"[277]

In most cases, there were multiple such edits to each portal.

Note as above, that effects of these additions are not visible on the face of the portal, because NA1K's edit left the portals with no visible lost of articles. NA1K had turned the portals into black boxes of hidden lists, whose content can be seen only by purging the page enough times that you hope all instances have been displayed.

This lack of transparency both in editing and in result creates a serious barrier to scrutiny of the state in which these portals have been left by an editor who seems to be on a personal quest to create lists of the key articles on dozens of topics in which they have no identifiable expertise, and show no sign of consulting with the relevant WikiProjects.

There may be some good in what NA1K has done. But the problem is that we simply don't know what's good and what's bad, and can't tell without a huge amount of work to get past the barriers erected by NA1K's sneaky editing habits. And yes, the previous state of the portals often was junk -- but replacing abandoned junk with the hidden result of one editor's drive-by listmaking is not the solution.

I suggest that NA1K a) discuss the structures they are applying, and try to resolve the issues; b) propose their lists of articles, explaining the criteria by which they have been chosen … and notify the relevant WikiProjects and other interested parties. Portals are supposed to be gateways to whole topic areas, and it is utterly absurd to have a large chunk of those gateways built unilaterally and sneakily by one editor without expertise in the subject area. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'll pick on a single example: Portal:Croatia. The "no explanation of what was being added" articles in your diff are Franjo Tuđman, President of the Presidency of SR Croatia, Socialist Republic of Croatia and Croatian kuna.1 Anyone interested in the topic area would not need an explanation for these. Tuđman was president of Croatia prior to and during the Yugoslav Civil Wars. SR Croatia is one of the six republics (and two autonomous provinces) of the former SFRJ. As to Kuna, that is the official currency of Croatia.
... and can't tell without a huge amount of work to get past the barriers erected by NA1K's sneaky editing habits - You were saying something about good faith?
But the problem is that we simply don't know what's good and what's bad - You mean you don't know.
[B]ut you sneakily didn't show the version my latest edit – You mean this? The one with the poorly formatted banner, that doesn't link to the central article (Panama) in its introduction (doesn't even have an introduction), and that has no image in the "Selected image" section? Versus this where the banner is properly formatted, has an introduction and links to the main article, and that has an actual image for the "selected image". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: if you ever again want to lecture anyone about good faith, here's a top tip: don't do so in a post in which you carefully lift quotes out of context in order to mispresent the person you are lecturing.

The way you snipped up my comment the problem is that we simply don't know what's good and what's bad, and can't tell without a huge amount of work to get past the barriers erected by NA1K's sneaky editing habits in order to misrepresent the whole was artful … but artfully deceitful. Shame on you.

As to NA1K's sneaky editing habits, the issue had been discussed at length with NA1K at two MFDs, one of which I quoted above. So, no I don't AGF when an editor doubles down on an already-identified problem.

And I readily acknowledge that the reverted portals are very poor. The problem was exacerbated in some cases by subsequent removal of sub-pages, and I have restored those sub-pages I have identified as missing (except for DYKs, which are nearly always both stale and fake). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "carefully lift" anything, and there's a lacuna there as well. Perhaps you missed it? Oh sorry, let's be more like you: perhaps you are being deceptively ignorant of it? No, I just picked what I wanted to respond to, and ordered it in terms of significance. It doesn't help your non-existent case that you say – and here's the full quote with no lacuna – [s]o, no I don't AGF when an editor doubles down on an already-identified problem. So I'm being deceitful in noting your lack of assuming good faith, but you admit that you aren't assuming good faith? Deceit by accurate representation. That's a new one. By what mechanism have I accomplished this? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, you chopped up a sentence to remove the qualifying clause and taken comment on its meaning as if that qualifying clause didn't exist. That's one of the oldest sneaky tricks in the misrepresentation book, and it's a shameful way to behave in what is supposed to be a collegial discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A lacuna is used to indicate a gap, or missing piece. It implies, by it's very being there, that it is not the whole. Not only am I not pretending it doesn't exist, I have actively indicated that "there is something before this". I left the relevant bit in context, btw, BHG. The relevant bit was the last four words, and I put the entire clause in and left a lacuna to indicate preceding material. It's really damn funny that you took those same words out (Ctrl+F for As to NA1K's sneaky editing habits, ... in your own comments) to reply to separately. Evidently you don't consider those words to misrepresent your feelings about NA1K, so why should I? You'll have to convince someone else of the misrepresentation, the deceit, and the sneakiness of it all. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, the fact remains that I wrote basically "A except B". You chose to isolate the A, so that you could attack that as if unqualified a was my position, which isn't. If that's who you wat to be, then your call. Buts it's not collegial conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Comment: I am not seeing anything here that requires the invocation of ANI. I recommend closing this discussion and working it out these issues on the relevant talk pages. bd2412 T 23:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

How do we move forward when talks are not happening between the two at the portal talk page level? --Moxy 🍁 01:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the better course of action is to address the issue, not the editor. Determine the appropriate policy discussion forum, and propose a change or clarification to policy that will resolve the situation. bd2412 T 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry not understanding the request ....the issue is one editor mass reverting another while others believe the reverts were not all that good and should be talked about and in some cases reinstated. The point of bringing it here is because it involves two admins and the edit behavior behind it with little communication on going. There is no policy to change that covers one admin reverting what they perceive as sneaky edits by another admin. What can be done to help the situation over telling people to go somewhere non specific.--Moxy 🍁 01:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You could try going to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and propose a policy to allow admins (or others) to add content to portals without requiring discussion or consensus to do so, or, if you think they already have that right, ask that it be codified so that there is no question of its propriety. bd2412 T 02:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – I have recently been adding a summary of changes on talk pages after improving portals, but overlooked doing so for the Latin America portal. I have since corrected this. Please see the discussion at Portal talk:Latin America § Portal updated, which was reverted for the summary. This is essentially a content issue, any and all who are interested are welcome to comment at the talk page discussion. I notice that BHG has eagerly reverted other work I have performed on other portals in instances where I have left a message on the talk page noting that the portal has been updated. I feel that as a significant nominator of portals for deletion at MfD, BHG has a significant conflict of interest, and the reversions are making the portals easier to be deleted in the future. The edits I performed are not "sneaky" whatsoever, and the bad faith assumptions are disappointing; my good faith work to improve portals is being instantly reverted without any discussion on the talk pages from the reverter at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Question, primarily for the OP, User:Moxy - Is this a content dispute or a conduct dispute? If content, what content, and why is the dispute here? If conduct, whose conduct? I have read the complaint and the discussion, and what I know is that portals are contentious, and that edits to portals are usually not discussed. What exactly is the concern? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Conduct about content removal as outlined above by 3 editors .....that being mass reverts of good faith edits by an admin by another admin with a conflict of interest with no attempt at joining talks about the updates.--Moxy 🍁 04:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Where's the no attempt? I see from the first comment these talk page discussions Portal talk:Ontario#Portal status, Portal talk:Guyana#Portal updated, Portal talk:Cars#Portal updated. Indeed there is no reply from BHG there. But the reversions only happened a few hours before this ANI was opened [278] [279] [280]. While BHG is active here and generally editors should join any discussion quickly after a revert, it can get complicated especially when it's a lot of articles involved.

If after a few days there is no comment from BHG then the edits can be reinstated with an edit summary "see talk" or similar. Further as I understand it in a bunch of cases there was no discussion opened before the changes were made. While in many cases there's no need to do so, as I've been telling several (inexperienced) editor's on ANI in the past few days and I hope no one here needs to be reminded of, it's incredibly dumb to argue over who should be the one to initiate discussion once there is a dispute. Someone just needs to do it.

In fact, given the inconsistency between whether a discussion was opened, I'd actually give BHG a further chance here. If the edits are reverted after reinstatement with an edit summary directing her? to the talk page, I'd still give her at least 2 days to join the discussion. If she still fails and reverts a further attempt to reintroduce the content, then only does it seem worth it to bring a case.

BTW, to be clear I'm not saying BHG's behaviour is ideal but ultimately the best way you can make an ANI case is bringing a clear cut case. An editor who continues to revert while failing to join the existing talk page discussion given ample time is generally a good example of someone who needs to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. This requires sufficient time and clear evidence they should have been aware of the talk page discussion.

As for the wider issues, if the number of affected pages is too large to open a talk page discussion for each one, I see 2 options. Number one open a centralised RFC somewhere appropriate and properly advertised clearly outlining what is proposed including which pages will be affected and achieve consensus. Number two, do this with a bunch of pages first the normal way i.e. talk and achieve consensus (even via WP:silence). If in each case consensus is clearly in favour, you have some evidence that there is no problem and can probably expand the target range to more articles without opening a discussion first. In that case, if BHG mass reverts, she really needs to provide some decent explanation somewhere i.e. not via edit summaries and an actual reason why she feels the changes are unwarranted that isn't simply 'discuss first'.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne in no case in any of NA1K's edits to the portal did I find any mention of any notification or discussion on the talk page. The portals were massively restructured without any indication of a prior discussion, proposal or notice.

It turns out that what NA1K did in some cases was in some cases to leave a post-facto note on the talk page, of varying degrees of informativeness. I proactively checked one or two talkpages earlier on in my work, but those notes I saw did not list the articles added, did not explain the selection criteria, and they did not mention the conversion to a black box format. So they did not remove my reason to revert. None of those which you have linked address these issues; e.g. at Portal talk:Guyana, NA1K 's commnet[281] is written in oddly passive voice which doesn't say who did the "updates" … and all it says on the selection of articles is that "New article content was added to the portal".

Nil Einne, you chose those 3 examples, and all of them simply reinforce my point about failure to notify by edit summary or on the face of the portal which articles were added: even when NA1k commented on the talk page, they didn't make a list.

The few which I investigated did not indicate any attempt to engage anyone else, and those which you have linked do not involve anyone else. NA1K is a regular participant at WT:WPPORT, but I find no mention there of any of this mass restructuring, let alone links to these incomplete notices which you oddly describe as discussions. (A discussion needs more than one person).

If you believe that the way to proceed is to have a zillion micro-discussions, then I can leave a boilerplate message on each on the relevant talk pages restating my reasons for revert, and recommending a centralised discussion … and hen we can have a zillion micro-discussions on whether to have a centralised discusison. But I don't think that would get us anywhere. Per WP:MULTI, best to proceed directly to the centralised discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The misleading edit summaries in many cases is what I noticed first ....as its clear as seen at Portal talk:Serbia#Portal expanded and Portal talk:New Zealand#Portal expanded and Portal talk:Thailand#Portal expanded etc.. nothing sneaky here.... even posting articles and from where. But will wait for replies as you have suggested .--Moxy 🍁 06:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think framing this as a content dispute misses the other interpretation (which I find more likely), which is that this is part of a bullying campaign of User:BrownHairedGirl against User:Northamerica1000 that we have seen come to light several times in the past and that ANI has failed to address properly. —Kusma (t·c) 09:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed this as well and I want to revert BrownHairedGirl's edits for Portal:Croatia as in my mind no basis for reverting these edits existed, but I'm not sure what the proper procedure is considering this ANI thread. I think this is primarily a content dispute, albeit with someone with a severe conflict of interest, and while I'm sad to see it on ANI, I'm not sure a better place for this discussion exists. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Should BrownHairedGirl's mass portal reversions be reverted, to restore portal improvements that occurred?

The mass rapid reversions of portal improvements performed by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has erased many hours of my good faith research and work to improve portals. Per the high number of rapid reversions performed, it is best to discuss the matter here in a centralized area, rather than one-by-one on each portal talk page. Below is a synopsis of the matter, along with a table providing a summary of some of BHG's reversions. I feel that BHG's conduct in performing these mass reversions has been inappropriate and disruptive, as denoted below.

• BHG's reversions were performed in an extremely rapid succession, one-after-another, in a tendentious manner over a very short period of time.
• From what I've checked thus far, BHG has left no notices on any concerned portal talk pages to discuss the matter.
• The reversions have only served to dumb-down many of these portals, placing them back into a significantly inferior state of existence compared to the state they were in after the improvements were performed.
• BHG stated in their copy/pasted edit summaries, "Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed". However, contrary to this:

• This is not the case at all, per my use of talk page notices in the vast majority of instances after improving portals, whereby I directly stated on the talk page that portal work has been performed.
• Note in the table below in the "List of articles added to talk page?" column specific instances where I also took the time to include a list of articles added to the portal in my talk page notices. This was also performed on many talk pages for the portals that are listed below the table.
• In cases where a list of articles was not provided on talk pages, the articles added can be easily viewed by selecting the Edit link on main portal pages and scrolling down.
• BHG apparently didn't bother to even check the talk pages first before their reversion spree, and simply assumed that no notification or list of articles was provided. Again, per the table and article list below, BHG was quite mistaken in many instances.

• BHG's reversion of Portal:Afghanistan has left its selected article section in an entirely broken state (diff).
• As I stated above, I feel that BHG has a significant conflict of interest in performing these reversions, because:

• The user has demonstrated an ongoing strong desire for the deletion of portals, as demonstrated by their numerous nominations of portals for deletion at MfD that have occurred.
• As another example, BHG reverted improvements to Portal:Language. However, at the portal's recent MfD discussion, the user opined for the deletion of the portal, stating in part, "The fact that after 14 years, this portal still has only 12 selected sub-topics is clear evidence of long-term failure". My improvements to the portal concluded at the time with it having 40 Selected language articles and 40 Selected topic articles (diff). BHG reverted it back to an inferior state, back to a similar state that it was in when nominated for deletion (diff).

• Importantly, please note the improved state that of the portals prior to their reversions, to view the improvements that occurred. Some links have been provided in the table below, in the "Portal's state prior to reversion" column.
• In the process of being improved, the portals were overhauled using modernized wiki markup that uses transclusions directly from articles to display content, which provides readers with current, up-to-date information as articles are updated. Furthermore, article content from various portal subpages was moved directly into the portal using transclusions. BHG erased all of this good work.
• New articles were added to all of the portals I worked on listed herein. All of this work was removed by BHG.
• Many of these portals had brand new Featured article, Good article and/or Recognized article sections added, which served to showcase some of Wikipedia's high-quality recognized content. All of the research and work involved in performing this was rapidly removed with one click, one after another.

BHG's mass rapid reversions of portal improvements

Portal name	BHG reversion diff	BHG reversion time	Portal's state prior to reversion	Did NA1K leave a note on the talk page denoting changes prior to the reversion?	NA1K talk page note date	NA1K talk page note diff	List of articles added to talk page?
Portal:Guinea	Reversion diff	18:07, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	05:53, 22 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: No
Portal:Guyana	Reversion diff	15:35, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	07:25, 11 October 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: No
Portal:Chile	Reversion diff	18:42, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	12:08, 21 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Hungary	Reversion diff	19:41, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	13:45, 21 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Serbia	Reversion diff	19:44, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	17:26, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Afghanistan	Reversion diff	19:46, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: No	N/A	N/A	N/A
Portal:South Korea	Reversion diff	19:47, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	14:15, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Finland	Reversion diff	19:47, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	13:12, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Thailand	Reversion diff	19:49, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	11:53, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Sweden	Reversion diff	19:54, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	11:50, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Food	Reversion diff	19:58, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	15:06, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:Philosophy	Reversion diff	20:05, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link state	Talk notice: No	N/A	N/A	N/A
Portal:Australia	Reversion diff	20:09, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	14:27, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes
Portal:New Zealand	Reversion diff	20:11, 12 October 2019	Pre-reversion state: Link	Talk notice: Yes	11:44, 20 September 2019	Talk page diff	Article list: Yes

• BHG's rapid reversions are numerous, and listing the rest in table format would be very time-consuming for me to perform. Below is a listing of more portals that BHG reverted (from my watchlist), all of which occurred in rapid succession on 12 October 2019 (UTC). There may be others that occurred that I do not have watchlisted.

• Portal:Panama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:1920s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Republic of the Congo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Cuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Turkmenistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Iceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Mali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Uganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Mauritania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Liberia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Burundi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Belize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Kenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Sierra Leone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Senegal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:The Gambia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Malawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:São Tomé and Príncipe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Zambia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Cameroon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Global warming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Tanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Renewable energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Democratic Republic of the Congo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Trinidad and Tobago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Cannabis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Oman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Madagascar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Bahrain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Lebanon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Cars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:1960s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Notes on NA1K's table

The vast collection above of links obscures many crucial facts about their extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI:

1. NA1K does not even claim that they sought any broad consensus for:
   • converting portals to a black box format
   • Massively expanding the article list of dozens of portals without prior discussion or notification
2. NAIK inadvertently acknowledges my point about these being black box portals where they write cases where a list of articles was not provided on talk pages, the articles added can be easily viewed by selecting the Edit link on main portal pages and scrolling down. In other words, just as I stated: there is no list on the face of the portal, no list linked from the face of the portal … and the only way to view the articles listed in the edit box is by either pasting them one-at-a-time into a search box, or creating sandbox page and linking each one of them. That is an absurd barrier to scrutiny.
3. NA1K does not even claim any experience or expertise in the topic areas of the dozens of portals which they have now remodelled in their own inexpert image
4. NA1K does not even claim that they made any attempt to even notify related WikiProjects, let alone await responses. Instead, on a range of topics from Vietnam to Tanks to Lithuania to Philosophy to Mali to Cars, NA1K simply made their own list. It is simply implausible either that NA1K had such prior expertise in all these topics that no consultation was needed, or that a few hours scanning WP article would give sufficient knowledge to make those judgements without consultation.
5. In some instances, NA1K did leave a post-facto note on the portal's talk page. In some of those cases, NA1K did include a list of articles added. But in no case has NA1K stated what criteria was used for selecting the articles. In some of the cases where a list was provided, NA1K noted that the articles were all of a particular quality (usually GA or FA) … but in none of those cases that I have seen did did NA1k say whether they had added all available articles of that quality, or selected some of the set.
6. NA1K is aware of previous discussions selecting on selecting articles by quality have noted that using quality as the sole basis for selection produces unbalanced lists. This is because the set of articles developed to a particular quality reflects the enthusiasms of editors who rightly put their efforts into the topics which most interest them. But this creates a well-documented systemic bias, so the set of articles of a particular quality is nearly always unbalanced.
   One of the factors which led to MFD:Portal:Donald Trump being closed as "delete" was the list of GAs was massively biased towards criticism of Trump: it notably included relatively unimportant articles on criticism of Trump: Crippled America, Impeachment March, Insane Clown President. Despite that obvious and extreme partisan bias, NA1K wrote in that MFD[282] Example text That extraordinary remark underlines the observation made by sevral editors in both of NA1K's RFA about their track record of poor judgement. Yet the same editor with a long history of poor judgement has now been restucured dozesn of portals solely on the basis of their own judgement.

This huge exercise should not have been undertaken without consensus, and as an admin NA1K should never have even contemplated set about such a massive exercise without seeking consensus. Now that some of it has been reverted, it's time to have consensus-building discussion on the principles involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you believe this one editor needs permission to make changes? Has there been some sort of past sanctions?-Moxy 🍁 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, the answer is in the first line of my post: WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

It's a very short page, so do read it.

And next time, maybe try reading my post before you reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC).

WE have no policy or guideline mandating a discussion for making productive changes to different pages - that said as listed above NA1K did start many many talks that saw zero objection that you have still not joined. Its clear you have a problem with NA1K believing they have poor judgment etc...- perhaps a self imposed interaction ban would calm things down for all? --Moxy 🍁 15:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, again, please read before replying.

There was no discussion anywhere to join. There were some notes with various degrees of informativeness left on talk pages, but none of them stated clearly what criteria had been used. In no case that I have found did NA1K attempt to alert anyone to the changes even after the fact.

Per WP:MULTI, what this needs is a centralised discussion on the principles involve, not dozens of individual discussion on the application of the principles. Those discussions should have ben initiated by NA1K before they set out to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, but since they didn't happen them, we should have them now.

And, no … me recusing myself from involvement would not resolve any of the long-standing problems caused by NA1K's long history of poor judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if your pulling my leg ...but its clear that there is many tlak started (as linked all over this page) as you asked NA1K to do previously. In fact my second post right here in this thread mentioned one directly to no avail. Its hard to see any reasoning behind your stalking of this good faith admin. Thus far you have shown one laps in judgment by NA1K in article selection...but weighting that vs the problems we are now left with by your edits...most would conclude the laps in good judgment is on your part here (as outline below by others). --Moxy 🍁 17:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, Moxy I am unable to decide whether you are unable to read and comprehend, or whether you are just unwilling to do so. See paragraph two of my reply to you, which you completely ignored: There was no discussion anywhere to join. There were some notes with various degrees of informativeness left on talk pages, but none of them stated clearly what criteria had been used. In no case that I have found did NA1K attempt to alert anyone to the changes even after the fact.

This is why I find your contributions so disruptive. For whatever reason, a significant proportion of your contributions to any attempt at dialogue consist of similar failures of comprehension by Moxy. It is timewasting and exasperating, yet you continue as if you are completely oblivious to your servere lapses in comprehension.

And then you follow up with a malicious and unfounded allegation of stalking. Shame on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We simply have a different understanding of how things work here. I can't get my head around the fact you believe NA1K needs anyones permission to edit portals and this is the main bases for reversal - especially when they even went out of there way many many times to post what they did with lists and all. Are fundamental approaches are simply vastly different.--Moxy 🍁 00:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nb. I specialize in geographical topics, the history of geography, world history, the social sciences, several other science topics, cuisine-related topics, and several other topics in addition to these. I am well versed in portal work, having worked on them for years on Wikipedia, and am thoroughly knowledgeable of portal schematics, layout and formatting. I am also educated. I hestiate to cowtow to BHG's interrogation above more, because I view it as inappropriate, intrusive and an assumption of bad faith from the start. Regarding content added to portals, articles covering a vast array of topical areas were added, in a manner to provide comprehensive overviews of various topics while also showcasing Featured-class and GA-class content. It doesn't matter now, since BHG mass reverted all of the hard work I performed. It still seems that only my work was targeted, while the work of others at other portals has not been challenged at all. Go figure. The WP:HOUNDING needs to stop. Hopefully the work I put into the portals won't be lost ad infinitum, since it is essentially being held hostage, whereby utilizing WP:BRD is just about impossible per the high number of rapid, disruptive reversions that occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

NA1K, your claim to specialise in all of this massive range of topics is simply implausible; it borders on the ridiculous.

Most of your claims of expertise relate to the structure of portals, and while you have a lot of experience in that work, I could point to some major limitations in your expertise.

The fact remains that the core purpose of all that portal structure is to display a list of articles. You have chosen to unilaterally rewrite those lists for dozens of portals, without any evident attempt to seek the involvement of those who specialise in those topics. The community is divided over whether portalspace should exist at all, and how many portals there should be .. but I see no discussion at all of the WP:FAITACCOMPLI which you have been trying to create, by appointing yourself as the unilateral selector of the majority of content for a high proportion of portal-space. Your continued denial that this is what is happening is absurd.

NA1K writes articles covering a vast array of topical areas were added, in a manner to provide comprehensive overviews of various topics. That is simply verbiage: a string of errors which indicates nothing. It provides no indication whatsoever of how you chose between the many articles which fit that definition. And repeats yet again your deceptive and dishonest rhetorical tactic of using the passive voices to describe your own actions, to avoid acknowledging he simply fact that all these choices were by you, on your own, without prior consultation, without notification of other stakeholders. There is a massive disconnect here: you are making huge solo decisions about the shape of portalspace, and yet you use variety of rhetorical devices to obfuscate that fact. I cannot determine whether to what extent you are simply unaware of the way in which you obfuscate key issues, or whether you being wilfully deceptive. But either way, consensus cannot be built when you are unable or unwilling to communicate clearly and openly.

Why did I target only your work? Simple, because the vast majority of portal rebuilding is being done by you. No other editor is engaged in the widespread, drive-by rebuilding and content selection of dozens of diverse portals. That is not WP:HOUNDING; you should read the policy, and desist from glibly throwing out such such false allegations.

Finally, a biggie. You write I hesitate to cowtow to BHG's interrogation above more. You have hurled barrages of false and malicious accusations at me, yet when I ask questions or try to discuss, you repeatedly stonewall, and have done so numerous venues. Those are the two dominant modes of interaction which NA!K adopts when here is disagreement stonewall or throw rocks. Neither is compatible with consensus-building.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support reverting all of these edits by BHG, per all of the above, which will restore these portals back to their significantly improved respective states. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support .- as per all the evidence presented in this thread by different editors.--Moxy 🍁 08:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest to revert the changes by BHG and then to add a link to a subpage transcluding all of the pages used (do we have a template for that? We should), so it is easy to see them all at once, which makes it much easier to see whether any problems occur (as happens sometimes with automated transclusion). BrownHairedGirl, on the other hand, should really know better than to mass revert in order to force a feature she would like to see. That alone is worth a re-revert and a trout. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support - A truly shocking series of reverts, the scale of which really requires prior discussion, rather than taking refuge behind the non-requirement of WP:BRD for the reverter to initiate discussion. Looking at the common denominator in the histories (numerous edits by NA1k, which each constitute some improvement), the only motivation I can see is BHG's long standing personal animosity towards NA1k. So, BHG mass reverts (yes, that's exactly what that was) and at a stroke converts all those Portals back to an inferior state, with a dubious edit summary ...dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries.... Where is it mandated in either policy (or even guideline) that Portal Articles need to be listed anywhere "visible" (even though they are available if you follow the "more selected XX" links available on most portals)? It's just yet more invention of "Policy" by BHG, now that the crutch of selective quoting of WP:POG, as if it were policy, has been removed. Thanks to Northamerica1000 for the detailed breakdown and bringing this to wider attention. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: I think we need a much larger species than a trout for this one. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support As noted above, I'm only following the Croatia portal, but now looking at the scale of the reverts, I consider these edits very tendentious. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• See also the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Upon review, I have found that BHG's reversions have caused additional problems. It appears that BHG may not have checked the result of their reversions after performing them. Regardless, in addition to Portal:Afghanistan's Selected article section now in a broken state, as listed above, several portals are now also broken. I haven't checked all of them listed above yet, but below is what I've found so far. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Portal:Bahrain – Selected article section is now broken, displaying red links
• Portal:Vietnam – Featured article section is now broken, displays a red link
• Portal:Luxembourg – the Selected article section is now nonexistent on the page.
• Portal:Cameroon and Portal:Liberia – Did you know sections are now broken, with a sea of red links
• Portal:Egypt – News section formatting is now broken
• Portal:Iceland – now posting no content at times in the Selected articles section (when purging)
• @North America1000: I am in the process of restoring them. Some glitches were caused by the deletion of subpages, which I am restoring when I find them. Any other glitches are caused by your edits. For example, the reason that Portal:Iceland is now posting no content at times in the Selected articles section is because of two of NA1K's typical underhand, sneaky edits with deceptive edit summaries: [283] AND [284], both of which blanked the displayed page but used the edit summary "ce", which is conventionally used to indicate "copyedit".

It is sadly typical of NA1Ks poor conduct to criticise me for failing to notice that NA1K had been deceptively blanking pages.

Portal:Egypt is another example. I reverted[285] to a Special:diff/907011465 by NA1K on 9 July, and didn't spot that in this version NA1k had removed the box header and footer from the news section. I selected that version because it seemed to be the latest version before the restructuring … and I didn't spot that it was broken. The page history shows yet again one of the persistent, widely-noted problems with NA1K's editing practices: countless small edits, and no indication that the portal had been broken by their edits.

I do not believe or suggest that NA1k set out to make it as hard as possible to revert their changes, but if that had been their aim then they would have succeeded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per the detailed analysis above. I also want to note that I do not think this behavior is befitting for an administrator. --Hecato (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the D in BRD happen somewhere other than ANI? – Levivich 13:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Are you suggesting we go through all these on their individual talk pages? SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oh heck no. Just one D. One D to rule them all. – Levivich 13:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FAITACCOMPLI. NA1K has been engaged in a mass, unilateral restructuring and unilateral expansion of portals with no prior discussion or even disclosure of their plan. Where NA1K's conversion to a black box has been scrutinised, e.g. at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chad the consensus has been to delete the portal.

There is not, and never has been, any guideline, policy or consensus to do what NA1K did:

1. Converting portals to a format where the face of the portal includes neither a list of selected articles, nor a link to such a list. The conversion to a black box whose contents cannot be verified with out undue effort is a extraordinary exercise which NA1k should have discussed first, rather than acting unilaterally on such a huge scale.
2. Radically restructuring the contents of dozens of portals, adding dozens of new articles to each of them, without any attempt at prior discussion or notification of WikiProjects.
3. Adding articles to portals which sneaky edit summaries which fail to disclose what has been added. The boilerplate edit summary "Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content" is a clear breach of WP:SUMMARYNO, which says "Avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to "I made some changes" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all." That vague edit summary was used by NA1K dozens of times, even after NA1K had been repeatedly warned that it was inadequate when used to create changes which could be not seen on the face of the portal.

I readily acknowledge that more work may be needed to restore the reverted portals, some of whose subpages have ben deleted. I will get back to that task later today.

However, the core issue remains:

Where is the consensus that one editor should unilaterally convert a large chunk of portalspace to black box portals consisting of a list of articles chosen unilaterally by that one editor with no demonstrable subject expertise, without consultation with relevant WikiProjects?".

Portals have very low pageviews (the median for Q2+Q3 2019 is 22 views per day, and as a result are largely unscrutinsed. MFD examines an endless stream of portals whose contents are years out of date, or even factually wrong. The Rube Goldberg machine structure presents a high barrier to modifying them, because even a skilled wiki-editor needs to learn an opaque and undocumented structure to figure out how to make changes.

Most WikiProjects pay no attention to any portals within their remit. The result is that the portals have rotted. What we are seeing now is that these portals without WikiProject scrutiny have become the private fiefdom of a small set be of portal enthusiasts who have not even sought community consensus for the widespread changes which they are stealthily making. All the supports above come from the usual crew of hard core portal fans under whose watch portals rotted en masse for a decade; most if them have bene vociferous opponents even of deleting abandoned junk portals which have no WikiProject support.

The long-established editing principle here is WP:BRD … but what the portal fans above are clamouring for is to have just the B, not the R and the D.

What we need now is consensus-building to establish community consensus on the remaining portals should be structured, and how their content is chosen. Instead, the portal fans above all are clamouring to endorse an undiscussed WP:FAITACCOMPLI grab of portalspace by one editor.

One possible outcome of those discussion is that there may be support for what NA1K has done, in which case NA1K's edit can be easily restored. But we won't know what the community supports until those discussions have concluded, and in the meantime restoring NA1K's edits would be endorsing NA1K's WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Undoing my reverts is clearly designed to prevent the community from deciding against NA1K's fait-accompli-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read your explanation and it does not hold any water whatsoever. You should stop making edits to portal space as you clearly have nothing constructive to add. —Kusma (t·c) 14:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Kumsa, I suggest that you stop participating in discussions until such time as you can learn how make a reasoned response instead of just asserting your unreasoned opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• The nod to WP:FAITACCOMPLI is especially ironic given that's how I felt about the mass portal deletions earlier this year. There were simply far too many to keep track of, and it was the worst experience I have had on the project, given I support the use of portals and outlines as navigation devices. What I personally noticed on my watchlist was NorthAmerica1000 making a number of changes to the Croatia portal, which I supported. The lack of any intermediate edits does not mean a lack of support - in any event, the mass reversion has been exceptionally disruptive. I also think it's terrible to try and hide behind WP:BRD for this, especially since nothing had happened on the Croatia portal for over a month - see WP:BRB. None of these edits made by NorthAmerica1000 were disruptive. They improved the project and were probably intended to save a number of topic-worthy portals from the further nod at MfD. Given your exceptional dislike of portals, again noted here, I think it's exceptional that you're trying to use WP:FAITACCOMPLI for large-scale reverts of productive content after the content has been live for a large period of time, especially since you have a history with the editor in question, you broke a number of portals they fixed when reverting, and are trying to game the discussion to prevent the reversion of the damage you've caused when so far you've been the only user to oppose it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer, are you serious?

The mass deletion of the automated spam portals was discussed in great detail at two of the best-attended MFDs in recent years, (one, and two). In both cases, there was overwhelming consensus of a high turnout to delete. At WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, about 70 editors discussed a proposal, and nothing was dine until the discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor. Your suggestion that there was some sort of fait accompli about the outcome of such a large community discussion is at best absurd.

If NA1K's edits were simply to one or two portals, then I would probably agree with you. But what has actually happened is that NA1k has made a set of very radical changes to about 15% of all remaining portals, without any attempt whatsoever to seek consensus either in respect of portals as a whole, or with the WikiProjects who have actually expertise in the topic areas where NA1K has wandered in and chosen with no stated criteria about 40 articles which are intended to provide an overview of the topic area.

Doing that to dozens of portals is a fait accompli. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. A rank and file editor would have been blocked for mass reverts like that, especially if there was a past history of conflict between the two. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have rolled back the edits listed in the table, will be back in a few hours for the others if nobody beats me to it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kusma: That's utterly out-of-order. A discussion is underway; stop trying to pre-empt its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support great analysis above. The behavior by BHG is deserving of sanctions. I am sure a non-admin would be sanctioned for this disruption. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – All portals-in-question, should be restored to their previous state (before all these changes were implemented) & then a consensus should be acquired for such changes. This would save some headaches. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That is precisely what my edits set out to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay: To be clear, what exactly do you suggest? You are either advocating setting the portals to what they were a couple months ago and then discussing the change, or reverting the recent damage caused and then discussing whether those edits be reinstated. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I was suggesting that NK1's changes be reverted. But, it appears that a consensus is growing in this ANI report, to approve his changes. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Even glancing over the changes shows a good improvement over the previous versions of these portals. I would argue that this, here, can be counted as consensus if other volunteers believe that the edits made by NA1k should/shouldn't have been performed. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 14:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose BHGs edits rolled back the portals to the status quo version and that's where the discussion should have occurred (or, indeed, should be occurring now, if Kusma hadn't taken it upon themselves to roll her changes back, I'm not quite sure when we started doing that in the middle of an ANI). Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, when I started reverting, the only editor supporting the edits (with mostly arguments about process, very little about the substance of the edits) was BHG. What we need to start to do at ANI is stand up against bullying and hounding instead of debating process. —Kusma (t·c) 17:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Kusma, seriously, please just revert yourself. When you started reverting, the discussion about whether to revert–in which you !voted–had been open for six hours. You can't close a discussion in which you !voted. Certainly, you also can't actually implement the proposal before the discussion is even closed. Come on, this shouldn't even need to be explained. – Levivich 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Update: I see your reverts have already been reverted. – Levivich 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, as I said, the only process I am interested here is our anti-bullying process, which doesn't seem to be working. —Kusma (t·c) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support What I see is valid improvements done by North America. There was no reason to be undoing this work. All the links added to portals such as Portal:Renewable energy are valid ones. Dream Focus 15:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I 100% appreciate NA1ks work they've done with these and I thank them for working on them ...however... consensus should've been sought before the changes not after, As much as I hate seeing such hard work like this being removed and or reverted IMHO the community should decide on layouts etc given the constant issues with these. –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: Does it matter that BHG is campaigning to delete many portals? Look at the many portal MfDs when you get a chance. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I had noticed and I believe I was a delete !voter at the main RFC, I still maintain they should all be deleted tho. –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think this one editor (who is an admin and thus has the trust of the community) needs to ask permission to update pages contrary to our policy on editing? --Moxy 🍁 17:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Because portals have been a hot debate for many months and a overhaul such as these IMHO needs a discussion first - It's no different to someone making a huge change to an article - Consensus should be sought first not after and IMHO the same applies here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support BrownHairedGirl's repeated attempts above to shut down the discussion and asking other editors to stop participating is also blatant. Cards84664 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wow! {{tq|repeated attempts above to shut down the discussion}??? Where did that come from?

I have merely asked that we have a centralised discussion on the issues involved, rather than asking ANI to decide on a content issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose so much of what's transpired here. It's BRD, not B, R, a third party takes it to ANI, a fourth party Rs again shortly after !voting in the ANI thread about the R... sheesh. If one editor changes 100 pages in one fell swoop without prior discussion, it's really not cricket to then complain that another editor reverted those 100 changes in one fell swoop. I mean, it wouldn't have been such a massive revert if it wasn't such a massive change in the first place. If you make 100 changes, and they get reverted, you're going to have to defend 100 changes; that's the nature of the beast. Asking people at ANI to judge a content dispute is a terrible idea–this is not the right crowd. Honestly, we got into this mess in the first place by having a content RfC at AN about portalspam. If the portalspam portals had been "nuked from orbit" in the first place (X3), we wouldn't have spent months going through them. We would have gotten to the legacy portals sooner, and everyone's patience would not have been exhausted by that time. And, man, we would have gotten that X3 if that proposal wasn't on AN, but rather at the pump (and no, a pointer from the pump to AN, and a CENT listing, was not a sufficient substitute). Also, we wouldn't be here if that X3 proposal had been properly closed. But I digress. NA1K, as I recall, was in favor of going through portals one by one before deleting them. So, what's wrong with going through portals one by one before improving them? OK, that's a touch pedantic. But at the very least, instead of an ANI thread, just address the concerns underlying the reversion (which are valid concerns), try to come to a compromise, and run the edits again. Asking ANI dwellers to repeatedly choose between NA1K and BHG is not a healthy exercise. We have established processes for handling content disputes, let's use them. And for love of God, let's avoid deciding content disputes at the administrator noticeboards. – Levivich 16:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is more than a content dispute; it's a rivalry for the non-existent crown of portalspace, where one wants to plant more than we have seeds and the other wishes to raze the fields. I believe it falls under the scope of ANI. Vermont (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Noting that I have no opinion on this proposal other than that both BHG and NA1K should take a step back from portals, as this section alone shows many distressing actions by both sides. Their continued conflict evidently causes more harm than benefit to the project. Vermont (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: WP:NOTCLEANUP Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. Why the rush to delete or diminish? I see one editor improving portals, and another editor diminishing and then ivoting delete. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  The key word in that quote is "articles". Portals are not articles. Policies and principles that apply to articles about notable topics do not apply to portals, or templates, or modules, or talk pages, and so on. – Levivich 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I normally agree with your very reasoned opinions. I guess the desire to diminish and or delete portals rather than improve is where we are not on the same page. It is counter to our beliefs guidelines and policies to rush to delete. WP:NORUSH Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose partly per Levivich but also given what I said earlier. Can we put aside the dumb pointless debates about who should have done what when, and focus on the problem? There is clearly a dispute over the changes. Therefore they need to be discussed with the aim to come to some consensus version. This can happen anywhere suitable, which clearly isn't ANI. It's not like the portals themselves are under heavy editing or heavy viewership. So the changes can easily be reintroduced at some stage after discussion, and arguments over what's the best WP:WRONGVERSION in the interim during discussion are even more silly. Reintroducing the changes after a short discussion on ANI unsurprisingly helped nothing. When I first revisited this discussion it was before BHG had replied and I considered opposing but didn't. Maybe if I had we wouldn't have had the silly re-reversion, I don't know, but you shouldn't have needed my oppose. If some people are so sure that BHG is a major problem, I have no idea why it cannot be demonstrated properly. As I said, start a discussion, make sure BHG is aware of it and give BHG ample time to join it. If they keep reverting while persistently not joining the discussion you've proven the point and now have a great ANI case. This, is not..... And as a general comment directed at all involved in whatever mess results in these continuous threads about problems in the portal name space, from what I've seen there is plenty of fault all around. Don't assume that the other side is the big problem and eventually the community is going to realise that and block or cban or topic ban them. Actually there's a good chance that you're going to be the one that happens to first. And if you're so worried about portal space, be it getting rid of it or improving it, remember many of us DGAF either way. If you care, getting yourself blocked or banned, is likely to give the other side a better hand (for lack of better way of saying that) since we're not going to take your place, so you really need to be on your best behaviour. For the avoidance of doubt this general comment is directed equally at those more favourable to BHG's POV include her and those more favourable to NA1000's POV including them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. My views on the value of portals generally align much more with BHG than with NA1K (e.g. my essay uses several quotes from BHG) - however, one shouldn't (in general) revert changes just because the change wasn't (in your opinion) explained well enough (in edit summary or talk); only revert if the change itself was bad (and BHG has not argued that NA1Ks changes were bad). DexDor ^(talk) 18:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @DexDor: actually, I have argued that the changes were bad, on two counts: a) turning the portals into black boxes whose list of articles can be checked only by editing the page; b) adding huge numbers of articles with no stated inclusion criteria to transform the portal. When no criteria are defined, then it is perverse to asks other editors to examine the whole set in order to try to reverse-engineer what criteria (if any) may have been applied … and the black box structure created by NA1K raises a barrier to such scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • That's things relevant to editors (not readers). You haven't shown that NA1K's changes make the portals worse (for readers). DexDor ^(talk) 11:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dexdor: Sadly, the pile-on format used in this ANI has obscured a lot of he substance. My analysis at Portal_talk:Australia#Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG shows how this is an issue for both readers and editors. In any case, changes which impede the ability of editors to monitor the contents of a page impede the community's ability to ensure that pages serve readers well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The core problem here is that +95% of portals on Wikipedia are abandoned, most for over a decade, and out-of-date. Readers avoid them, but unlike an abandoned WP article, an abandoned portal is a real problem for us as they are dynamic not static entities – E.g. would we keep the Mainpage if its last edit was a decade ago? They show Wikipedia as a failing project.

BHG has been working to tidy up this situation. NA1K's well-meaning edits only give the illusion that portals are fine. However, when BHG reverted NA1K's edits to have a discussion on each set - as is what is meant to happen in a portal (or article) - the approach collapses, as NA1K is unable to man so many discussions simultaneously (and nobody else cares).

ANI is not the right location for a BRD that has not even started its "D" part - but because the portal system is collapsing, the only way to do this is to "automate" the "D" part and file it as a "batch" via ANI, and get them simultaneously reverted. It is a measure of how abandoned things are in portals and how far they are from what is meant to happen in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support and recommend, at the very least, a public trouting of BHG. This is unacceptable behavior for any editor. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The mass reverts were, as far as I can deduce, not in good faith and should thus be undone. I went so far as to say that any IP or normal editor would be called out for vandalism. If I stretch AGF to incredulity, for myself at least, – I got nothing, I did try to find even the most mediocre of justifications to propose, but can't. Here's BHG's: Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed (sic).
  The "black box" that BHG is referring to, I haven't been able to verify (I have not checked all portals). Portal:Croatia didn't even have a selected article before NA1K started editing the portal (last pre-NA1K diff), for example. Checking NA1K's added list is simply a matter of clicking the "edit source" button and scrolling to "selected article" or "recognized content". It's really quite easy to do. If that's the "black box" then it's not much of a box. The only portal I'm familiar-ish with is Portal:Ancient Egypt which has selected articles/DYKs/etc listed on a subpage.
  Disclosure: I am not on speaking terms with NA1K, our last interaction was me telling them to "fuck off" my talk page (ironically I have the same issues with NA1K that BHG does). Some words from Yeetcetera (great name): Even glancing over the changes shows a good improvement over the previous versions of these portals. That was my impression too. I've twice now linked to the changes NA1K made to Portal:Panama, and I found similar improvements to basically every portal I looked at.
  I'll close by noting what ought to be obvious. The fact that NA1K expanded and updated dozens of portals does not preclude further changes being made. If there's things to be cut, or further repaired, then that can be done. It's only a question of whether anyone cares to. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Out of scope This discussion is a content discussion. We don't do content discussions at ANI. Some of NA1k's argument points to possible behavior issues, as does the section above, but I find this whole section completely out of scope and not something which ANI can form a consensus about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Out of scope Content discussion should happen on content pages where interested editors are likely to see them. Dragging the peanut gallery at ANI into a content dispute is a sure-fire way to not de-escalate a situation and build consensus. This is not the first time we've had civility issues in portal space escalate to a noticeboard (August discussion at AN) and it's getting tiresome. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

• Comment – @Barkeep49 and Wugapodes: It's a conduct matter:

• BHG mass reverts in a rapid fashion, one after another.
• An erroneous, canned copy/paste edit summary is left, which falsely states that no messages or list of articles has been provided anywhere.
• BHG did not bother to even check the talk pages, where I have left notices of improvements in most cases, and in many cases, a list of articles that were added.
• My edits were characterized in the edit summaries as "sneaky". This is wrong. Again, talk page messages were left in the majority of cases, and lists as well many times.
• BHG assumed that no talk page notices were left, which demonstrates an overly eager mindset of having a propensity to quickly and blindly revert, rather than actually look into matters in a functional manner. It's a failure of assumption over research, not even bothering to click on a talk page first to see if anyone has posted anything.
• BHG's rapid reversions also removed other improvements in addition article expansion. The mass reverts removed the transclusion of articles listed on portal subpages directly into the main portal page. At MfD, users, including BHG, routinely complain that the subpage system is outdated, prone to errors, and is generally inferior, using this as a qualification for deletion time and time again. BHG's reversions of the transclusions has placed many portals in an inferior state, a state that they routinely complain about at MfD. Other problems include the restoration of outdated news sections that were commented out, style and layout errors that were restored, and portal pages now displaying red links instead of content.
• As I stated in a comment above, the rapid reverts has left several portals in a broken state, and this is only from what I have had time to check so far. Hopefully there aren't more.
• BHG could potentially be gaming the system, by essentially locking down any portal improvements, under a potential guise of protecting the encyclopedia, when in fact they may very well have a confirmation bias against portal improvements from the start. The user is the top nominator of portals for deletion at MfD, and portal improvements may theoretically prevent them from being deleted.
• This could all set a very poor precedent, whereby BHG can continue to simply blindly revert any and all edits to portals, cite BRD, and then nit pick and take ownership, working to find anything that could possibly be complained about, thus leading to preventing updates and improvements from occurring from the start.
• BHG has a habit of constantly badgering users that work on portals and those who opine for their retention at MfD discussions. At MfD and other discussions, the user is prone to posting long walls of text that include personal attacks, scolding of users that disagree with their opinion, and taking a stubborn stance that they are always right, and anyone countering them is inherently wrong.
• It is concerning that it appears that BHG has only targeted portals that I have worked on, and the user has demonstrated a vendetta against me, in part because my work serves to improve portals, which goes against the grain of the user wanting many of them deleted. See WP:ENDPORTALS2, where BHG states in part, "I have been one of the main drivers of portal deletion over the last six months, and I have repeatedly been astonished to find how many really bad portals there are. Ever time I thought we were nearing the end of deleting the junk, dozens more would be found. I don't know how many more portals there are which clearly fail POG, but beyond them there are hundreds more like Portal:Ireland: not broken, not on a too narrow topic, maybe lightly maintained ... but still not v helpful. So they languish with poor readership and poor design and no editor willing to devote much time to them." and "Some big cutback would be a huge improvement, and I;ll go with whatever we can get." However, when users improve portals, BHG is now blindly reverting those improvements.
• Furthermore, other users in threads above have supported my improvements to portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Northamerica1000, I stated in my comment that you brought forward behavioral concerns. Those can (and hopefully will be) dealt with here (dealing with doesn't mean sanctions, just that a consensus about behavior is arrived at). That does not mean ANI can decide "Should BrownHairedGirl's mass portal reversions be reverted, to restore portal improvements that occurred?". We have methods of dealing with content disputes, including content disputes across many pages - RfC. Whether you were right or BHG was right in the content, and thus whether we should be keeping your version or her version, is not something ANI can decide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Barkeep sums up my opinions on the matter. This section of voting is on a content matter. If anything, it is distracting from conduct matters which is why we shouldn't be trying to resolve content disputes at ANI. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• NA1k has made a lengthy set of allegations of misconduct against me. I strongly dispute nearly all of them, but it's now past my bedtime, so I will reply in full tomorrow.

But for now I will just leave a few quick points. NA1k surprisingly denies that their conduct was sneaky. Yet they made many dozens of edits with the boilerplated edit summary Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content. That does not disclose which articles have been added, even though they could easily have added to the edit summary a link to the article being added, because they almost certainly had copy-pasted the title into the portals list. NA1K knew this was issue, because I had specifically raised it with them. Yet now NA1K denies that their choice to withhold the info from the edit summary was sneaky. This stubborn, repeated denial of reality is a consistent feature of NA1K's conduct.

I also have question for NA1K. On how many of the portals which I reverted had NA1K left an edit summary saying "See talk page", or words to that effect? I saw no such edit summaries, but if NA1K thinks I have missed some, I would be happy to be corrected. However, if NA1K's plan was explain everything on the talk page, why did they not draw attention to that in edit summaries?

NA1K's assertions that they explained all on talk pages is simply untrue. One of the early examples I checked was Portal talk:Guyana#Portal_updated, where NA1K's [286] note says only New article content was added to the portal. No list of what which articles were added, no explanation of the criteria by which they were chosen, not even a count of how many were added. After seeing variation on that vagueness, I gave up checking the talk pages, because it was a waste of time. Sadly, it is entirely typical of NA1K's conduct that they have chosen to blame me for their own active refusal to communicate effectively.

Anyway, full reply tomorrow. It id dispiriting to have to waste so much time rebutting the counter-factual barrage from NA1K, but so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Comment – Portal:Ontario provides another example of the absurdity of these reversions. The portal was tagged as needing updating on 14 August 2019, with an initial note stating, "update=yes|note=No maintenance since 2014" in the Portal maintenance status template atop the page (diff). The edit didn't take as expected, so the user then added the {{Update}} template directly (diff). So, I performed updates to the portal in August and October 2019. All of the work was then erased with one drive-by edit by BHG using their inaccurate, canned copy/paste edit summary (diff). Now, the update template is back on the portal, after it was already carefully, thoughtfully and significantly updated. BHG's reversion has also left the portal with a red-linked Related portals section and a partially broken DYK section that shows blank content from time-to-time when purging. In their haste to eagerly revert portal improvements in this rapid fashion, the user did not even bother to scroll down on the page to check the results of their one-click action. This disruptive behavior does not improve Wikipedia, it deteriorates it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • NA1K, my reasons for the revert were both clearly stated, and accurate: undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed. If you really believe that statement to be inaccurate, let's hear you explain why.

As to the effects of the revert, I restored a version which predated all your tampering, and had been stable for five days until edited again. The glitches which have since appeared are due to the removal of subpages, a process is slow to detect. In this case, when I looked at the portal just now, it was showing a blank DYK, which turned out to be Portal:Ontario/Did you know?/3. On investigation, that page was blanked[287] by another editor. It is not my fault that another editor chose to blank a page without explanation.

Note that a similar arose with Portal:Iceland, where NA1K criticised me for the blankness of some pages, and when I investigated it turned out that two pages had been blanked by NA1K themselves [288][289]with an edit summary which was beyond sneaky, it downright deceitful: "ce", which usually indicates "copyedit". Blanking a page is not a copyedit.

Once again, NA1k is choosing to try to blame me for their own repeated misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Curious how nobody else has complained about my improvements to Portal:Ontario except you. Many of the additions have been in place for almost two months, and the portal receives a decent number of daily page views, so people are seeing it, yet only you come along aggressively reverting all of the improvements in a series of rapid, drive-by edits. I feel that you have a conflict of interest, per your strong interest in having portals deleted, and that the portal existing in an improved state goes against the grain of your deletion crusade. After all, an improved portal with ample content is less likely to be deleted at MfD relative to the (now non-guideline, failed proposal) WP:POG page. Also, per your comments at WP:ENDPORTALS2 and elsewhere, it appears that you just don't like portals, and it seems that you may detest them being improved, for whatever reasons. I feel that you should please stop WP:HOUNDING me and my work, and find something more productive to do in place of this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• NA1K: First, I note you how simply don't respond to my pointing out where you are demonstrably wrong, but instead simply switch tack. More shoddy, uncollegial conduct.

Secondly, it is not all surprising that nobody else has commented. As you very well know, portals are woefully under-scrutinised. That's why most of them rotted for a decade without complaint, and over 60% have been deleted at MFD. So the fact that nobody commented on your sneaky edits is wholly predictable..

Thirdly, you are wrong about COI. It is NA1K who has a conflict of interest. You have been a vocal opponent of deleting even those portals which have been long abandoned, are almost unread, and which have no WikiProject involvement. So ARS-style, you have appointed yourself as the single-handed rescuer-of-portals, and instead of seeking consensus on how to rebuild portals, you have been furiously rushing around making massive changes to a huge set of portals, adding vast numbers of articles on topics with which you have no demonstrable experience, without even disclosing in a transparent form what you have done and why.

(Note: you criticise me for seeking the deletion of some portals. But in every case, I opened a properly-notified consensus-building discussion on whether to delete. If you had tried even a tiny fraction of the consensus-building which I have ben engaged in, we wouldn't be having this discussion here.)

This is clearly an attempt to WP:GAME the system: to try to create a "look! lots of articles" quantity-based defence against deletion, without setting any evident criteria for doing do. You have appointed yourself as the selector of content for over 15% of all portals, and have nowhere had even the integrity to disclose what you are doing other than on unviewed portal talk pages. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

Note that I am aware of only one occasion in which there was systematic scrutiny of your frenetic list-making: at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, where I analysed your efforts and showed them to be very shoddy. That MFD closed as the portal being deleted. If you were actually sincere in seeking to leave en.wp with portals for which there is consensus, and which genuinely uphold en.wp principles of balance and NPOV and quality, you would have taken that as a wake-up call, and started to seek consensus. Instead you just added a turbo-charger, and continued as before with your mass sneaky edits.

As you know, I have made many, repeated proposals for how portals could be improved. Yes, I would prefer that nearly all of them were deleted, but if we have to have them, then they should be much less crap than they are now. I don't object to their improvement; that is simply your attempt to smear my good faith, because in months of discussions you have persistently refused to understand why anyone would want to delete portals that you like. What I am objecting to here is the nature of what was done to "improve" portals, which introduced two new, severe problems. Once again, you have chosen to disregard my repeated explanation of the problems you have created, and instead to resort to the usual NA1K response to any attempt at reasoned critique: to simply smear and bluster and deny, and make repeated bogus allegations, even to the pint of blaming me for the blankness of pages which you yourself had blanked with dishonest edit summaries.[290][291] No retraction or apology from you for that. Shoddy shoddy conduct.

I feel that you should please stop WP:GAMEing the system, stop trying to turn portalspace into your own private playground for sneakily building black-box portals where you can shout "look! lots of articles", and find something more productive to in place of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your actions have ultimately served to hold my months of work hostage via your series of mindless, knee-jerk reversions that involved copy/pasting a canned edit summary and pressing a button. You mass reverted all of the work I have performed over months of time in your series of rapid reversions, bllindly obliterating all other improvements in the process. The high number of reversions you have performed makes the WP:BRD process just about impossible to actually carry out, and now you stubbornly and proudly keep holding your stick, while many others above have stated that your actions were wrong.

Now, unless a hopeful consensus ensues herein for your knee-jerk, drive-by reversions to be undone, you get to continue to hold my months of work hostage. Meanwhile, at MfD, you continually complain about portals that are not improved as a reason for their deletion. I may not respond here more, and simply let the community decide for themselves. Your stubborn attitude is unliikely to be changed, and you have nothing to lose. It's unlikely you'll be blocked for this, if I revert your edits it would be edit warring, and if your reversions stay in place, you WP:WIN, but the encyclopedia loses. You figured out a way to bypass the WP:BRD process by making it virtually impossible to carry out, per the volume of your reversions. Then, I can go to each talk page and explain how the improvements improved the portal, you can then follow in a WP:HOUNDing manner, further disapprove for whatever arbitrary reasons you think up, no consensus forms because portal talk pages recieve little input on average, and the portal remains in a highly inferior state. Well done. I may just quit editing portals altogether, because it's a trap as long as BHG can hold users' work hostage in this manner. Hopefully you don't nominate the portals that you reverted for deletion at a later time; that would be truly sickening. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of the usual, hyperbolic personal abuse from NA1K: blindly, knee-jerk, hold hostage, mindless. All to distract from the simple substance.

This is all vey simple, NA1K: seek consensus before you set out to do a huge series of undiscussed and undisclosed mass changes which leave have left you as the sole arbiter of the content of over 15% of portals, with a hidden content list. This was a blatant, sneaky land-grab on a big scale.

Since you didn't seek consensus beforehand, I have proposed that we do that consensus-building now. Yet you reject that, which only underlines your intent to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

I note too your crucial acknowledgement that portal talk pages recieve little input on average'. That is entirely true, which is why you should have disclosed your plan properly, rather than hiding it away on pages which receive little input. You didn't notify WikiProjects, you didn't notify WT:WPPORT, you didn't notfy the village pump, or anywhere; you didn't even fellow the WP:EDITSUMCITE guidance to use edit summaries to point to the talk pages. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

And now to crown it all, you state `that the likely outcome of talk page discussion would be no consensus. So you evidently knew that would likely be no consensus for your efforts, and sought to avoid consensus-forming processes.

I may nominate some of these portals for deletion; that wasn't my reason for reversion, but in the future I may scrutinise them and make a decision. If so, I will of course disclose in the nomination the history of reversion. You don't need to just take my word on that, because you can see in my track record that's what I consistently do (see my Wikipedia-space page creations, which in the last 6 months are nearly all MFDs). In the last 6 months I have nominated dozens of portals where I had reverted TTH's automation, and I always disclosed that. I also nominated some portals where NA1K had everted the automation, and I always disclose that too. Note the rich irony that NA1K was happy to mass revert another editor's WP:FAITACCOMPLI, but now howls in fury that a much smaller set of NA1K's WP:FAITACCOMPLI has been reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Certes (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

• Support I know that BRD exists, but it shouldn't be applied to edits that don't need to be reverted. Lepricavark (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black kite and Nil Einne. -- Begoon 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Thank you to NorthAmerica for making these changes in such a hostile environment. The sample I reviewed show clear improvements and should remain. A major rationale at portal MfDs has been that they are unmaintained. Simultaneously requiring and preventing maintenance might seem unhelpful. Certes (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I too had a maintenance edit to at least one of the portals (Portal:Language) reverted without notice; I believe the onus should be on the reverter to open the WP:BRD discussion, and better practice to do so after the first revert, not after performing several tens of reverts. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Not supporting or opposing because there's more involved in the operation, maintenance, and, realistically, politics of portals than I am familiar with. Just from this discussion in particular, most of the diffs I've seen just show NA1K plainly improving portals. Mass reverting in the name of BRD because of, say, adding articles to them, without actually challenging the articles themselves, isn't really what BRD is for. Reverting because no discussion on a page that almost nobody watches isn't a good enough objection. Furthermore, calling NA1K and/or his actions "sneaky" ad nauseum (and, seemingly, other editors) is a shockingly accusation of bad faith. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose NA1K's additions were rightly addressed with BRD. ——SerialNumber54129 11:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of the effects of NA1K's edits

I was pinged to a discussion about the effects of NA1K's changes to Portal:Australia, which was considering whether to revert them. I posted a lengthy analysis at Portal talk:Australia#Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG.

I commend Australian editors for the calm way in which they have opened that discussion, and I hope that my analysis will help those editors in making their decisions. I had hoped that my reverts would lead to a centralised discussion on those issues, which are broadly similar across the set of portals I reverted, but if editors want to individually assess each portal in that way, then so be it.

Meanwhile, we have a problem. This section is trying to make a decision about content without substantive consideration of the content issues. The structure of the discussion has not allowed me to set out the explanation of my reasoning which I have just written; it moved straight to a request for reverts without giving space for substantive discussion of the issues, and lots of editors rushed to judgement without hearing a full explanation.

I hope that whoever closes this discussion will take time to weigh whether it appropriate for ANI to make decisions about content, and especially whether it appropriate to make them without first having a structured attempt to discuss them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Requests for Clarifications

I have an idea of what the primary issue is, but I am not sure that I understand correctly. It sounds as if User:Northamerica1000 has been quietly performing surgery on portals, and changing their design from using content-forked subpages of selected articles to transclusions of selected articles, sometimes increasing the number of articles in the process. I have sometimes personally observed that this has sometimes been the case when I have been examining portals, and it is my understanding that this has been the case many other times. It sounds as if User:BrownHairedGirl has then been reverting those changes, so as to restore the old content forks. If so, I either don't understand or don't agree. BHG and I agree that the heritage content-fork design is a very inferior design, which she characterizes as a Rube Goldberg machine. I think that its replacement by transclusion is an improvement. The replacement of content forks by transclusion is not, in my opinion, usually enough to upgrade a cruddy portal that wants deletion to a good portal that should be kept, but it is an improvement, and marginal improvements are still improvements. It appears that BHG has been reverting these upgrades (which may, to be sure, be only marginal upgrades) because they have not been discussed and have not had consensus. I think that there is a consensus that content-forked subpages are an inferior design. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl complains that User:Northamerica1000 has been converting large numbers of portals to a black box format, and that she is reverting those conversions. Perhaps I do not understand what is meant by a black box format or why it is problematic, but it appears to be a portal in which the forest of subpages has been replaced by transclusion. If so, why should that conversion be reverted? The portal design using content-forked subpages is prone to rot, and is characterized by BHG as a Rube Goldberg machine. I would think that replacing the content-forked subpages with transclusion is good, or at least that it minimizes risk. The comment is made that the choice of articles can only be seen editing the portal. With the content-forked approach, determining the choice of articles requires two technical steps, first entering Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Geography or whatever, and then clicking on each of the links. With an embedded transclusion list, one step, editing the portal and viewing the names, is required. How does this differ from what BHG calls a "mega-navbox", which she appears to view as superior to content forks? Each design has its disadvantages. If BHG is saying that all design alternatives for portals have disadvantages, and so advocates of any particular portal must prove that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages, I agree. But what is meant by a black box portal, and why is it undesirable? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

On the other side, I see allegations of a conflict of interest. I do not see any actual evidence, even any unreliable actual evidence, of a conflict of interest. It appears that User:Moxy is accusing User:BrownHairedGirl of a conflict of interest. That is a serious allegation that comes very close to a personal attack. Perhaps they only mean that BHG is an involved administrator. That policy has to do with non-neutral use of administrative tools, Is there any claim that BHG has been using the block button or the delete button to advance an anti-portal agenda? If so, is there any substantiation of that claim? I don't think so, but am asking. Maybe they mean only that BHG is not neutral about portals. So what? Neutrality has to do with the content of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, allegations first: my only use in this of any admin tools has been to undelete portal sub-pages which were needed after the reverts. My aim throughout has been to restore pending consensus, without closing off any options. Claims of a "conflict of interest" are simply a misuse of that term.

On the substance of the reverts: as you know, I regard the use of content forks in portals as a design disaster. Their failings are documented every day in MFDs of abandoned portals whose content forks have rotted, often for a decade or more, and I have frequently denounced them.

However, that does not mean that any design without content forks is problem-free, or that it doesn't introduce new problems. One of the flaws of the content forked portals was they didn't offer on the face of the portal a list of the selected articles, so that readers could see up-front what the overall selection is. However, it did offer a wee link which could be used to check the set and spot any problems, whether of bias, quality or scope.

NA1K's changes removed that possibility. Monitoring the set is now a massively more complex task, because there is no longer a set of clickable links. That creates a serious barrier to scrutiny of portals: they have become a black box.

Those same changes also deprived readers who spotted the tiny link of the chance to scan the whole set.

I am happy to believe that NA1K thought he changes were an improvement. But before rolling out a redesign and restructuring across a huge proportion of portalspace, NA1K should have opened a discussion to seek consensus on whether their preferred solution was the right way to go. Instead, NA!K acted both unilaterally and stealthily. They tried to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, conduct which ArbCom has specifically deprecated.

There is a second problem with NA1K's edit. They massively expanding the set of articles on each portals without discussion, consultation, or disclosure of criteria Note that at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, when I challenged NA1K on what criteria had been used, their reply was simply vague and obfuscatory: I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal, for a topic that is negatively affected by systemic bias and whose articles are rated in a highly inaccurate, misleading manner. Again, these entries were assessed before being added to the portal, but not blindly based upon (often incorrect) assessments on talk pages.

So in other words, NA1K made their own undisclosed assessments of quality, and beyond that speaks only of {{tq|their suitability for this portal}] which tells us precisely nothing about how that "suitability" was determined.

(BTW, note that the only occasion on which a discussion examined the suitability of NA1Ks article was at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana … and that closed with he portal being deleted.')

Before I reverted, NA1K had done this to over 15% of the remaining portals. In other words, a significant chunk of portal space consisted of content chosen by just one editor, against unstated criteria, using their own unstated quality assessments, without even transparent disclosure of what the outcome was.

Where did NA1K seek consensus to appoint themself as the solo selector of portal content? Nowhere that I can see.

Where did NA!K post in a wildly-viewed place asking others to review their efforts? Nowhere that I can see. Portal talk pages mostly unused, so a note there are stealthy unless advertised elsewhere.

Did NA1K notify any topic WikiProjects or the portal project or other stakehoLders? Nowhere that I have seen

And look at how NA1K's talkpage posts, such as this recent one from 11 September:[292], at Portal talk:Guyana#Portal_updated. It's completely vague, saying merely New article content was added to the portal. No list of articles, no indication of how they were chosen, and the weird use of the passive voice to deny acknowledgement of who added the articles.

If the future that the community wants for portals is for them all to be rebuilt and restocked by one editor without any transparency, then let's have the RFC to demonstrate that consensus. But unless and until that consensus is reached, this remains one of the biggest attempts I have ever seen at a stealthy WP:FAITACCOMPLI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

One caveat I would make to that analysis - I may be wrong, but I don't think that our portal structure is generally the product of consensus in the first place. My impression is that editors have more-or-less randomly and independently developed portals, although often by copying existing portals without giving much thought to whether the structure being copied was ideal. bd2412 T 01:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - You are replying to me about the allegation that you either have a conflict of interest or an administrative involvement. I wasn't asking you. I was telling User:Moxy and anyone else to stop that personal attack unless they can back it up. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking it out

@Northamerica1000 and BrownHairedGirl: What remedies do you two think can help resolve this dispute? Barkeep49 has said they believe there are legitimate conduct issues, and it's obvious that there's a clash of personalities which is playing out alongside what I'm assuming is a good faith content dispute. Since I don't believe a discussion on whether to restore content will be productive, I wanted to ask you both how you think we can move forward from this and de-escalate. What is it you both want to see happen? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• It would be nice for BHG to not instantly revert and and all portal improvements in a rapid succession, one after another, over the course of a day, essentially hiding behind BRD as a rationale while not addresing the content that was removed. That would be a good start. Discuss first, rather than blindly reverting. Not checking talk pages first to see if a note has been placed about portal work is a significant problem. As I have stated, notes were left in the majority of instances, along with lists of articles added in some instances. It also appears that the user has specifically targeted my work, which equates to WP:HOUNDING if this is the case. So, BHG should seriously consider not targeting my work. I feel that BHG has a significant conflict of interest in that they dislike most portals (see their commentary at WP:ENDPORTALS2), and as such, should not be eagerly reverting any and all portal improvemets in such a rapid, eager and reckless manner. Note my comment above regarding Portal:Ontario: it was tagged in August 2019 with the update template by another user, I updated it in August and October 2019, then BHG drives-by and reverts the updates in one fell swoop with a generic, inaccurate canned edit summary, potentially using BRD to game the system (see WP:GAMING), potentially in favor of keeping portals in an inferior state. Now the update template is back on the portal, after it was already updated. Just ridiculous. Also, I disagree with your notion that a discussion about content restoration would be productive, because several users have already opined regarding the matter, with many supporting the reversions to be undone as a conduct issue, while others have stated otherwise. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: It seems part of NA1k's concern is the way discussions play out after a revert. Do you (both) think that a rearrangement of BRD would be helpful, namely: bold, discuss, revert? There's no reason the revert must occur before the discussion, and maybe opening a dialogue about what is problematic could help build consensus for further improvements rather than reversions. NA1k has other concerns, and you likely have some yourself, but perhaps it's helpful to try and resolve the problem in pieces rather than all at once. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• (ec*4) @Wugapodes: briefly, because it's way past my bedtime:

1. Per WP:BRD, retain my restoration of the status quo ante pending centralised discussion on the substantive issues, followimg which the principles agreedcan be applied by individual discussion at each portal
2. Open two neutrally-framed RFCs:
   • How should portals be structured (there are a least 5 difft structural methods that I know of, and no guidance on use of any of them)
   • How should the selection of articles be made? E.g. what criteria are required/acceptable/forbidden; what disclosure is required; what consultation and/or notification is expected; how any portals may one editor take control of
3. urgent remedial training for NA1K in the use of informative edit summaries (Sorry, that doesn't sound conciliatory, but it is a long-standing problem, and a major part of this debacle)
4. Reading comprehension lessons for NA1K, whose post above refers to not addressing the content that was removed, despite my stating in every summary and many times since that the problem was that the content was neither disclosed nor explained.
5. Remedial lessons for NA1K in WP:CONSENSUS-building an in not sneakily creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Yes, the last three are unlikely … but they sure are needed.

Now, my bed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Do you think having those RfCs would be a good idea? It seems that it would help resolve the issues you both have raised about portal content as it would give clear goals to work towards. BHG also seems to be concerned about your edit summaries, wishing that you would be more clear about what articles are being added and what kind of maintenance is being performed. Would adding this information to your standard edit summaries have a serious impact on your workflow? Having that info in the page history, rather than having to look at a diff, can be of use to many editors in the future. BHG has gone to bed, so feel free to sleep on this as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer for the matter to be resolved here at this time, per the high volume of blind, knee-jerk reversions that occurred, rather than moved to another page with yet another portal-related RfC.

I'm well familiar with Help:Edit summary and the advice provided therein, as I follow that advice. Edit summaries have been provided for virtually all portal work I have performed on main portal pages. When creating new pages, such as subpages, an automatic edit summary is typically filled-in by the wiki process. My edit summaries provide an accurate overview of changes that occur in portals. Also, I have been adding lists of articles added to portals on talk pages, which I feel is adequate, rather than copying and pasting a link for every single article added to a portal into an edit summary. Only BHG has recommended this, and I suspect it is because 1) they are trying to cover their tracks for their blind reversions, blaming perfectly rational and functional edit summaries I left as somehow confusing to them, and 2) the user may also be trying to put more hoops in the way of portal work being performed, adding more steps to make it more time consuming for portals to be updated, using instruction creep.

BHG is nit picking in a highly overly-critical, busybody manner, because it is my opinion that they have developed a vendetta against me, because the work I perform is contrary to their stances regarding portals. So, as part of their ongoing smear campaign against me, they continuously rely on ad hominem arguments about edit summaries, while apparently not understanding why some disapprove of their rapid-fire, drive-by reversions that has left many portals in a highly inferior state.

BHG states directly above in a biasedly exaggerated and insulting manner about "remedial training" regarding edit summaries, and that they are "a major part of this debacle", but BHG is the only person in these threads who has complained about my edit summaries. BHG is grasping at straws here, repeatedly making excuses for their inappropriate, knee-jerk, rapid reversions that has left these portals in significantly inferior states. They rely upon ad hominem statements, place false weight upon edit summaries in a hyper-exaggerated manner, and continue to ignore the fact that they did not bother to check talk pages prior to the rapid reversions. They are trying to shift the blame for their laziness in not checking talk pages prior to their mass reversions upon me with hyper-exaggerated claims that they did not understand edit summaries, yet others herein have stated that my edit summaries were perfectly fine. Then, BHG provides another unnecessary insult stating nonsense about "reading comprehension lessons". BHG's constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, badgering and WP:HOUNDING here and elsewhere is disruptive to Wikipedia.

As an example, above Mr rnddude stated in part regarding my work, "The other format change is adding in a section where good/featured articles can be featured, such as at Portal:New Zealand (5 – and read the edit summary, it's clearly explained). (underline emphasis mine). I agree, my edit summaries provide clear explanations and overviews of work performed. Conversely, BHG's edit summaries that were used in these reversions has been questioned, by myself and others,

In another comment regarding BHG's edit summaries, Moxy states, "The misleading edit summaries in many cases is what I noticed first ....as its clear as seen at Portal talk:Serbia#Portal expanded and Portal talk:New Zealand#Portal expanded and Portal talk:Thailand#Portal expanded etc.. nothing sneaky here.... even posting articles and from where. But will wait for replies as you have suggested". I agree, as posting a list of articles added directly on a portal talk page is certainly not "sneaky", nor is adding an edit summary directly stating that articles have been added, oftentimes also providing additional information such as denoting that they are GA-class or FA-class articles. Instead, BHG continuously mischaracterizes my good faith work in their commentary herein as "sneaky", like a broken record. I tire of this hounding and I tire of the personal attacks.

In a comment above by Cactus.man, stating in part, "So, BHG mass reverts (yes, that's exactly what that was) and at a stroke converts all those Portals back to an inferior state, with a dubious edit summary". (Underline emphasis mine).

Above, Moxy states, "I see that Northamerica1000 did leave some message on talks and explains were article selection came from despite the edit summary above" (underline emphasis mine), with the "despite the edit summary above" referring to BHG's dubious, copy/pasted edit summaries that were left when performing these reversions.

Regarding BHG's edit summaries, above, Nil Einne states, "if BHG mass reverts, she really needs to provide some decent explanation somewhere i.e. not via edit summaries and an actual reason why she feels the changes are unwarranted that isn't simply 'discuss first'." (Underline emphasis mine).

Perhaps BHG should take their own advice regarding edit summaries.

BHG continuously complains herein about their desire for a visual list of articles to be present, but nobody else appears to have agreed with this notion. It's just BHG's ideation, serving as an excuse to try to cover up their disruptive, unnecessary reversions. BHG is well aware that a list of articles is very easily and readily available simply by selecting the "Edit" link on a main portal page and scrolling down. They're just making excuses for their reckless reversions after the fact, making up their own rules along the way. Also, a visible list was provided in many instances on portal talk pages. See the table above for more information. Perhaps I should include in edit summaries, "See the talk page for a list of articles". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write all that; I'm sure it was neither easy nor pleasant, but it's helpful feedback that I hope BHG takes into account moving forward like she did in August. I appreciate that you would like this resolved here and now, and I understand how the community is probably fatigued from portal RfCs. That said, you've raised issues that go beyond content problems, and I don't believe that winning a content dispute at ANI is going to improve that situation. I appreciate that the both of you have been willing to discuss how to improve your working relationship, both in this and previous discussions, and hopefully by continuing in that spirit we'll resolve both content and conduct issues.

With that in mind, I think it might be helpful to revisit what solutions you think would ease tension. At the beginning of this thread you said "It would be nice for BHG to not instantly revert any and all portal improvements in a rapid succession, one after another, over the course of a day" and I think that is worth considering. No one wants to feel like they're being followed around or that their contributions are not wanted. Quick reverts in rapid succession will definitely bring about those feelings in others regardless of intention, so it is best to try and mitigate that when possible. So, what can be done here and now to help prevent that situation from occurring again? (ec) Wug·a·po·des​ 04:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to FUD. Yet more FUD from NA1K, mostly based on simple denial of reality.

1. FACT: NA1K repeatedly used the same edit summaries for a long series of edits, especially Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content. NA1K could easily have listed which articles were added, but repeatedly chose to obscure the effect of their edits by omitting that info
2. FACT: Across the whole set of portals which I examined, I found no edit summaries by NA1K which indicated the existence of further info on the talk page
3. FACT: the only edit summaries were listed the content added were to one portal (I forget which one)
4. FACT: I gave up checking the takes pages after finding examples such as Portal_talk:Guyana#Portal_updated, where NA1K left a useless, vague statement which doesn't even stare who made the changes, let alone what articles were added, and on what basis they were chosen
5. FACT: NA1K's claims that I should have checked all talk pages, even when NA1K had hosen not to indicate that there was anything there. This is a classic passive aggressive strategy: blaming me for not going the extra a mile to seek out information which NA1K now claims is relevant, but which they repeatedly chose not to signpost
6. FACT In none of the talk pages which NA1K has mentioned was there both a) full list of the articles which the portal now contained, and b) a clear statement of the criteria used to select articles. None.
   In some cases, there was a statement that the articles were of a particular quality (FA or GA), but in no case was there any statement of a) which set of FA or GA-class articles had ben used; b) whether NA1K had selected all available articles of that quality, or chosen some of the set.
7. FALSEHOOD: NA!K writes Help:Edit summary and the advice provided therein, as I follow that advice. Not true, e.g.
   • WP:SUMMARYNO says "While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to "I made some changes" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all". NA1K's use of the generic Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all
   • WP:EDITSUMCITE says "Expand on important information. Readers who see only the summary might not get the entire picture. Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, post a comment to the article's talk page to give more information, and include "see talk" or "see discussion page" in the edit summary.". In none of the thousands of edit summaries that I read did NA1K write "see talk" or "see discussion page" or anything

Please remember that of all this was in the course of a massive exercise which NA1K undertook, to restructure many dozens of portals, rebuild and massively expand their article lists, without ever even setting out their plan, let alone seeking for consensus. NA1K's persistent failure to explain their editing is part of their wider strategy to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. There was a complete absence of transparency and consensus-building at every level, and NA1K remains in denial about the whole thing.

Sadly, this NA1K strategy of denial and FUD has been used by the many many times before. It is a core part of NA1K's long-term conduct as an editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nature of the mass reversions has made the WP:BRD process for each portal on their respective talk pages virtually impossible. I feel that this alone is quite disruptive. As I have stated, I've left messages on most talk pages I worked on denothing changes that have occurred, a list of articles added to many, and have watchlisted the pages I worked on. If any concerns were to come in, they would then be addressed on a portal talk page respectively, rather than en masse in a discussion such as this.

It doesn't seem that BHG is really interested in actually utilizing the BRD process, as per 1) the nature of the mass reversions makes it virtually impossible, 2) the example provided at Portal talk:Ontario, where the user just repeated their edit summary, rather than disucssing the actual articles that were removed (diff), and 3) the reversions removed all other edits as well, reverting portals back to transcluding content from subpages that may be outdated, restoring outdated news sections that were commented out, placing portals in a state of visual imbalance, creating red links where content once existed, etc. The knee-jerk reversions reek of an attempt to take ownership of portals, by making it very difficult for them to be improved. Then the user complains at MfD discussions about portals that are not being improved. A stinky vicious circle.

The rapid nature of the reversions confirms that the user did not take the time to consider reverting to other versions of portals that would have retained all of the other improvements sans the articles; the user simply removed any and all edits I performed in a rapid manner. That alone is quite problematic. It's a poor choice to throw out the baby with the bathwater as has occurred with these drive-by reversions, making a farce out of Wikipedia.

It's a poor precedent to require users to gain consensus for each and every edit to Wikipedia before performing them, and would cripple Wikipedia immensely if this notion were to actually be existent. As it stands now, if BHG gets their way, they will then be the WP:OWNER of any and all edits that occur in Portal namespace, whereby the user could simply blindly revert in a rapid fashion, again, in a manner that makes the BRD process impossible, ad infinitum. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I've moved it to the thread it was in response to Wug·a·po·des​ 05:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I don't understand what this is in response to? Wug·a·po·des​ 05:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In part, to your question above, stating, "So, what can be done here and now to help prevent that situation from occurring again?". BHG should stop mass reverting work, because it makes individual discussion impossible. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

For BrownHairedGirl when she logs back on, would you be willing to suggest mass reverts on a centralized page such as WT:POG or WT:PO before you perform them? This would have the advantage of making it easier to refactor the discussion into the project pages. You're right with your RfC suggestions that the community needs to come to a decision on what portal norms should be, and by centralizing discussions which have implications for many pages, consensus can be reached organically without causing RfC fatigue. I understand that you would prefer to revert and then discuss, but that process has shown to not work in this case; portals will always be on The Wrong Version for someone it seems. A number of editors have expressed concern that, in general and in particular, reverting edits for not having been discussed would dissuade editors from making bold improvements to the encyclopedia which would be a net negative. If it's always someone else's responsibility to start the discussion, it will never happen, so would you be willing to play more of a role in starting discussions as a method of consensus building and less of a role in reverting? Wug·a·po·des​ 06:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I won't be participating in this discussion much but I may just make some minor points. @Northamerica1000: BHG has said they did check out a few talk page discussions but found them too vague. They have a point that if you check out a small number of talk pages and see the same thing, it's generally entirely reasonable not to check out each subsequent ones.

  Also we should remember that the only way mass reversion of your edits to many portals could have happened is if you made massive changes to the portals. It looks like in some cases you did give some time for discussion before making your changes although not always since in some cases the talk page comment was only made after you made your changes. I believe there was a longer time frame between your edits, although it still looks (I haven't looked in detail so forgive me if I'm wrong), like it was only about a month which given the activity on portal space is relatively short.

  I think many of us can understand why mass reversion of your changes is distressing but we also understand why mass changes which you don't feel are an improvement are distressing. In other words, if we say maybe BHG shouldn't have made so many reversions, we may also say you shouldn't have made so many changes in relatively quick succession. You opening a talk page discussion either before or after helps but ultimately when you're relying on WP:Silence and the obviousness of your improvements, often going slow is a better bet.

  In other words, maybe edit 10 or so portals and give it 2 weeks or so and see what happens. Then try another 10-20. (The alternative would be a clear RfC.) This is probably not the way to proceed from here, but it would have hopefully avoided this problem.

  Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ni Nil Einne: Per a comment I just made above, I may not be editing portals anymore at all. As long as months of a users work can be held hostage by another user mass reverting using a canned edit summary and pressing a button, in such a volume that it makes the WP:BRD process virtually impossible, there's no reason to continue editing portals, because the user can then just do the same thing at a later time. I may not contribute more to these discussions at this time, and simply wait out any hopeful community consensus that may occur. Watching months of my work potentially go down the drain in this manner sickens me. BHG wins, but Wikipedia loses in a big way. As I stated above, hopefully BHG does not nominate the portals they reverted for deletion at a later time, which would complete the farcical circle and kangaroo court that Wikipedia appears to be becoming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I reserve the right to nominate for deletion any page on Wikipedia which I believe should be deleted, and I always accept the outcome of the resulting consensus-forking discussion. (If NA1K had set out to build a consensus instead of sneakily and deceptively creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, we wouldn't be at ANI).

However, I do of course undertake that if I nominate any of these portals at MFD, then I will disclose in the nomination the history of any reversion I have done. You don't need to just take my word on that, because the record shows that is what I have done for months. Both I and NA1K reverted many dozens of portals which can been converted by TTH into automated navbox clones. I later nominated dozens of those reverted portals at MFD, and I took great care to document those reversions in nominations; anyone who wants to verify that assertion can check my list of Wikipedia-space page creations, which this years are nearly all MFDs. As you can see, my nominations are usually exceptionally detailed, and try document all the relevant points in the portal's history.

It's ironic that NA1K was happy to mass revert well-intended but ultimately unhelpful changes by another editor, but howls in fury when their own edits are reverted. The similarities are striking: in both cases, there was a determined effort to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI rather than to seek consensus. Sadly for NA1K, the record is very clear that TTH was much more open about what he was doing, publishing regular "updates" noting the progress of his spamming exercise. If NA1K had a fraction of TTH's communication skills, their spree could have been halted for discussion long before there was so much sneaky restructuring to revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl:, especially since you've been complaining about vague edit summaries I'm concerned with the edit summaries you left. As an outsider, it's very hard for me to parse [293] "Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed" there was a talk page comment, but it's too vague. The talk comment [294] clearly includes some proposed format changes. To be fair, the talk page discussion was only opened after the changes, but again your edit summary was very unclear on the problem.

  If you'd said something like "some of the changes in format have been mentioned on the talk page but not all, and the comment was opened after the changes so there was no discussion" it would be far clearer what you're concerned about.

  Further, I have to ask, since you were aware there was a an attempt at talk page discussion in some cases, did you actually plan to join the talk page discussions at some stage in the next few days before this blew up? Even if you felt the talk page discussion comment was too vague, even more so with an existing when a discussion had been started it's expected you should join it if you're going to revert. Preferably with something more than just a copy of your edit summary.

  For example, if you disagreed with the formatting changes that were mention in the talk page discussion, then say so. If you feel they are okay, but disagree with other formatting changes that weren't mentioned then say so. While it's sometimes acceptable to revert without identifying any specific problems just because you feel the edits need more discussion, this seems problematic here. So I'm hoping you did have specific problems you could outline on the talk page, more than "insufficient discussion".

  Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: can you point me to any examples of a revert which I did where NA1K's edit summaries had followed WP:EDITSUMCITE's guidance "Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, post a comment to the article's talk page to give more information, and include "see talk" or "see discussion page" in the edit summary".

I found precisely zero such edit summaries. I respect your evident good intentions, but I find it deeply offensive that I am being criticised for the effects of NA1K's repeated choice to ignore that basic guidance, and then complain that I didn't go hunting for the info which NA1K had chosen not to disclose. NA1K has adopted a passive aggressive strategy, and is trying to blame me for their own failure to communicate effectively.

I also strongly object to your statement Even if you felt the talk page discussion was too vague, even more so with an existing discussion it's expected you should join it if you're going to revert. In precisely none of the cases identified was there any discussion on the talk page. Zero. A "discussion" involves more than one person, and when I followed the links provided at MFD I found no discussion. I hope that your use of that term is a good faith error, and that you will correct it … because it's use falsely implies that there was already an exchange of views underway which I chose to ignore and override.

In some cases, I now see there was an unadvertised statement on the talk page, of varying degrees of informativeness, but in each case falling a long way short of clear and full explanation what had been done. Even if I had been aware of those statements at the time, that would not have altered my decision to revert, because my previous attempt at similar discussions with NA1K had ben fruitless, since NA1K is either unwilling or unable to explain their actions (I suspect a bit both). See WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, where I did a very detailed analysis of the list of articles chosen, and N1K replied with their usual barrage of obfuscation, bluster, false accusation and FUD. In that discussion made it clear that they had made their own quality assessments, ignoring assessments made by WikiProjects … and the only other explanation offered by NA1K of how the had chosen articles I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal. That is pointless verbiage which makes zero attempt to explain what criteria NA1K had adopted to determine "suitability".

Countless similar experiences in the last 8 months have led me to conclude that NA1K combines some combination of low intelligence, very poor communication skills, and repeated bad faith. That sounds harsh, but when asked how a selection is made a response which simply says "suitability" is absurd. So these issue need to be resolved by a wider community discussion, involving editors who are impeded by NA1K's persistent communication failures, and the evidence of previous attempts is that a long series of one-to-one communications with NA1K is likely to be pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I get that this is a very combative discussion in which strong criticisms have been leveled on both sides, but you are crossing a bright line when you attack NA1K's intelligence. Lepricavark (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lep, if you believe that issues of competence are off-limits, then you should see consensus for that view by nominating WP:CIR deletion. I would be surprised, and deeply saddened, if the community decided that competence was not a relevant attribute in building an encyclopedia, but maybe that's not just your view. But when CIR is deleted, let's talk again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not hold the beliefs that you have attributed to me. I do, however, hold the belief that one admin should not attack the intelligence of another admin during the heat of a content dispute. Lepricavark (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lep, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I have been trying to clarify exactly what your stance is.

You choose to describe my comment as an "attack", attributing to me a motive which was not mine. I made the comment in explanation of sustained problematic conduct which you seem determined to ignore, by taking two words out of context. I was commenting on NA1K's repeated failure to participate effectively in the reasoned debate which is essential to consensus-building, and suggested three possible factors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=921193345 Your characterisation of this as an "attack" is a misrepesentation what I wrote.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have great difficulty in reading it as anything other than an attack, but I'll take your word that it was not your intention. Lepricavark (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: I agree my comment was poorly phrased enough to be misleading and apologise for that part. I have reworded it to accurately convey my original intention.

  I am fairly confused about what you're saying when you said "if I had been aware". I initially assumed you maybe checked a few talk pages, found no comments and so then left the edit summary that you did. I was going to comment to NA1000 that I found it reasonable if this is what you did. But I then read your reply where you said "I gave up checking the takes pages after finding examples such as Portal_talk:Guyana#Portal_updated". (That's why I gave the Guyana example.) My reading of this, especially in the context of the wider comment where you made it, is you were saying you did check a few talk pages before reverting, found the comments left by NA1000 but found them insufficient.

  Are you saying my initial assumption was correct and you checked a few but found no talk page comments so didn't check more? If so, I apologise completely for my comment on edit summaries. As I said, my read is you were saying that you did check find these examples before reverting and therefore your edit summary was terrible whatever mistakes NA1000 made.

  Or are you now saying you didn't even check any talk pages before reverting? If so, no apologies. This is even worse. I do agree that NA1000 should have said something like "see talk" and have already implied as much, long before you replied. But their failure does not excuse your failure. You should have AGFed and at least checked 2 or 3 talk pages if you were going to mass revert. For all you knew, there could have been a clear consensus with tens of participants which you completely ignored. Yes in that case, they should have said something like "per consensus on talk page" but again, their failure does not excuse your failure. Reverting 1 or 2 good faith changes without checking the talk page may be reasonable. But if you're going to mass revert, checking at least 2 or 3 talk pages before doing so is the only reasonable thing to do. And getting back to the edit summary point, your edit summary was still terrible in this case. What you should have said is something like "the editor didn't say 'see talk' so I'm going to assume there was no discussion but who knows if there is any" or something similar. Of course that's a silly edit summary to leave demonstrating why not even checking 2 or 3 talk pages before reverting is silly.

  If my initial understanding is correct and you did check out a few talk pages before reverting but came across examples like Guyana, I stand by my comment. There is no way in heck I would read your edit summary as indicating there was a talk page comment you were aware of but you found it insufficient. My reading of your edit summary would be that NA1000 had left no commentary anywhere you were aware of, besides any edit summaries, of their changes rather than they had opened a (too vague in your view) talk page discussion with no other participants as of yet.

  And to be clear, I don't care how poor NA1000's edit summary was in discussing your edit summary. I'm sure you've declined plenty of unblocks where someone has explained how wrong some other editor is. Whatever wrongs NA1000 has made, it does not excuse your poor behaviour. NA1000's poor behaviour (edit summaries in this case) did not force you to behave poorly (again with edit summaries) so I find it completely fair to criticise your poor behaviour (edit summaries). You made that choice. You had the option to properly explain the situation in the edit summaries but you did not do so. Instead, you chose to give terrible edit summaries. Don't make such a big deal over NA1000's poor edit summaries when you're doing no better.

  The fact that it would not have altered your decision to revert is largely beside the point. I never said you should not have reverted. What I did say is you should not have left such terrible edit summaries (assuming you either were aware of the talk page comments or were not aware because you didn't check even 1 talk page). What I also said, was that since NA1000 had started a discussion with no participants as of yet, and you I assume had specific problems with their edits more than insufficient discussion, no matter if you felt their comments were too vague or whatever, you needed to join in if you were aware of that comments NA1000 left. I believe many of their comments were similar, so it was probably reasonably to just join 1 or 2 of them, perhaps suggesting some sort of unified discussion. What was not reasonably was to completely ignore them if you were aware of them. Frankly even if you weren't aware, you still needed to begin discussion somewhere since one of you needed to. And it's lame to wait for the other party when it's clear there's an active dispute. (To be clear, this applies to both sides as I've said several times including I think somewhere in this length discussion.) Remembering that ultimately the only way the dispute can be resolved is if those who feel the edits are beneficial and those who feel they are not talk it out, seeking the help of other parties if they can't come to a WP:consensus by themselves.

  Incidentally, I agree with others that your comment's on someone having a "low intelligence" is a serious personal attack and seriously unbecoming of an admin. It's possible to talk about how someone has competence problems without needing to insult their intelligence. Plenty of clearly very intelligent people have major problems editing. When I first joined this discussion, I felt that both sides were equally at fault. I'm now starting to change my mind and it's not because of evidence the other side has provided, it's because of the evidence you're providing on yourself. (This doesn't mean there is no poor behaviour on the other side.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: Thanks for the correction

The fact remains that only on one portal did I see I summaries which explained what was added. On no edit summaries anywhere did I see a "see talk" or equivalent comment, as recommended by WP:EDITSUMCITE. Nonetheless, as I stated, I did check some talk pages, and those that I found nothing of any value, as on Portal:Guyana, and no sign of discussion. So when I saw a pattern of no useful or sufficient explanation, I gave up. This, on most of my reverts, I didn't check the talk page. Note that if NA1K had wanted to draw anyone's attention to info added later on the talk page, they could simply have made a dummy edit to note that. That was never done.

I simply don't know how you got from what I wrote above the conclusion that didn't even check any talk pages before reverting. That simply isn't what happened, and it's not what I said.

In the course of this discussion at ANI, I became aware that NA1K had in some cases added a list of articles to thee talk page. When I examined those it was unclear if that was a complete list of those added, or how they were selected from a much wider set. If I had been aware of those then I would of course have an edit summary which reflected that.

You are deeply critical of my edit summaries, Revert undiscussed change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed. These reflected the information which I had at the time. In some cases they later turn out to be partially mistaken, but I am very disappointed that you choose to come down so hard on me for summarising in above-average detail the info which I had when I wrote them. Any statement may be subsequently found to have omitted some relevant info, but it is perverse to describe an edit summary a "terrible" for describing what was known when it as written … esp when NA1K failed to follow long-stablished guidance on how to alert other editors to the existence of talk page commentary.

As to my comment about low intelligence, you seem to entirely overlook the context. First, this was not about a problem in editing (which for many people is dauntingly complex); it was about a persistent problem of NA1K's to communicate their reasoning or intentions, to resolve a disagreement. That is a core skill in a collaborative project. Secondly, NA1K is not a new editor finding their way in an environment with unfamiliar software; they are an admin of several years standing, and a prolific contributor, so they ae long past that initial learning phase. Thirdly, it seems that I would in hindsight have been better to use a generic phrase such as "sustained lack of competence" rather than speculating as I did on why that competence might be lacking .. but that sort of phrasing is simply a way of implying those issues without stating them directly. I am sad to see that some editors are much more concerned about my overly-specific phrasing than in examining the substantive problems which I was describing.

Please do remember that this observation was made in a reply to you in which I explained substantive problems, and mentioned more. WP:CIR notes (inter alia) the need for "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus" and "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up".

In these case of NA1k I have a pile of evidence that their ability to communicate has significant deficiencies, that in many cases they demonstrated sustained lack of comprehension, and above that all their ability to understand their own abilities and competencies is poor. These problems were described at some length in NA1K's two RFAs, and they underpin a lot of conflicts over the last few months. It is invidious to pounce on one piece of my phrasing without also considering the substantive point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think most would think holding off on nominating portals you messed up giving the community time to evaluate the mass reverts that the majority here think are contentious.--Moxy 🍁 15:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I didn't mess up any portals. I reverted a many instances of a sneaky attempt at creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. If you want to know who messed up portals, look at those who deleted subpages, and at NA1K's sneaky blanking of portal sub-pages[295][296] using a dishonest edit summary, and their attempt to blame me for the consequences of their sneakiness.

If there is an RFC on the issues involved, as I suggested, then I will of course hold off MFDing any of the relevant portals until it has closed. And obviously I won't be MFDing them while this discussion is still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As stated by multiple editors multiple times giving multiple examples there is clearly some problems. Taking responsibility and recognizing there is some problems over saying the same thing over and over would help us see some good faith on your part. As on now the I am right and all others wrong seems unsustainable at this point.--Moxy 🍁 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: I admire your desire to see if NA1K and BHG can talk it out. I simply don't have time at the moment to really read and think through their walls of text but if you can find a way forward that they both can agree to so we can stop coming back to noticeboards and not end-up at ArbCom the community would be better off for it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's the goal. Everyone has their blind spots and both editors are reasonable people, so I think we can figure something out. Interpersonal conflict is like a knot in a rope: the only way to remove the knot and keep the rope intact is to get in there and untie it. Some knots are complicated, but if it was tied it can be untied. Hopefully we can remove the knot without cutting it out. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not Time for an RFC on Portal Structure

I disagree with the idea of having an RFC on portal structure at this time, while there are still hundreds of low-readership portals, some of which have other problems also. I disagree with an RFC on portal structure because we can see from experience that, when it is closed with a consensus on the best portal structure, the portalistas will use it to argue for keeping all remaining portals that have been converted to that structure. They have been misusing the RFC eighteen months ago not to abolish portals to argue that it provides consensus for portals in general, and they will misuse another RFC as an argument to keep bad portals that have been converted. That is just my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• A well prepared RfC would be a good idea, unlike the typical RfC. The focus and nuance of the question to ask could probably be the subject of its own RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

More portals broken from BHG's drive-by reversions – Update #2

The following is a list of more portals that have been broken by BHG's reversions. None of these errors were present when I finished working on these portals.

• Portal:Malawi – DYK section now broken, consisting of a sea of red links.
• Portal:Switzerland – The New articles (stubs) section is broken, displaying no content and existing as a glaring blank box on the page.
• Portal:Uganda – DYK section is now a sea of red links.
• Portal:Liberia – DYK section is now yet another sea of red links.
• Portal:Panama – Header layout messed up, and the page is now imbalanced. Lead section is also now messy, and now provides limited information compared to its previous state.
• Portal:Turkmenistan – Many red links restored by BHG, that were cleaned up before. Now they're back.
• Portal:Somaliland – Minor layout errors remain in place that weren't there before, such as the purge server cache link now existent in the middle of the portal.
• Portal:Belize – Restored a bright red link in the Selected article section.

As I have stated already, it appears that BHG did not bother to check their work afterwards, instead just reverting and then closing the page, just to perform the same problematic edits afterwards, one after another, resulting in yet more errors. I would fix these problems myself, but then I would be edit warring, so these portals remain in a dumbed-down state. Hopefully someone will fix these errors soon, because Wikipedia's WP:READERS deserve better. BHG's edits have not improved Wikipedia's portals, they have broken them. Rather than double-checking their work, they have spent their time here working to discredit the fine work I have performed to improve portals. Meantime, the portals above remain in a broken state, and I spend my time now requesting for someone to fix the problems in lieu of edit warring. What an absurd mess, and I still have not gone through the whole list above yet. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to function whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Look at what's happened here: NA1K's quest to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI across scores of portals has involved a scorched earth strategy of making it difficult to revert their changes.

I restored all these portals to versions which had been working. However, it seems that there has been a systematic process underway of deleting sub-pages, which means that in some cases the working versions which I restored are using sub-pages which no longer exist. It was a quick and trivial matter to fix most of those, by simply commenting out the DYK sections, which were usually full of stale and/or fake DYKs.

Some other glitches will need more attention.

But NA1K's post here illustrates again how they have been trying to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI:

• massively restructuring dozens of portals without ever disclosing their plan, let alone seeking consensus for it
• trying to make reversion as difficult as possible
• converting portals to a black box format where the list of articles is no longer visible without editing the page, and doesn't include a set of clickable
• sneakily adding to dozens of portals large sets of articles chosen by them, without discussion and without full disclosure of the list and criteria. NA1K has unilaterally appointed themself as the sole selector of content for a large chunk of portal-space, using deliberately vague boilerplate edit summaries such Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content, which don't disclose what article was added
• blaming me for errors created by NA1K, e.g. on Portal:Iceland where NA1K complained of blank sections. When I investigated, I found that the two pages involved had been blanked by NA1K[297][298] with the edit summary "ce", which is the common shorthand for copyedit. In other words, NA1K had blanked pages (a no-no), with a deceitful edit summary and was now blaming me for the consequences of their own deceitful actions.

NA1K has been WP:Gaming the system on a massive scale, and is now using a classic FUD strategy pf attack and misinformation to try to cover their tracks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• A comment: I do not believe I would be calling NA1K's changes as they have done under FAITACCOMPLI. Consider how FAITACCOMPLI came about - it was one editor nominating a mass number of articles in a similar subject area for AFD, thus forcing the editors in that project area to have to rush under the limited time factor of AFD to respond. It has been used with editors making difficult-to-reverse mass actions (eg admin broom needed). Are NA1k's actions of that type? No. For one, using Portal:Guinea as an example, NA1K took thirty minutes to incorporate content on one day, a couple more changes the next, and coming back a few weeks later for the final step. That's definitely not "automatic". Spot checking others on the list above, show a reasonable amount of care to make sure the portal was updated correctly. Checking the reverts by BHG, that was just rollbacking all of NA1k, which is far from the amount of effort that has to be questioned to be considered within FAITACCOMPLI - its easy and requires no admin rights. So no, I do not think at all the FAITACCOMPLI argument holds up here. NA1K appeared to methodolically fixing portals, BHG reverts all those changes rather quickly, and there was no deadline to revert those changes. --Masem (t) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: as I am sure you aware, what happens at Arbcom is that the arbs step back from the details to assert broad principles of wide applicability, and then proceed to apply them to the case in question.

As a result, their statement of WP:FAITACCOMPLI does not mention AFD or CFD or automatic edits, or ay of he factors which you mention. It is much broader than that. It specifically says " It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change". That is precisely what has happened here, and it is very notable that one of NA1Ks repeated criticisms is that my reverts to a stable version have led to errors, in every case because subsequent other changes have been made to other pages which impeded restoration. The whole thrust of NA1K's responses, such as the list above, has been try to demonstrate that they believe they have exhausted my ability to contest the change by making reversion impossible without disproportionate effort. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Spot-checking, before NA1k went through their edits, the pages were already full of red-links (missing DYK things like at the Latin America one). Their changes removed that, your revert restored them, though in the case of the Latin America one, you did later go through and strip the empty DYK. But what I looked to make sure was that NA1k was not trying to make changes on a Portal, make irreversible changes on other pages that were being included/transcluded into the portal, such that the net result would have been that if you reverted their changes, it would have completely broken the portal in a new way. As best as I can tell, all of NA1k's changes were not permanent and could be undone, but they also all started at a start where if the Portals already had red-links and were "broken", his changes removed them and your reverts restored them - that is for Latin America [299] there was no change in how the page behaved outside of one color change. I do agree that NA1k trying to call out your reverts as introducing red-links a bit misleading because the red-links were already there before they touched the portal - you did not create them. But to the point of FAIT, your ability to contest the change has not been diminished; you were able to revert them all, and re-revert those that attempted to revert you. You had to do that on a fair number of portals, but as there's no time element here as there would be at AFD, I fail to see how your ability to challenge their changes is exhausted. As this is a content issue (outside of the behavioral problems in discussion), there are many open challenges for you to get consensus related to the change (standard dispute resolution). So I have to dismiss FAIT applies here. --Masem (t) 00:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

To add/clarify, the reverse argument that BGH's edits are FAITACCOMPLI on NA1k are also not justified for the same reason: NA1k has not lost the ability to contest these edits and there's no deadline to get Portals right, following all the same points above. Bonus for NA1k is that should consensus side with them ultimately, their hours of work are not lost thanks to the change log, and "restoring" that version will be simple. --Masem (t) 00:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that second clarification, Masem.

However, your earlier comment (at 00:31) misses the point of WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I reverted NA1K's edit to what appeared to be the best version before they made radical changes. However, other later changes to subpages by NA1K mean that the revert did not restore a fully working version, and Na1K has been repeatedly attacking me for that. The effect is that it is not possible to revert NA1K's changes without also reverting a series of edits and page moves to supbpages, and restoring some deleted sub-pages. That makes restoring the status quo ante a highly compex and laborious task, and NA1K repeatedly attacks me for not having completed every step of a complex process which NA1K has created. FAIT says "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change" … but that is precisely what has been happening here. NA1K has made a huge volume of complex, inter-related changes to sets of pages, and is now crowing over the fact that they have exhausted my ability to revert those changes without introducing errors which are the result of other edits by NA1K.

Consider e.g. one NA1K's previous lists of complaints[300], where NA1K writes Portal:Iceland – now posting no content at times in the Selected articles section

I replied a few hours later[301], noting that those errors arose from NA1K's action of removing the content from those subpages in two edits [302][303] whose edits summaries ("ce", the conventional shorthand for "copyedit") in no way indicated the radical step of removing their content, let alone explained why this was done. I reverted those blankings, and fixed the problems … but by any measure, those edits were sneaky in effect (whether or not the sneakiness was intentional). That is example of why this all adds up a FAITACCOMPLI: NA1K is vocally denouncing the consequences of my revert due to issues created by NA1k themself. In effect, Na1K is demanding that any editor who wishes to revert should examine every edit made by NA1K to that portal or its subpages, paying no regard to NA1K's wildly misleading edit summaries. That a very good to way to "exhaust their ability to contest the changes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More portals broken from BHG's drive-by reversions - Update #3

More of the same as per the above. There are also additional errors in these and other pages listed above that are more subtle in nature that I spotted, but I tire, so here are some more highlights. None of these errors were present when I finished working on these portals. Hopefully an uninvolved user can fix these problems; if I do it, it would be edit warring. So, here are yet more inferiorized portals. Getting there, only about 20 more entries or so from the list above left to inspect. What a way to build an encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Portal:United Arab Emirates – Page is now cluttered, sources section removed, purge link in the middle of the portal, sloppy visual layout overall. A mess.
• Portal:Language – Page layout now in a sloppy state.
• Portal:Lithuania – Imbalanced page layout. Sources section now gone.

Personal attacks

The above thread has become hopelessly personalized in general, but I am particularly bothered by BrownHairedGirl's decision to attribute low intelligence to NA1K [304]. As BHG apparently does not intend to respond to my objection to this comment above, I am going to press the issue here because I believe that a bright line has been crossed. A non-admin might very well have been blocked for such a comment. Unless we intend to let this thread devolve into a free-for-all, the personal commentary needs to be stopped. Lepricavark (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: What do you think about WP:NPA? --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark and QEDK: sorry; I only just noticed your pings.

Please read my comment[305] in context. I was trying to describe and explain the extreme and recurring difficulties faced in communicating with NA1K about any point of disagreement. There is a large body of evidence I could supply to explain how I reached the conclusion that this seems to be a factor and also how other editors have publicly expressed similar conclusions, but I don't want to pile it on. I made what I felt was the minimum necessary explanation of the problem which I was repeatedly encountering, and while I regret that it was necessary to say, I do believe that it was necessary to mention it in that context.

I have re-read WP:NPA, and it doesn't seem that NPA prevents even the mention of such an issue when it is relevant in context (which his was), and when it is not used with intent to attack (which this wasn't).

I would be very happy for all the personal commentary to stop, but sadly NA1K has used this ANI discussion as venue for repeated attacks on me, and sustained misrepresentations. That's why I have explained my analysis in reply to another editor.

I have repeatedly proposed centralised discussions on the two key issues of how portals should be structured, and how decisions should be made on what articles they should include. I still believe that this would be a far more productive path for the community than the personalisation which is an inevitable consequence of trying to resolve a content dispute at ANI, and urge again that this whole issue be taken back to the realm of policy and guideline where it belongs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As an adminstrator, you're supposed to uphold the five pillars of Wikipedia, making comments (here, personal attacks) like "low intelligence" (regardless of any context) diminishes the integrity of your adminship and the mandate with which you were elected. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, I mentioned that as one of three possibilities to explain problematic behaviour.

It was not intended as a personal attack.

It seems to me to be perverse to suggest that even when similar problems have been noted before, and a discussion is taking place on how to resolve the issues, it should be verboten to even mention an issue which was discussed in much greater detail at NA1K's two RFAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Calling them "possibilities" does not negate them being personal attacks. I didn't seek a justification, I said that you crossed the bright red WP:NPA line and there is no context that makes it permissible. I never rejected the possibility of NA1K's behaviour requiring more deliberation, but now I'm just talking about the personal attacks you're employing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the effect of what you are saying is that a mention of CIR issues is automtically a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think PAs like "low intelligence" = "mention of CIR issues"... I honestly have nothing else to tell you apart from the fact that your reading of WP:NPA and the meaning of the term "personal attack" are both deeply malformed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I remain appalled that possibly ill-chosen two words are being taken out of context, and are being used as a aresaon to ignore the evidence (which all he way goes back to NA1K's) RFAs that there seems to be a stream of CIR issues here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Repeatedly accusing NA1k of having made "sneaky edits", which I interpret as accusing NA1k of having deliberately tried to evade scrutiny, are also personal attacks (WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behaviour without evidence are personal attacks"). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thomas W, I have repeatedly posted evidence of the sneaky edits, tho I have not repeated the evidence on every occasion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I can find the edits myself, but diffs for the edits isn't enough, you need to provide evidence for the edits having been deliberate attempts to evade scrutiny. Your interpretation of when WP:NPA does or doesn't apply also seems a bit odd, because you believing that someone has "low intelligence", and you feeling that something needs to be said, does not automatically mean that WP:NPA doesn't apply to you... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thomas, please re-read what I wrote. I stated that I saw 3 possible factors, of which this is one. It was not intended as personal attack. I do hope that you are not claiming that such CIR issues may not be even mentioned, even when there is a pile of evidence available.

As to the sneaky edits problem, I have posted plenty of evidence already, but unfortunately it is scattered around the unseemly brawl which this discussion has become. The sheer pile of long sets of attack barrages which NA1k and a few others have posted means that discussion is multiply fragmented and multiply repetitive. I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by continuing this free-for-all.

So if someone wants to set up some structure to state a list of complaints which I can address, they I will respond with evidence. But, however well-intentioned your comments, I don't feel that it constructive for me to continue to try to answer variants of the same question many different times. That places an unfair burden on me, and does nothing to resolve the issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that BHG does a lot of valuable and thankless maintenance work in this area, but this thread is indeed concerning (the low intelligence comment as well as the many instances of accusing NA1k, and subsequently mr rnddude, of being "sneaky"). There was also this other, related thread started by a different user a few months ago. These seem to me signs that it may be time to take a voluntary break from portals for a couple months? (this is just a suggestion, not a proposal FWIW) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps BHG has made some unwise comments, but on the other hand it's perhaps not surprising when there are also a significant number of attacks on BHG above by multiple editors; "The mass reverts were not in good faith", "having a conflict of interest", "stalking a good faith admin", " I am sure a non-admin would be sanctioned for this disruption", "This is unacceptable behavior for any editor", "BHG could potentially be gaming the system", "stop hounding", "mindless, knee-jerk reversions". There's a word for that, and it's "bullying". Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• That goes both ways, so I see no reason to make the excuse only for BHG. And I think that it goes beyond 'unwise' for one admin to suggest that another admin is lacking in intelligence. I'm not satisfied by BHG's explanations above, either. Lepricavark (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• I find this to be one of the most damaging phenomena that happens on ANI: when someone is called out by multiple people for problematic behavior towards another editor, and manages to get cast as the victim. What you are labeling bullying looks an awful lot like many different editors finding problems with BHG's approach/comments here. These are policy/guideline-based objections to behavior, and you have equated them with directly insulting an editor's intelligence (and repeatedly doubling down on it/defending it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• It is not a good look for an administrator (and any editor) to justify personal attacks but here we are — and honestly, I did not expect you to defend BHG on this. If your point was that BHG is a good adminstrator, I would have accepted it despite your pointed attacks ("mostly male") to diminish the editors who chose to raise an issue. Not cool at all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• So none of those comments above are personal attacks? I call it as I see it, and a large amount of (mostly male) editors attacking a long-term productive female editor is not a good look to me. That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree with it. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh look, there's another one by User:Certes ... It is well past time that something was done to end this blatant misconduct.. Doesn't look good at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Is that supposed to have a chilling effect on editors who are criticizing questionable behavior from an admin? Lepricavark (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Genuine criticism is fine. The comments I listed above go past criticism. Black Kite (talk)

• Which apparently is still acceptable when the comments come from BHG. Lepricavark (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Either both are acceptable or both are not - and it should be the latter. As I said above, BHG has also made some unwise comments. Meanwhile, the dogpiling is continuing in the sections below. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Although a lot of those are personal attacks, I am not convinced gender has anything to do with it. When a male editor on ANI gets dogpiled and ranted at, most of the ranters are male as well. That's just how the WP editor demographics fall. The real problem here is that, once again, unilaterally making a lot of crappy edits to a lot of pages is perfectly fine but reverting them as part of the BRD cycle is apparently a very extreme felony. Reyk _YO! 07:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Certes, I am not of aware of any instance where NA1K claimed to have given prior notice on its talk page. These were post-facto notices stating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

In any case, as NA1K had themselves acknowledged, portal talk pages are little scrutinised, so any notice there is by NA1K's evaluation, clearly inadequate.

As to the rest, I stand by my assertions. If you want to list them as a complaint, them I can respond them one by one. But raising them as side-swipes like this in unhelpful.

As to "warmonger", it was Certes who back in February described the discussions on deletion of portalpsam as a "war on portals". It was Certes own choice to cast himself in such battlefield style, and Certes's battleground response to good faith efforts at consensus-seeking was indeed warmonger behaviour. I hope Certes will take the opportunity to belatedly withdraw that disgraceful remark, and to acknowledge the role tat Certes played in turning poral cleanup into a battlefield.

As to Moxy, there recurrent problem that Moxy fails to demonstrate comprehension of what has been written, and resorts to abuse. Moxy's frequent lapses of comprehension are not my fault. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• While I agree that behaviour on both sides has been problematic, I consider the "low intelligence" comment a serious step too far and would personally support a block of BHG for that comment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Suggested Truce

I have a suggestion both to reduce further quarreling and to reduce further damage to portals, most of which are inherently flawed anyway. There are two parts to it, and they are not each dependent on the other part being accepted.

First, I suggest that User:BrownHairedGirl stop reverting the undiscussed changes to portals, whether by User:Northamerica1000 or anyone else, unless BHG is prepared to argue that the original portal was in good shape. Since I think that BHG thinks that most of the portals in question are not in good shape, I certainly don't see that it is worth making an issue about changing from a format that we both agree is unsound, with content-forked subpages that rot, to another format that BHG calls a black box. (I personally think that the black box is less problematic than content forks, but that is only my opinion.) I suggest that BHG just stop reverting the portals, regardless of whether the changes to portals should be discussed. In my opinion, it isn't worth reverting the portal unless one actually thinks that the original design was good.

Second, I suggest that User:Northamerica1000 stop the frantic undiscussed conversion of portals from content-forks to black boxes. It isn't likely to satisfy the portal critics anyway. It isn't that much of an improvement, and rather than saying that the portal hasn't been maintained since 2013, the portal critics will say that it wasn't maintained from 2013 to 2019 and might be abandoned again.

I am not offering this simply as a proposed agreement that requires both parties to agree. I am suggesting that each of the two admins on their own back off from this edit-war. I am more optimistic that maybe BHG will listen than than NA1k will listen. I haven't known NA1k to listen to reason, but I am still hoping. I do know that BHG is reasonable. It isn't worth the edit-wars to revert changes between two types of portal designs if you dislike both of them.

I don't know what is wrong with the black box format anyway. It is true that I can't see what is inside it without going into programmer mode by editing the portal, but I can't see what is inside a content-forked portal without going into programmer mode by querying the prefix index and clicking the links.

That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I have already stopped reverting the black box portals, since the matter is under discussion. I intend to exercise that restraint until the matter is resolved. However, if I the long-overdue RFCs don't happen, and NA1K resumes their spree without prior consensus-building, then I will reconsider.

User:BrownHairedGirl - Thank you. As I noted above, I don't want those RFCs, because the portal advocates will misuse the result, and will argue that there is consensus for keeping all portals that have the preferred architecture. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As to the black box issue, see e.g. Portal:Ireland. It links two ways of viewing the article list:

1. at the bottom of the "selected article" box, there is a link entitled "More selected articles", which links to Portal:Ireland/Selected article archive
2. at bottom of the page there is a link entitled "Sub-pages of Portal:Ireland", which links to Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Ireland

One the black box portals, the first link doesn't exist, and the second one doesn't lead to any indication of what the articles are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I see. All single-page portals are black boxes. I had not been aware of those features. After fifty years of looking inside of code, I still tend to look inside code. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not so, @Robert McClenon. Not all single-page portals are black boxes. Some are brilliantly transparent, e.g. Portal:Wind power (tho that one has a few other fixable flaws).

Sadly, NA1K chose to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by unilaterally rolling out on a huge scale a type of single-page portal which is a black box. I don't know whether NA1K deliberately chose a black box format, or whether they were unaware of the alternatives, or what their reasoning was. However, I do note that NA1K to failed consult, and that since the problem has been pointed out, NA1K's response has been the standard NA1K response of denial, ignoring the substance, and attack attack attack attack attack.

This is not collegial behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Closure?

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look and see if this can be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• With no action taken, not even a reprimand for repeated personal attacks? Something that seems to be a "chronic , intractable personal behavioural problem" (one of the things this board is for according to the banner at the top) since it has been discussed here before, with no action taken then either... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• As I posted in the section above, it's hardly a one-way street. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not talking only about what has happened in this discussion, but also about the multiple reverts like this, with accusations about NA1k having made sneaky additions. Edit summaries that can't be excused by having been provoked. And that it isn't a new problem can be seen here. With plenty of diffs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W, those edits sumaries are based on the facts of what happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

One option is to close with a statement which summarises only the content issue but records that several editors (myself included) report serious incivility and explicitly leaves open the option of dealing with that matter in a separate discussion now or later. Certes (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Certes, if you really want to go down that path, then I will have pile of evidence of severe civility breaches by other editors. It seems that you want some sort of kangaroo court where you and a few other portal fans can hurl much at me without consequence, while nit-picking my words out-of-context.

As to the content issues, ANI is not a venue for resolving content disputes. To resolve content issues, use WP:RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite the forum, this debate has de facto been mainly about content, specifically whether to revert certain edits, so I have refrained from commenting on conduct. If you would prefer it to be about conduct, there is much more to be said. As the top of the page says, ANI is Wikipedia's accepted forum for the sort of chronic, intractable behavioural problem we face here and I hope you do not consider it to be a kangaroo court. Certes (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Certes, this "debate" has been a bizarre mixture of content and conduct, with neither examined clearly. It fails on both counts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I have participated in some Portal MfDs and can see how emotive this is getting (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Finger Lakes (2nd nomination)). It is a pity NA1K and BHG are on opposite sides of this as they are so hugely productive (per the scale of this ANI thread above). In fact, the mess of portals would probably overwhelm lesser editors. Could some kind of a demarcation line be drawn here? Ultimately, we have a large list of portals that are in bad shape and need pruning; quick fixes and a few DYKs etc. getting added by NA1K is not to going resolve them (and only perpetuates the problem). BHG should be allowed to work on these uninterrupted. We have other portals that could/should be saved, and NA1K should be allowed to work on these uninterrupted. The project will benefit - we have hundreds (literally) of portals that need BHG's attention, and we have a good number of portals (I don't have insight on what this number is), that need NA1K's attention. Is there a way that could be facilitated for BHG/NA1K to agree on such a demarcation of the portal space to at least give both a few months of peace/enjoyment on WP? Would this help? Is this practicable? It might only defer future conflict, but hopefully, the scale of the mess that is portals would be reduced in both directions, and a better discussion might emerge? Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance, I would very happily leave NA1K's work alone if it was based on a consensus.

However, no consensus has been sought for black box portals … and no consensus has been sought for the process of the article lists for a huge chunk of portalspace being rewritten unilaterally and sneakily by one editor with no demonstrable expertise in the topics, using no clearly stated criteria, and who has a well-documented history of poor judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I can see that things are too far gone between yourself and NA1K to form any kind of stable agreement now. However, in a strange way, the best chance WP has of getting to some kind of lasting improvement on portals is via yourself and NA1K (i.e. you pruning, and NA1K saving, but on a mega-scale because this is a mega-mess). Is there a set of questions that the community could answer that would form the basis of a useful demarcation between pruning and saving around portals? Perhaps we might need a larger DMZ at the outset just to get things going - big problems (and portals are a big problem) gets resolved easier when their sheer scale is reduced. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I have already made a clear commitment above to refrain from further revers pending the outcome of RFCs to resolve the issues in dispute, and uphold the outcomes of those RFCs. What do yo feel that a DMZ would add to that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:. Yes, I think that is very helpful, and I think the RfCs could help set out a demarcation/clarification on what the community wants/does not want. My DMZ is only suggested to the extent that it would give NA1K and yourself more clear water for a time, while you both can pursue your work on portals. However, it may not be needed or useful? If a set of clear/targeted RfCs can help clarify issues/reduce/compartmentalise the complexity of the portal problem, than that is even better. Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: What sort of "work" or "attention" do you feel that those portals which NA1K avoids would receive? Deletion, reversion to an ancient set of copy-pasted ledes, or some other type of edit? Certes (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: The normal type of work done at MfD where the community decides (e.g per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Finger Lakes (2nd nomination)). Currently, NA1K is spread so thin trying to revive portals that nobody is interested in. NA1K should develop categories of portals that people are at least partially interest in maintaining, and build from there. We have two highly productive (bizarrely so) editors here that are massive assets to Wikipedia. Regardless of where anybody sits on portals, there are lots that need pruning and lots that need saving. To deny that is not credible. I do not have the portal experience to be helpful in setting/facilitating such a demarcation, but I am sure there are others that can? Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly prefer for a formal closure to occur, particularly regarding the "Should BrownHairedGirl's mass portal reversions be reverted, to restore portal improvements that occurred?" section above. Many users above have agreed with my notion that the rapid reversions were performed in a disruptive manner, and I'd like for the many hours of work that I have performed over the course of months to have a chance to be restored. If it's not, a very poor precedent will be in place, in which users can continue to rapidly perform mass reversions to many pages by the simple act of pressing a button, making the BRD process just about impossible by the sheer massive volume of drive-by reversions, and if the original contributor reverts, it would then be considered as edit warring. Portal talk pages receive little input on average, so discussion regarding matters is unlikely to gain consensus one way or another, which results in the mass reverter getting their way, all by simply driving-by, clicking a button on a page and copy/pasting a canned edit summary for each page, one after another. Per this formula, the reverter is essentially rewarded by performing a high number of rapid, drive-by reversions, because again, the high volume makes BRD discussion for each page almost impossible and overwhelming. All of this equates to holding the work of others hostage, and it is wrong. Furthermore, the viewpoints of all in the "should the reversions be reverted" section above should be taken into consideration, rather than summarily dismissed, which would also be wrong. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• NA1K, that is demand for ANI to adjudicate on a content dispute, which ANI has consistently refused to do before, for a host of very good reasons.

It also asking ANI to resolve that content dispute without the normal basis for such a discussion, which is a brief statement from each side on the core issues. That is a very bad way to resolve a content dispute.

NA1K's complaint about the BRD process being impossible has merit only there is no centralised discussion to resolve the two issue which are common to all my reverts. Why does NA1K continue to resist or ignore (I'm not sure which applies) my proposal for RFCs to establish a community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As multiple editors have stated that this discussion is, or should be, about conduct rather than content, here are some words I had hoped not to have to write. Improving a page after giving notice on its talk page is not "sneaky". That is just the latest in a long line of personal abuse and ad hominem argument in which anyone who supports portals is described variously as a bully, a serial liar, a warmonger and lacking in judgement – for dozens of examples, see the August AN case. Too many discussions lead to personal conflicts between BHG and Moxy, BHG and NA1K, BHG and myself, BHG and BHG... it is hard not to see a pattern emerging. Being unblockable does not grant exemption from WP:CIVIL; it creates a duty to set a good example. It is well past time that something was done to end this blatant misconduct. Certes (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• So because BHG disagrees with a lot of people, she must be wrong? The only pattern I see arising here is not the one you're describing. Oh, and your post is also a personal attack. But that's OK, because it's you and not BHG, am I correct? Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Certes, I am not of aware of any instance where NA1K claimed to have given prior notice on its talk page. These were post-facto notices stating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

In any case, as NA1K had themselves acknowledged, portal talk pages are little scrutinised, so any notice there is by NA1K's evaluation, clearly inadequate.

As to the rest, I stand by my assertions. If you want to list them as a complaint, them I can respondto them one by one. But raising them as side-swipes like this resolves nothing.

As to "warmonger", it was Certes who back in February described the discussions on deletion of portalpsam as a "war on portals". It was Certes own choice to cast himself in such battlefield style, and Certes's battleground response to good faith efforts at consensus-seeking was indeed warmonger behaviour. I hope Certes will take the opportunity to belatedly withdraw that disgraceful remark, and to acknowledge the role tat Certes played in turning poral cleanup into a battlefield.

As to Moxy, there is recurrent problem that Moxy fails to demonstrate comprehension of what has been written, and resorts to abuse. Moxy's frequent lapses of comprehension are not my fault. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. I believe that this is the first time in twelve years of editing that I have come here to speak against a fellow editor in this way. I do so very reluctantly and only because it is the worst case of chronic incivility that I have witnessed on Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am unsurprised that you stand by that, Certes. My comments have been against the worst cases I have seen on Wikipedia of CIR issues, which have led to widescale disruptive editing by those involved. It seems that some editors are more concerned about the discomfort caused by noting these problems than by the substantive problems. That's a great basis for sustaining a social club, but it's a terrible easy to build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: A 30-day break from portal-related work for both parties

Snow opposed after >24 hours. Involved close: Mr rnddude (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not the first time these parties have clashed, and both seem excessively drawn out by a single topic area. I propose, for their own good (and to give us a break from this issue recurring) that both User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Northamerica1000 take a break from anything to do with portals for thirty days. There is plenty of other work to be done in the encyclopedia without touching that corner of it, and perhaps some time away from it will give both parties some helpful perspective. Since they are basically on opposite sides of whatever the issue is, both of them stepping back from the area for a time will prevent any imbalance in ongoing discussions. To the extent that either of them is doing work in that area that no one else is doing, 1) no one will die if it has to wait a month, or be worked on by other editors and 2) Wikipedia as a whole cannot allow itself to become dependent on the work of any one (or two) editors. Trust me, the great portal debate will still be ongoing in thirty days. I am suggesting this as a voluntary step for the parties to agree to, although I would not be surprised if the community as a whole would agree to imposing this mandatorily. bd2412 T 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC) This isn't really a debate about the overall concept of portals, though, it's about whether or not BHG's actions were disruptive and whether or not their rapid drive-by reversions that erased many hours of my work that occurred over months of time should be undone. Did you read the discussion above? You characterized it as "whatever the issue is", so it seems possible that you are not aware of the context presented. North America1000 21:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC) The issue presented to ANI is conduct. My impression from the ongoing conflict is that this is bringing about the most combative instincts in both of you. What happens to the portals in the interim is of minimal relevance to the consumption of resources that the back-and-forth is engendering. bd2412 T 21:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC) It's sad to see that even at this stage, NA!K continues to simply deny that there were substantive reasons why I made those reverts. I expected NA1K to disagree with my reasons, but the continued attempt to deny that they exist is just bizarre. What we now need is RFCs to establish a community consensus on how to build portals, so that the issues in dispute don't recur. In the discussion above, have already pledged to refrain from any further reversions at least until that RFC is closed and such reverts were in keeping with the consensus, so the chance of problems recurring is already resolved. So I don't see how my having no involvement for 30 days would help, unless the intention is somehow to exclude me from RFCs, which seems odd. I am willing to draft those RFCs, or to work in co-operation with other editors to do so. Again, I don't see how recusal would help. My main contribution in portalspace is that, I do a lot of ongoing maintenance work on portal links. That work has been almost uncontroversial, and I don't see how it would help anyone to have that work stopped. So while appreciate BD2412's good faith, I see no gain from this measure, and its effect seems to be purely punitive. I think it would be very helpful if NA1k were to give a similar undertaking to mine, i.e. to refrain from edits related to the issues raised here until relevant RFCs have concluded. I stress that my commitment is unilateral and unconditional, and does not in any way depend on NA1K's response. However, it would be great to see NA1K commit to using consensus-building processes to resolve this dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC) It's supposed to be a bit punitive. You've been drawn too far into combativeness over the issues this work raises, and that can not come without consequences. The RFCs, like everything else, can wait a month. bd2412 T 22:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Given that I have already made an unconditional commitment to await the the outcome of the RFCs, the main effect of this punitive measure seems to be to delay dispute resolution. That seems perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Support. I am surprised that both admins. do not see that this very modest proposal is highly likely to benefit the project over the long term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Both involved parties have responded to this proposal by holding that they're in the right and that the other is the problem. As such, I think this is a great proposal that we should definitely implement. Vermont (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Actually, Vermont, that's not so. I have repeatedly proposed RFCs to resolve it. NA1K isn't interested in that consensus-building process. So here's a better suggestion. Why not rig the whole thing in favour of consensus? A 30-day break, but suspended for say 7 days to give me and NA1K time to agree on RFCs to resolve the content issues. If in that time, we haven't both signed off on the RFC drafts, we both get a 30-day break. That resets everything in favour of consensus-building, and gives us a structural incentive to co-operate. Win-win all round, surely? @BD2412:, what do you think of that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I continually fail to understand why you keep arguing that proposals like these, which are explicitly to gain community consensus over what action to take, is contrary to community consensus. Also, do you not state that you are in the right and that NA1K is the problem? You said my comment was false and then immediately prove my comment is factual. Honestly, this issue is not one of content. It's conduct. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Vermont, are you really seriously telling me that seeking an RFC to resolve content issues is inappropriate? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Of course not. You wrote, "Why not rig the whole thing in favour of consensus?", in part of your alternative to this proposal, thus implying that this proposal does not take into account community consensus, and that yours does. Regardless, I have clarified that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with content. The content dispute does not matter in relation to this ANI section, and I have no opinion on it. This is entirely about the hostilities between you and NA1K, where there are many faults on both sides, which must be addressed before we can expect the two of you to contribute happily together in portal-space. Vermont (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: I would consider that a positive step, but several editors in the discussion above have raised concerns about instances of your appearing to question the intelligence or honesty of those with whom you have disagreements. Even if you don't intend it that way, if others are seeing it and you are not, then you need , adequately to reflect on what you are doing to cause yourself to be perceived that way. bd2412 T 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @BD2412: I do not make such statements lightly. there are at least two editors involved who have demonstrated recurrent WP:CIR issues. If editors repeatedly conduct themselves in a way which raise CIR issues, then why is it unacceptable to raise that as a problem? If CIR is axiomatically applicable, then please seek consensus to delete it. Unless and until it is deleted, please consider my points on their merits rather than deeming them out-of-order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl, am I one of them? Vermont (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @Vermont: No. I would name those who I intended to refer to, but it seems that the current mood here is that mentioning CIR issues is a deplorable personal attack … while repeatedly disrupting WP by vocal participation despite demonstrable lack of competence is welcome. That's a very a terrible basis on which to build an encyclopedia; it's a variant of WP:Randy in Boise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Calling someone incompetent is almost always a personal attack. That you tried to downplay the definition of it confirms your recognition of such. Vermont (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC) If Calling someone incompetent is almost always a personal attack, then there is no wat that CIR concerns can be raised, let alone addressed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I've raised concerns regarding editor competence on several occasions in the past without finding it necessary to specifically attack an individual's intelligence. As Masem observed, Wiki-competence and intelligence are not entirely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) That doesn't answer my question. You wrote Calling someone incompetent is almost always a personal attack. How exactly can one raise concerns about someone's competence without in some form of words saying that one believes they lack competence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Vermont said that, not I. And for the record, I think you are raising a valid question. But I also think your original choice of words was poor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose. As I have stated, I feel that BHG's actions in performing these rapid drive-by reversions was highly disruptive to Wikipedia, and that it is a conduct issue that directly pertains to BHG. If a consensus forms that BHG's actions were indeed disruptive and that their drive-by reversions should be undone, which is certainly forming above in the "Should BHG's mass portal reversions be reverted" section, I would like to have an ability to potentially take part in the process, particularly if no one were to step up to perform doing so. As it stands now, the work I have performed over months of time is already now being held hostage, and said proposal could potentially extend this unfortunate inequity over another thirty days. North America1000 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @Northamerica1000: It appears likely to me that the outcome of the discussion above will be consensus to undo BHG's reversions of your edits. If that is the case, any editor can undertake that action. None of us can set ourselves up as indispensable to some aspect of the project. bd2412 T 23:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Is very striking that NA1K's response to my proposal for RFCs to resolve content issues is repeatedly to refer to NA1K's WP:FAITACCOMPLI edits being held hostage. This is a pure WP:Battlefield response to my repeated attempts at consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Support regretfully, as a community imposed remedy, unless the editors agree to voluntarily do so. If there is consensus to restore NA1k's edits, any of the many editors who opined above can perform it, or NA1k can perform it themselves in 30 days. If BHG is correct in saying that portals are useless and not viewed by readers, then no great harm will come by letting them sit for 30 days. You both have begun to climb the reichstag, and historically that hasn't ended well. I and other editors are concerned that with the way discussion has been going, things will wind up at ArbCom simply because neither of you is willing to drop the stick. I would prefer we as a community not have to expend more time and effort on another protracted ArbCom case about admin conduct over what has surely got to be one of the lamest edit wars. Even when I tried to get you both to talk it out there was still invective and an inability come to a compromise like rational adults; that discussion quickly fell apart while I slept despite other editors attempting to mediate as well. It's been three months since the last issues were brought to the Administrators' Noticeboard; this is too frequent and needs to stop. If you two cannot agree to a resolution, the community for its own sake will need to resolve this dispute. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose I have no concerns with NA1K's actions and it would be gross to sanction them. Lepricavark (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose I have read the whole case and feel that it would not be justifiable to punish NA1K. NA1K is an asset to Wikipedia. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC) If I were in their shoes, I would consider this proposal to more like an enforced vacation than a punishment. bd2412 T 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Strong oppose, that is just absurd. BHG has been systematically belittling and bullying NA1k over his portal work. Telling NA1k to not do any portal work for a while is letting the bully win (BHG doesn't do anything constructive in portal space anyway, she only works on deletion, reversion, and cleanup after deletion). NA1k has not displayed the incivil and uncollegial attitude of BHG here, and does not need to be sent away. —Kusma (t·c) 05:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose: NA1k has been subjected to repeated personal attacks and harassment from BHG for a long time, so the only acceptable outcome is a sanction against BHG only. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 06:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @Thomas.W: That hasn't been proposed. You're free to do so, as is anyone. bd2412 T 12:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I know it hasn't been proposed, and also know I'm free to propose it, but there's no point in proposing it if no one else shares my opinion, so let's wait and see. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose I don't think punishing NA1k for the mass reverts would be a fair solution, especially considering the personal attacks above. They have done more to contribute to portals in the last few months than any other user. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Comment the disruption over portals has been going on for months now, so at what point do we consider a topic ban from portals for BHG? Conflicts over portals with BHG led to an indef of a long term editor a few months ago and partially to the retirement of another prolific contributor. A non-admin would have been topic banned a long time ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose A 30-day break would just kick the can down the road rather than resolving the matter. As there is too much disruption and incivility and ANI seems to be making matters worse, an Arbcom case is called for. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Note. I responded to a ping to a discussion about the effects of NA1K's changes to Portal:Australia, and left my comments at Portal talk:Australia#Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG. I ask those supporting a 30-day break to consider whether it is helpful to prevent me from making such contributions to any other discussions. I also hoe that editors will take time to review the substance of my comments there to better understand why I decided to revert NA1K's edits, and why I feel that the pile-on here has obscured some serious issues of principle in relation to portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose - I couldn't care less about the merits of the content dispute regarding portals. What I do have a problem with is the ongoing incivility and taunting, most of it originating from BHG - and it needs to stop.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose: I'm sick and tired of kicking this can down the road. I admit, I've dealt with some portals in the past, but this is too much, and, quite frankly, this has gone on for too long. The only proposal I am willing to support at this time is a two-way IBAN for both the instigators, with, possibly, a short block for BHG for that wholly-unwarranted personal attack; I may support an ARBCOM case if this inaction continues. And that's that. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose There's no reason punish NA1K for making those constructive improvements with the portals in question. It should also be possible for BHG to make constructive comments in discussions. However, for that to happen, she would need to reflect on the way she treats good faith editors in discussions who simply disagree with her. Her behaviour has basically driven off several experienced editors (including me) from participating in any future discussions on improving portals. They simply degenerate (as has happened here). In something as relatively banal as this template deletion discussion in July, I finally felt compelled to make this request. However, it was in vain. It may well be that this ends up in ArbCom. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oppose - User:Northamerica1000's work in improving portals, even if they don't need improving, outweighs the harm of their attacks on BHG. User:BrownHairedGirl's work in cleaning up portals and in proposing the deletion of portals outweighs the harm of her attacks on NA1k. The current situation, while undesirable, is less bad than this sanction would make it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - User:Javert2113 - I requested an ARBCOM case on portals back in April. I still think that an ARBCOM case would be more good than harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Honestly, User:Robert McClenon, I agree. While involving ARBCOM raises the more-than-significant possibility of tearing what little we have of a community apart once more, I'd honestly accept a decision made there over any actions we pursue here (yes, even including my proposal below). I should like to add my heartiest apologies if I was one of those in opposition to that case request, by the way: I fully regret such an action if I did so. Perhaps the upcoming elections will produce a Committee that is willing to tackle this tough issue; and I would urge you to re-file if such a Committee is seated. Until such a point arises, however, I admit that I do not find our constant inaction to be productive; this community has better things to do than squabble about portals every thirty days or so. Still, I certainly welcome and encourage discussion about this matter, portals altogether, and all possible remedies to the issues raised. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC) User:Javert2113 - You didn't make a statement to the ArbCom about that case. Arbitrators have been known to change their minds about whether to accept cases. However, I am not optimistic about the likelihood of any ArbCom resolving this issue with the current situation with the WMF where the so-called Trust and Safety Office has made it clear that they do not intend to be constructive but only to use power corruptly. (Yes, I mean corruptly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

I've now gone through and read the majority of the wall of words. It's been rather unpleasant, as there's significant conflict here.

Though I participated in the discussion, I see at least a general consensus that the changes NorthAmerica1000 made were improvements. I also appreciate BHG's posts at Portal_talk:Australia. I've responded there as I have an interest in the topic, we're finally discussing a way forward there, and hopefully that discussion remains productive, as there's a couple good RfC questions in there that will help shape the future of portals. Part of the reason these conversations get as heated as they do, in my opinion, stems from the fact we're arguing over relatively vague guidelines. My theory is, it's easier to wade into personal attacks when the policy's unclear.

I'm requesting an administrator to close this entire thread, adjudicate the above discussion on whether the reverts should be reverted, and either shift the discussion over to the Aussie portal or shift it somewhere like Portal_talk:Contents/Portals.

I'm also requesting the closing admin review the conduct in the wall of text above, especially as compared to the discussion over at Portal_talk:Australia. We're here because of the reverts, and I believe WP:BRD-NOT applies here, especially given the fact all the issues brought up at Portal_talk:Australia don't appear to major and should be solvable with civil discussion. Reverting can instantly create a battleground, and many other courses of action to discuss the portal edits were possible here. Instead, we're 34,000+ words into an ANI thread with many personal attacks. I'm not sure what sanctions I would suggest, but I would recommend an uninvolved admin closely review the entirety of this thread and adjudicate accordingly. And to all a good night. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that the community, respectively ANI, can reach an appropriate conclusion on this issue and believe it should be sent to Arbcom. There seems to be so much to unpack that a more structured approach is warranted. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that Arbcom is exactly where this is going to end up. It doesn't seem as though the two sides are willing to find any sort of agreement on much of anything. Hopefully we won't lose any admins or editors; but given the history of WP:RFAR, I certainly wouldn't bet on that. — Ched (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for 2-way IBAN

I've also gone through and read those terrifying walls of text. Suffice it to say, I am deeply disappointed and rather unimpressed by the conduct demonstrated by both administrators, and I'm wholly tired of the ongoing issues that portals have turned out to be. But I digress.

I don't believe the 30-day "break" from portal editing by both parties is sufficient: that's just kicking the can down the road; this would simply flare up again in 31 days' time, mark my words. Instead, given the fact that this all stems from page-based interaction between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Northamerica1000, I would like to propose the following: that BrownHairedGirl and NorthAmerica1000 are both hereby subject to a 2-way interaction ban, broadly construed. I am certainly willing to entertain modifications to my proposal.

• Support: As proposer. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe I've seen evidence that supports a sanction on NA1K. Not so sure about BHG, although she maintains that she did not intend to personally attack NA1K. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I am saddened and distressed by the personalization that both parties are conducting against each other, I oppose an interaction ban, because it would inhibit their ability to address continuing deletion discussions for portals at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I get why you're disappointed in their conduct, but I think an interaction ban would make it worse by preventing them from resolving this issue through dispute resolution. And if we are being totally honest, not that many people (relatively speaking) even care about this topic to begin with, so banning 2 contributors from interacting would make it hard to resolve the dispute at all.38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the 2-way "30 day cooling off period". Also, in something as contentious as this, it's too easy for an editor to game the system by making the first comment in a discussion, which completely prevents the other from participating. This whole mess rather reminds me of the Infobox case at ArbCom. In the long term, the remedies have calmed the situation down quite well, although there was considerable gnashing of teeth from some people when they were first announced. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't really believe that this is the best result, as others have said it doesn't really get to the problem at hand but rather limit interaction further. I understand why someone would propose this, I just wouldn't choose this option myself. However that's not to say that the conduct that I've seen here isn't worthy of some form of sanction. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 19:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: NorthA does not deserve to be punished. BHG needs proper sanctions though. However, this would just cause increased tension and would not be a peaceful resolution. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given that these are two of the most productive editors working on the portal space (which is a mess, per my comments below, and therefore needs their attention), it would not be practical (they appear/lead on almost every major discussion or MfD on portals). Britishfinance (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Close as unresolved

The evidence is so sprawled over the entire discussion, which is structured chaotically, there is so much text and there are so many accusations flying around that any close with an attempted solution has a high risk of backfiring because it's probably not based on evidence. If you didn't spend hours on reading and understanding the situation - many hours - you probably didn't see the whole picture. And that's simply too long for this type of discussion. Others have already mentioned WP:ARBCOM with its structured discussions and careful deliberations, and that's what this problem urgently needs. I propose that this gets closed as unresolved and sent to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, where it belongs.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Support, as proposer.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as previous proposer of arbitration for portal issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Alternatively one could just decide what to do about the reverts right now (this doesn't require any sanctions) and send the conduct / NPA issue to arbcom. —Kusma (t·c) 07:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – In my view, the overall consensus above in the "should the mass portal reversions be reverted" section is for the rapid edits in question to be undone, restoring the portals back to the state they were in after I worked on them. That consensus should not be dismissed or ignored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

0RR restriction in Portal: namespace for BHG

There appears to be consensus against two-party sanctions to prevent disruption given the sections above. A number of editors express that they do not support sanctions against Northamerica1000. Given my discussion with them both, NA1k expressed the desire that BHG not revert bold contributions en mass. Both editors expressed the desire that more discussion occur regarding edits to portals. I tried to float this idea in the discussion, but neither seemed to bite. So I'm going to make it an explicit proposal:

User:BrownHairedGirl is restricted to 0 reverts in portal namespace and should seek consensus on a centralized talk page for edits which she believes should be reverted, especially of contributions by NorthAmerica1000. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is a proper way to close the discussion. BHG is the one who should be receiving the sanctions, not NorthA. NorthA has done nothing but good for the encyclopedia. Great idea Wugapodes. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose My reading of the consensus Wugapodes alludes to comes from too many diverse directions to be useful in drawing a proposal. I certainly don't see a consensus, or fair reason, for BHG to be under a general 0RR on portals. BHG has done an enormous amount of work cleaning up the portal space (her level of detail and engagement is unprecedented in my experience on WP) – it is not credible to deny that there is a giant mess here of abandoned, forked, misleading, irrelevant portal content, that only degrades Wikipedia in the eyes of a reader, and for which no editor(s) wants to properly support, or no reader wants to read. Whatever chance WP has in solving this mess lies in BHG, and NA1K, finding a way to work on portals with less conflict. Britishfinance (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Britishfinance: This proposal would not prevent BHG from working in portal space, in fact, that's why I proposed this instead of a topic ban. It would require her to discuss reverts first, rather than reverting things en mass which is what this entire long thread is about. So yes, we can agree portals have problems, but it has nothing to do with this discussion on sanctions. You say Whatever chance WP has in solving this mess lies in BHG, and NA1K, finding a way to work on portals with less conflict and this is what I, and others, tried to get them to do in #Talking it out which is the place where I got the suggestions I note in my proposal, and also what we tried in August but which has still resulted in us being here today. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • (ec) @Wugapodes: I don't think any editor coming to ANI for a set of contested reversions on a topic, for the first time, should leave on 0RR on that topic, unless what they were doing was approaching vandalism? Somewhere during this thread, the technical issues around the validity of BHG's reversions never really got debated through? In fact, despite the length of this ANI, there isn't even a clear poll on whether BHG's reversions should be undone (although I think there seems a consensus that they should). Regardless, while I support your efforts Wugapodes to reach a peaceful solution, I don't see a logic that jumps a technical disagreement over a set of reversions to a 0RR on that topic? Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
      • There's an entire discussion at #Should BrownHairedGirl's mass portal reversions be reverted, to restore portal improvements that occurred? in which at least 24 different editors opined on the suitability of the reverts. There is also a section in which other editors raised concerns about violation of WP:NPA when BHG insinuated that NA1k was of low intelligence which sparked the section #Personal attacks in which one editor who tried to help mediate the discussion suggested BHG be blocked for it. I appreciate that you think 0RR may not be an optimal solution. As I say below I'm open to other suggestions, but unless the two of them agree to some form of truce (which they did not do in #A Suggested Truce or #Talking it out) some form of community imposed resolution is needed so that we don't wind up here again wasting tons of time. The alternative is ArbCom, and I would prefer we not have to go through another protracted arbitration case about admin conduct over something as stupid as portals. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
        • But that entire discussion reached no final conclusion (between supports, opposes, and out-of-scope), and concluded with NA1K protesting that it was a conduct issue. I don't see how that gets to 0RR? Per below, the more I think about it, the more I am drawn to BD2412's suggestion of a 30-day cool-off. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I supported that as well, but many others disagreed. Of the 11 opposes, 8 of them stated they opposed because they didn't believe NA1k should be sanctioned (feel free to recount, it was a long discussion and I may have made a mistake). The only proposals I can see gaining consensus are one-party restrictions against BHG, and I explained why I opted for a 0RR over a topic ban: it allows BHG to do the portal work you and others would like her to continue doing without causing the disruption that led us to this thread. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Wugapodes: Under this proposed restriction, if an anon were to change the content of a portal to random pictures of genitalia, BHG would still be barred from reverting that edit? Surely there would need to be some common sense allowances for something like that. bd2412 T 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverting naked vandalism is always exempt from editing restrictions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism (key word, obvious) would be exempt. @BD2412: I thought 0RR would be a better place to start since a 1RR restriction wouldn't have prevented this most recent issue. I'm open to 1RR if others think it would work; I'm open to just about anything that isn't to do nothing and let this continue to fester. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I am drawn to BD2412's suggestion of a 30-day cool-off re portals. So much perspective is being lost here, and by both parties. I would rather they took some time away from portals (at which they are both working on at high intensity), and then come back. If their conflict re-ignites, then I think the community will be on stronger ground to act. However, I would rather have them both at their maximum editing capabilities (which are considerable), then try and attach on some immediate editing sanction which I think would not respect the enormous amount of work each of them does on portals (albeit, in different directions – but as I said above, we have lots of portals that need both saving and pruning). Britishfinance (talk)

0 page-count restriction for Portal: namespace

• Support. ―cobaltcigs 22:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A similar suggestion is being discussed at WP:VPPR#Proposal to delete Portal space. Certes (talk) 07:52, 16 October 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.