Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attack by Tisquesusa, round 3

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made another personal attack on me for my edits cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. The latest attack[1] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.

Tisquesusa has been blocked on two previous occasions for personal attacks on me over similar issues:

1. Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
2. Nov 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022#More_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks_by_User:Tisquesusa – blocked for 7 days by Black Kite, with a warning[2]

I have not attempted to discuss this with Tisquesusa, because my previous attempts to start a dialogue have just been deleted, sometimes with a hostile edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, for the prompt response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• This was commendably quick, but I would note that, in theory, the last incident was a final warning. This PA was, compared to a previous particularly unpleasant one, less egregious, so that may be why it was only a doubling of sanction, but if it reoccurs anything less than an indef would appear inappropriate. I know that BHG has the standard admin thick skin, but PAs are one of things we're supposed to handle most severely. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Nosebagbear, you identified the reason why I didn't indef. "Less egregious" is exactly what I was thinking. The last incident was almost a year ago as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the closing of this thread as there is still discussion. We seem to have edged back in to the too-quick closes that have been an issue in the past.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • I mean I'm willing enough to accept Cullen's reasoning (both facets) - I distinctly don't hold a permanent "parole" status over individuals, but if we get a similar action in another 10 months, I'd probably interpret that as deliberate gaming of the system (that, by the way, I do not believe occurred here) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, this was obnoxious, but nowhere near as bad as the vicious rant before. However, the pattern is consistent: refusal of dialogue, and prompt escalation to PAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tisquesusa is a productive editor who makes large numbers of edits to geology related articles without issues. A 2 week block for an f bomb after the last issue was ten months ago is frankly excessive. Brownhairedgirl antagonises Tisquesusa by undoing his edits rather than simply removing the problematic part of them, which she knows from previous edits antagonises him and causes him to make personal attacks, because she can't be bothered. Tisquesusa does have some intractible behavioural issues, as demonstrated above, but one "fuck off" in 10 months is not indef worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Trying to argue that one editor causes another editor to make personal attacks doesn't seem like something that's going to gain much sympathy from others. Regardless of how much Tisquesusa is being antagonized by others, he is still responsible for what he posts and how he responds. This block might be excessive depending on how serious you view the situation, but WP:BROTHER and WP:NOTTHEM types of arguments are almost never considered accepted reasons to unblock someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, if you think that two weeks is excessive after a one week block was ineffective in ending the propensity to engage in personal attacks, then which block length would be appropriate? Nine days? Eleven days? Please note that I did not indef. So, do you favor a new policy that says it is OK for editors to assume bad faith when the reverted edit had fundamental flaws? I hope not. Yes, BHG could have cleaned up the edit but the actual responsibility for cleaning up a bad edit lies with Tisquesusa. Do you agree? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Eric Corbett got away with repeatedly calling editors cunts for years and made clear that he didn't care about the blocks. Tisquesusa isn't going to change his behaviour from this block so why bother? Blocking him is merely a waste of time. Blocking him as a WP:Punish because BHG cannot avoid antagonising him. Tisquesusa feels antagonised by BHG due to previous interactions during the portals debacle, BHG's conduct during the portal episode led to her being stripped of her adminship. The answer here is for Tisquesusa to have a one way interaction ban with BHG, for BHG to avoid undoing his edits and for other editors to try to reason with Tisquesusa to avoid personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The premise of @Hemiauchenia,'s comments is their assertion that I cannot avoid antagonising him. That inverts the reality of Tisquesusa choosing to responding aggressively to routine cleanup of errors which they repeatedly create.

I have tried discussing issues with Tisquesusa, but the response was always to simply to remove my posts, dismissing them variously as "spam" or "harassment", usually with an insult attached. See e.g. the history which I set out at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa.

My response to Tisquesusa's addition of pages to redlinked cats is the same as with any other editor who adds a page to a non-existent category: if the redlinked cat was clearly an addition, I just remove it; but if it was part of a wider set of changes, it may be more appropriate to revert to an earlier set of categories. (E.g. if an article was in "Categ:Foos in Spain" and "Categ:Madrid", but was recategorised into the non-existent "Categ:Foos in Madrid", then simply removing "Categ:Foos in Madrid" is the wrong solution.)

That's why in such cases I do not simply remove the category. The options are a) to take time to investigate the history, or b) revert, leaving it to the editor who knows the topic to fix their error.

There are many hundreds of such redcats to be fixed every week: in the last few weeks the average has been ~700–1000 per week. Few editors do this tedious work, so there simply isn't time to stop and mount a detailed investigation of each of them. So in most cases, I simply revert, leaving the editor to fix their error.

I do hundreds of such everts every week. Those reverts get significantly more thanks than objections, and the only editor who responds abusively is Tisquesusa. The effect of Hemiauchenia's proposal is that I should refrain from reverting the errors created by Tisquesusa solely because they repeatedly choose to be dismissive and/or abusive when faced with an issue which the overwhelming majority of editors handle with civility. That is no way to run a collaborative project ... and I find it quite obnoxious that Hemiauchenia has repeatedly tried to blame me for Tisquesusa's sustained aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

1. "Routine cleanup" only makes sense if it improves the affected page(s). The net result of BrownHairedGirl's edit was the opposite of improvement. Although the edit did remove one non-existent category, thus slightly improving the page, that same edit also removed four good categories, restored a typo, got rid of two valid wikilinks, and undid a minor improvement to the sentence structure. That's a textbook example of what we call in the industry "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
2. The summary of BrownHairedGirl's edit failed to adequately explain what she was doing, making it impossible for Tisquesusa to understand why BrownHairedGirl's edit was to be regarded as anything other than borderline vandalism. BrownHairedGirl has since produced an explanation of why the edit was made the way it was made, the benefit of which Tisquesusa didn't have at the time the incident occurred.
3. Because BrownHairedGirl's edit was overall unhelpful, and its edit summary deficient, Tisquesusa's characterization of it as destructive was reasonable given the knowledge available to him/her at the time, as was his/her admittedly suboptimally phrased request that BrownHairedGirl discontinue her engagement with Tisquesusa's edits.
4. Holding grudges isn't helpful. At least a token attempt at communication with Tisquesusa should've been made prior to the opening of this ANI thread regardless of the fact that some year-old attempts to talk to the editor were unsuccessful. No such attempt was made.
5. Because no attempt to communicate with the reported user was made, it was disingenuous of BrownHairedGirl to describe the reported user as displaying a consistent pattern of refusal of dialog; no such refusal occurred in this instance other than, ironically enough, by BrownHairedGirl herself.
6. Blocking a highly productive and competent long-time editor over a single-diff complaint less than half an hour after the complaint was made, without allowing the reported editor a chance to respond, would be questionable at best even if there weren't any extenuating circumstances. In a case like this one, where the reported editor's regrettable outburst was clearly provoked by an overall unhelpful edit made by someone s/he used to feud over portals with prior to both editors getting banned from the namespace, an expedited block isn't just questionable, it's egregiously inappropriate.
7. Based on points one through six, and the history between the two editors, I recommend: a) vacating Tisquesusa's block; b) advising BrownHairedGirl that the high volume of her edits is not a valid justification for the subpar quality of some of these edits, such as the one that ultimately gave rise to this ANI thread; and c) instituting a two-way interaction ban between Tisquesusa and BrownHairedGirl. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Iaritmioawp has constructed a highly selective and prejudiced view of the history.

First, I did not feud over portals with Tisquesusa. I was doing cleanup work of removing links to deleted portals. Most such links were removed by my bot task ([4]), and Tisquesusa was re-adding the redlinks. There was no feud; it was a simple case of Tisquesusa choosing to attack me for doing that cleanup and for asking them to desist from re-adding such links.

A detailed explanation of why I reverted fully rather than partially would have been available to Tisquesusa if they were open to discussion, because I would have discussed it with them, as I have done with other editors. The evidence is very clear that they are not open to discussion. See e.g. [3], [4], [5].

This is not a one-off error by Tisquesusa. It part of a long series of edits in which they have left articles in one or more redlinked categories. I have pinged them in those other cases too, so they have been well aware of the issue. See e.eg. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [], [13], [14], [15], [16].

Nor was my edit summary deficient. The summary [17] was Reverted 1 edit by Tisquesusa (talk): — Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT, which is the same edit summary that I have used on many thousands of similar edits. It explained precisely why the edit was reverted, with a link to the relevant guideline: WP:REDNOT. This is the same edit summary as I use in every other one of the hundreds of such edits which I perform every week. Note that Tisquesusa very rarely uses any edit summary at all. It is perverse to criticise me for not writing an essay in the edit summary but make no comment on Tisq's complete omission of any explanation of the vast majority of their edits.

This is not a matter of holding grudges. It is a simple consequence of the reality that every attempt I have made to discuss any of these issues has been removed by Tisquesusa with a hostile summary: see the history in 2019, and that in 2019 I was subjected to a lengthy vile and vicious highly personal attack. I do not want to expose myself again to that level of hatred, which has not just been directed at me: it was also directed at Black Kite, who blocked Tisq last time: their block notice was removed with the edit summary[18] fuck off with your bullying bullshit

Their general hostility and aggression is also directed at other editors, e,g.

• [19] editsum Which idiot cannot spell Colombia?
• [20] comment: you can fold and fuck off with your lazy BS

What on earth is the point of trying to communicate with an editor who has point-blank refused communication and a history of sweary aggression?

Why do you try to put the onus on me to waste my time and to expose myself to more abuse from an editor who has in no way changed their approach from when they made such a vicious attack that it was revdelled?

How does it any way help the 'pedia to demand sanctions against me for doing routine cleanup because Tisquesusa a) repeatedly creates an error which they are well of, b) has rejected communication with such severe personal attack that I am wary of exposing myself again? If Tisquesuasa wanted to reopen dialogue, they have had ample opportunity to do so.

If I don't cleanup Tisquesusa's additions to Special:WantedCategories, the task will be left to somebody else. How much abuse are they expected to endure before they too get threatened with sanction because Tisquesusa routinely prefers aggressive hostility to dialogue?

How does it help the 'pedia for editors dong cleanup to be required to avoid an aggressive, sweary, abusive editor like Tisquesusa for fear that they will be blamed for the aggressive response? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1. The reason your edit summaries are deficient is that what your edits actually do goes well beyond merely removing the problematic category. An accurate edit summary for edits like this, this, this, or this would be something along the lines of "I'm undoing every single improvement you've made to the page because you happened to accidentally add a category that doesn't exist as part of your otherwise good edit." Does this sound to you like the summary of a useful edit, or does it perhaps sound to you more like the summary of a rather unhelpful edit?
2. The diffs you've provided to document "a long series of edits in which [Tisquesusa has] left articles in one or more redlinked categories" are highly disturbing but not in the way you intended. While they do provide us with evidence of a pattern of problematic editing, I'm sorry to inform you that it's your editing that's problematic, not Tisquesusa's. Your goal of ridding Wikipedia of red-linked categories, while noble, does not give you a license to mass-undo every single edit ever made that happened to consist in part of the addition of a non-existent category. If such were the case, we'd have a bot doing that. The whole reason we insist on human review is to avoid the sort of demoralization Tisquesusa has been subjected to by your bot-like edits (edit adds a red category = edit automatically gets undone in complete disregard of its content beyond the red category addition).
3. The answer to your question of how much abuse an editor is expected to endure is quite simple: exactly as much as they themselves dish out. Do you honestly believe Tisquesusa would've lashed out at you if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories? I don't. Does anyone? Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp, that's a quite extraordinary attitude. Your point #3 tries to equate Tisq's dropping of an f-bomb with me doing a type of edit which I do to hundreds of pages every week, to which nobody else responds abusively.

Your attempt to claim that my series of diffs shows me behaving badly is absurd. Those diffs show that Tisq repeatedly, over many weeks, creates an error of which a) he was repeatedly warned, b) is clearly flagged when he saves the page. (Because there's a redlink in the categories).

You seem to believe that there is no problem at all with Tisq continuing to repeat the same error ... but that I am a wicked monster for not spending my time to figure out whether the redlinked category is a) wholly mistaken, b) should exist, and if so c) what its parent categories should be.

In other words, it is considerably more work for someone not specialising in this area to clean up after Tisq's edits than it would require Tisq to fix them himself. When did it become the responsibility of others to fix errors knowingly introduced by another editor?

As I noted above, Tisq himself is the person best-placed to decide whether the category should be A) removed, B) replaced with another, or C) created. Why ae you so absolutely determined to absolve him of any responsibility for his edits and instead to pile with attacks on me? What's this really about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Undoing someone's entire edit just because there's a small and easily fixable issue with it is unhelpful; if done repeatedly, it demoralizes the contributor, which, especially in the case of short-tempered individuals, may eventually lead to their losing their cool and lashing out. This is what happened here. It's true that we can find additional instances of incivility in Tisquesusa's editing history; however, that one particular instance that you reported in this thread, and for which Tisquesusa received an expedited two-week block, wasn't some gratuitous personal attack; rather, it was a request (admittedly rude) for you to stop your reversions that was brought about by your suboptimal handling of the cleanup task for which you volunteered. There is no doubt in my mind that if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest, Tisquesusa wouldn't have objected to them as his/her editing history clearly identifies him/her as a productive member of the Wikipedia community.
2. I suggest that, if you continue to engage in the cleanup of red categories, you change your mode of operation to simply removing such categories instead of undoing the edits in which they were added. This advice is consistent with our WP:Editing policy which clearly states that we should try to "[p]reserve the value that others add" whenever possible. It is my belief that it was very much possible to preserve the value that Tisquesusa added in every single instance where you instead chose to undo his/her edits in their entirety, and that it was your apparent disregard for the value s/he added that caused the unfortunate incident that brought us here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Iaritmioawp, as I explained above, my practice is to simply remove a redlinked category only when that category is an addition rather than a replacement. That's because removing a red-linked category which replaces another leaves the article improperly categorised.

In other more complex cases I will continue to revert, to restore the status quo ante, so that the editor who made the error is notified that their changes wre problematic, and can bring their own expertise to bear on choosing the appropriate categories which actually exist, or creating new ones if needed.

This is likely to be my last reply to you, because it seems that you have little interest in reading what I write or in actually considering the problem which my edits address. The only reason that so many of Tisquesusa's edits have been reverted by me is that Tisquesusa is an extremely rare case of an editor who has chosen to ignore repeated notifications of a problem which they repeatedly create, so lot sf Tisquesusa's edits have landed on the cleanup list.

It is very striking that throughout your posts here you consistently refrain from any criticism of Tisquesusa for their persistent creation of problems which will have to cleaned up some other editor(s), whether me or some one else. Instead you have engaged in a thoroughly partisan, witchhunt-style exercise of seeking fault in my work while continually overlooking Tisquesusa prolific creation of errors. In doing so, you have falsely accused me of feuding with Tisquesusa, and you have falsely accused me of misleading summaries: if your edits were limited to just the removal of red categories, as their edit summaries would suggest. That is pure fabrication: where I reverted, the edit summary clearly indicates that it is a revert: see the list of diffs that i posted above: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [], [28], [29], [30], [31].

I have no evidence of why you engage in such fabrication, but it is very ugly behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the summaries obviously do state that the edits were reversions. However, the explanation provided for these reversions in these edit summaries ("Please use only categories which actually exist. See WP:REDNOT") only addresses the component of removing the red category. It doesn't say why the entire edit had to be reverted. This is unsurprising because the entire edit didn't need to be reverted in any of these cases; just the removal of the red category would've been sufficient. If you continue to make such reversions in disregard of our editing policy, as you just said you're planning to, and the reversions continue to aggravate other editors, and you continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa, then I don't think I need to tell you how the story is likely to end—and just to be perfectly clear, I don't want to see that bad ending, I want to see the happy ending in which you agree to bring your editing in line with the policy and respect the value other editors add to articles with their edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp seems to have given up any pretence at doing anything other than hurling muck at me in the hope that some of it sticks.

• Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for not writing longer edit summaries, but makes no criticism of Tisq consistently using no edit summary
• Iaritmioawp continues to attack me for making full reverts rather than partial reverts, but makes no criticism of Tisquesusa repeatedly creating the same problem for others to clean up
• Iaritmioawp chooses to smear me by misrepresenting my actions. Iaritmioawp says that I continue to bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get. I have checked my ANI contribs for the past 12 months, and have verified my recollection that Tisquesusa is the only editor about whom I have made such a complaint, because Tisquesusa is the only editor to lash out.
  Iaritmioawp says that there are multiple aggrieved editors lashing out ... but the reality is that there is only one.
  Iaritmioawp also makes a wholly false ABF assertion that I go to ANI the first chance you get. That too is demonstrably false, because there are no other such cases.
• Iaritmioawp continues to ignore the fact that if Tisquesusa wanted to discuss this, they could have done so at any time with a message on my talk page. But the history of my interactions with Tisquesusa is of me repeatedly trying dialogue which was deleted as "spam", and of Tisquesusa launching a vicious, vile, misogynist attack on me. Iaritmioawp's attempts to blame me for the lack of communication amount to an endorsement of Tisquesusa's misogyny, because they place all the onus on me to make repeated attempts to communicate with the misogynist attacker.

This smear campaign by Iaritmioawp is straight out of the swiftboating playbook: hurl at someone as many false allegations and as much unsubstantiated muck as you can fabricate, in the hope that some of it sticks and if not, the target of the smears is tied down writing rebuttals. The use of those vicious tactics should have consequences for Iaritmioawp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the part where Iaritmioawp said If you continue... They were not saying that you have been actively doing these things for a while, but rather that you should be aware of the possible consequences if you repeat the steps that you have taken in this particular case. Point-by-point rebuttals only work when you actually understand the other person's points. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: intervening to claim that I didn't understand the point made only works if the intervener actually understands the facts of the matter.

The facts in this case are that there are no multiple editors, no multiple complaints, and no pattern of complaining at first opportunity.

However, there is a pattern of Iaritmioawp fabricating allegations and misrepresenting facts. I wish that I could be surprised that you choose to endorse that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, I do understand what Iaritmioawp was saying. They were saying that if you continue to engage in the behavior that has characterized this specific case – which does not equate to an accusation that there is a preexisting pattern – you will probably find that it doesn't turn out very well. I literally explained this in my previous post. It's right there in plain English. Now, I don't think anyone expects you to agree with Iaritmioawp, but twisting their words around and then accusing them of fabricating is downright sleazy. In the arbcom case that led to your desysop, one of the findings of fact stated that you had repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying... With your unfounded claims of fabrication in this thread, you are demonstrating to the entire community that nothing has changed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I have not twisted anyone's words. I have been falsely accused, e.g. of bring the cases of these aggravated editors lashing out at you to ANI the first chance you get, as you did with Tisquesusa ... and I am defending myself against false accusations and against the unfounded assumption that I was seeking an opportunity to open an ANI case. Arbcom has ruled that it is not acceptable to call another editor a liar, regardless of the evidence, so I make no such allegation here. But given that you quote Arbncom about AGF, it is richly ironic that you make no complaint about Iaritmioawp's assertion that I was seeking a opportunity for ANI case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You twisted Iaritmioawp's words by claiming that they were accusing you of continuing to do things that you had done on prior occasions. In reality, Iaritmioawp was cautioning you against what might happen if you continue to do what you have done on this particular occasion. This is my third and final attempt at explaining this very important distinction that should have been easily understood from a straightforward reading of Iaritmioawp's post. Also, it's too late to say that you aren't calling Iaritmioawp a liar since you have already accused them of fabrications in at least two separate posts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, the plain English meaning of Iaritmioawp's comments is an allegation that I have been engaged in a pattern of deception, provocation and entrapment. The only twisting here is the sustained efforts of Iaritmioawp to misrepresent my position, and your subsequent efforts to obfuscate the assumptions of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this movie before. If you intend to start slinging mud at me as well, you'll have to do it without my participation. Good day, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you probably have seen this before, because the game being played out here is an old one. Editors fabricate and misrepresent in order to smear an editor, as has been done to me here. And then when the person who is being smeared objects to being smeared, their objections are taken as evidence of malice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Iaritmioawp, here is the bottom line: Engaging in personal attacks is a serious violation of policy, and Tisquesusa has a history of making attacks that are vile, prolonged, intensely personalized and dehumanizing. The next time that Tisquesusa chooses to engage in that behavior, they will be blocked indefinitely. I hope that's clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And I hope it doesn't come to that because we're hardly in a position to expel prolific expert editors from the site. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, we routinely indef and/or site-ban prolific editors for intractable problematic behavior. That's why we have policies, pillars, noticeboards, administrators, ArbCom, etc. No one on Wikipedia is indispensable, and competence, both behavioral and editorial, is required to remain an editor here. Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Only two comments: (1) regardless of what you think of BHG's approach, personal attacks like these are not justifiable. (2) we should not allow any edit that lowers the quality of article content for the sake of its categories. That lowering the quality or requiring that others fix it makes it easier to make hundreds or thousands of such changes is not a good reason. Categories are useful to some, but secondary to the rest of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tisquesusa has demonstrated their ability to create categories; see the recently-created Category:Jurassic mammals of South America, Category:Paleocene mammals of Europe and Category:Silurian Sweden. This current dustup seems to have been sparked merely by the addition of one red-linked category; it seems to me that this issue could have been easily solved by the creation of Category:Fossils of Lesotho as a perfectly valid sub-category of Category:Fossils by country. Yes, Lesotho is entirely surrounded by South Africa (see Category:Enclaved countries), but it's a country nonetheless. We do have Category:Paleontology in Lesotho. Tisquesusa, why did you neglect to create that category. If you had promptly done so before BrownHairedGirl ran across the red link as part of her routine patrol, a lot of grief could have been avoided. Cullen328 can we unblock Tisquesusa so that they can respond to me, and participate in this discussion about their behavior? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Tisquesusa should not be unblocked. He doesn't need to answer your question (although you are welcome to ask him that on his talk page), and it wouldn't change the fact that his block was deserved and that his pattern of behavior is and has been problematic. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this editor's "pattern of behavior". I disagree with the idea that an F-bomb in an edit summary is a personal attack. Rather, it is an example of incivility. And, yes the community should take incivility more seriously. Tisquesusa if you respond on your talk, I'll copy your response to here. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor's pattern of behavior is demonstrated by his block log [32] and BrownHairedGirl's abundant evidence (including prior ANIs) throughout this thread. If you read this entire thread, you'll see that Tisquesusa has a habit of adding non-categories to articles, and knows it shouldn't be done, but does it anyway, and then attacks BHG when the non-categories are removed, so at this point it's a pattern of aggression and abuse on his part. Softlavender (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Civility enforcement on Wikipedia is woefully inconsistent. I've had far worse than an f-bomb directed at me and seen the offending editor not given even a mild censure. Civility enforcement usually depends on whether the attacking editor or the attacked editor has higher standing in the community. The offending edit summary that led to this block didn't just happen in a vacuum; the above discussion has made it quite clear that there are deeper issues which need to be resolved. A draconian block issued less than 30 minutes after this thread was filed – and before the reported editor had a chance to respond – sends the message that the personal attack is the only thing that we need to worry about. This is one of my biggest frustrations with how we handle conduct cases. Once one editor is identified as the 'bad guy', there is a bizarre aversion to examining the context for possible mitigating circumstances. We are told that "Editor A's provocation does not excuse Editor B's behavior, and then we usually end up giving Editor A a free pass (except, of course, for cases in which Editor B is too popular to become a 'bad guy'; provocation is the primary topic of discussion in those cases). The kind of comment that led to a two-week block here often leads to absolutely nothing in other cases. I say we lift the block as time served and try to find a resolution for the underlying dispute so that articles are not tagged with red-linked categories and article improvements are not needlessly undone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you read through the full thread and all the evidence therein? The editor was not blocked merely for an f-bomb, they were blocked for continuing a pattern of aggression and abuse that had already ended up at two ANI threads and numerous repeats of the same deliberate disruptive behavior -- deliberately and knowingly adding non-categories to articles even though they've been reverted, warned, and/or blocked many many many times for the same deliberate disruption. So it's not merely a civility issue, it's a DE issue, and a distinct and ongoing pattern of DE at this point. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is Tisquesusa's block log. It contains three blocks for personal attacks and one block for edit warring. Not a single one of those block summaries indicates that the editor was ever specifically blocked for adding non-categories or for any other form of deliberately disruptive editing. You appear to be mistaken. I'd like to get an explanation from Tisquesusa as to why they were adding those non-categories before jumping straight to the conclusion that it was deliberate disruption. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be deliberate if she has been through this with him time and time and time and time again, which she has; see for instance [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It is true that she has repeatedly reverted his edits. However, your assumption that he was deliberately trolling her (as you suggested below) is not the only possible explanation. As I have already said, I prefer to wait for Tisquesusa's explanation instead of trying to be a mind-reader. You are demonstrating another pet peeve that I have with this kind of thread. Once one editor is labelled as the 'bad guy', it becomes open season for attacks on that editor's motives and AGF flies out the window. Yes, Tisquesusa was wrong to personally attack BHG, but that does not mean that we should tar and feather him by assuming that all of his actions stem from ABF motives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am an uninvolved outsider re this, not an admin, and not new to ANI (please do not research archives ;-) ).

Having read this thread, I have this question: why cannot an ANI-discussion lead to a forked admonishing? As in: Party-1 did X so consequence Y, party-2 did P so consequence Q? Example in case. As pointed out by Iaritmioawp about this edit by BHG (which lead to the reported reversal-with-f-bomb). I say this edit by BHG is inacceptible by any editing standard we know. (I would have been be kicked off an automate like twinkle or AWB for sure, especially when doing so repeatedly. 'you are responsible for your own edit'). So irrespective of the judgement on the reported editor, why cannot ANI discuss and conclude: "Inacceptible so Z"? (boomerang is only to turn 180°, not broadening in this sense). -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (+clarification, ping @BrownHairedGirl:. DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

I don't think there was any problem with BHG's edit, especially since, as she has explained, she was reverting yet another deliberately disruptive edit (one of dozens of the same type of edits over the past year) by Tisquesusa. That he continues to make those disruptive edits -- adding non-categories to articles -- after all of the warnings, reverts, ANIs, and blocks, can only be because he is trolling BHG. I'd say if it happens again, it's time for an indef. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect: this is missing my point (or: illustrating it). My point is: the BHG edit by itself can be unacceptible (it is, IMO). Then why not judge that as such here? IOW Just as BHG's edits do not nullify (undo, clear, undo, excempts, ...) the issue reported, the reported editor's fault does not nullify the fault in BHG's edit. So why is BHG's behaviour not admonished by itself? That is: without jumping to a "but the other editor did ..."-argument? (this argument never accepted outside of ANI, and rightly so). -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Her edit was not unacceptible. There is no reason to admonish her. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion that an edit which removed four valid categories, restored a spelling mistake, removed two valid internal links, and undid an improvement to the sentence structure was not unacceptable just because it also happened to get rid of a single red category is an interesting take on the situation. Personally, I disagree with that view as I believe such reversions are at odds with our editing policy which instructs us to "preserve the value that others add" whenever possible. The article was very clearly made worse by the revert. Surely you agree that we should only make edits such that they improve the pages we edit, and that anyone who regularly does the opposite should be asked to stop? Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: same misunderstanding/mistake. I am not interested in opinions about the reported editor. My question is: why is BHG's editing not admonished by itself? That is: irrespective of the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding what DePiep is trying to say, Lepricavark's explanation of this "inconsistency" is pretty much on point. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• When I blocked Tisquesusa last November I left a note saying that any repeat of the behaviour may possibly lead to an indefinite block. That block was also for multiple attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl, which were of such a vile and misogynist nature that they have been revision-deleted; not to mention an edit summary which equated the reversion of his edits to the Holocaust. (If any admin wants to confirm this, they were the edits from 12:47 to 13:38 UTC here). Given that, I believe that Cullen328 has been pretty lenient here. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that Tisquesusa's comments were indeed vile and I said so myself in the previous ANI thread, as they were revdel'd, they referred to BrownHairedGirl as a "Creature" amongst other vile comments, and I can confirm that he did indeed refer to the removal of the portals as the "Shoah", which is indefensible. I forgot how nasty Tisquesusa's comments were in retrospect, my above interpretation of Tisquesusa has probably been too charitable, as I have worked with him probably more than any other wikipedian and have had numerous cordial interactions with him. The problem with revision deletion is that it also whitewashes the maker of the comments, as it means that their track record of behavior cannot be evaluated by non-administrators, I remember that Tisquesusa's original vile comments that got him the 72 hour block had been revdel'd so I had a more charitable opinion of him until I saw the second round of comments he made that got him revdel'd the second time. The second thread can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_12#Ban_request which contains some of my reactions to his vile comments, just to give you some idea of what they contained. Tisquesusa has contributed several substantial improvements to Wikipedia, like the Tremp Formation and Tendaguru Formation articles, as well as the many improvements he has made to Musica related topics over the years. He has refrained from making any similar sorts of vile comments since and there should have been more of a discussion before being blocked for 2 weeks. Arguably the original 1 week block for his original comments was too lenient, I would have agreed with a 2 week block if he made similar comments again this time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There should never be a situation where previous blocks that have long expired are used as an excuse to impose further ones as it reeks of double jeopardy. While it's normal for consecutive blocks for the same type of problematic behavior to increase in length, the bar for getting blocked should stay the same. Was it reasonable to block a productive editor for two weeks because they dropped a single "f-bomb" in the summary of an edit that undid the latest one in a long series of disruptive reversions? Was it reasonable to do so with no prior discussion? Is it ever reasonable to block someone three times in a row based on their interactions with a single individual or should it perhaps be clear at that point that blocks are ineffective and an interaction ban ought to be instituted instead? It's a shame that all of these valid questions are all but guaranteed to go unanswered. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but you can't see how vile Tisqueusa's original comments on the issue were so they seem less severe than if they were still visible. The problem with everything being archived is that long ago incidents can seem as fresh as recent ones. Tisquesusa was rightly blocked for the original comments, but to base this discussion about what he said then is pointless. What clearly irks the admins is that Tisquesusa doesn't react rationally, and won't change his behavior. Tisquesusa is by far the most prolific editor of geological topics on wikipedia and it would be a shame to see him go. Unlike other problematic editors, Tisquesusa doesn't constantly antagonise, and largely just quietly gets on with editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish we could see these deleted comments. 193.242.142.6 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The two most egregious quotes as I see them:

• [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [44]
• [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [45]

More is provided in the collapsebox below, which was the OP until User:Liz realerted me to the fact that the longer something here is, the less likely people are to read it. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Detailed evidence with diffs

Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments (diffs posted for all). My apologies that it is so long. There are just so many of them. Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem. [23 Oct] No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here. [46] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.) Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals for the objections I raised. In spite of this, and User:EdChem's offer I am wondering whether hatting this and starting a new thread on the content in the article, perhaps with a summary of the points made above, might be a good way to reboot this conversation [47], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS? Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [48] [19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [49] Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after User:EdChem reminded us on 20 Oct that this is not appropriate in a content discussion. [50] This reminder was because I am not entirely blameless here, having been aggrieved by the comment immediately above and responded more harshly than I should have, but I accepted EdChem's statements after he told us to stop and have been trying to leave behavioural issues out of it there. In fact I think it got worse. [22 Oct] Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. [51] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.) Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [52] (For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general. Now, I did make a mistake; the parentheses should have lasted until "in general", because Smokefoot's 2016 concerns were about the article Heavy metals – they may be read at Talk:Heavy_metals#Shakey_foundations – and it's me who sees them as applying to his approach in general rather than Smokefoot. This aside, which I have corrected, I fail to see what is "libellous" about this criticism of mine. However, if consensus here is that my statement has gone too far, then I am completely willing to refactor it; I want to follow WP norms.) What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh. Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Note that my qualms with his edits to Noble metal raised above were partly about whether the sources present really supported what they were citing; in this context I find something else problematic. I am unsure about whether this is the right place, but User:Games of the world mentioned it in the previous ANI thread, so I will work under the temporary assumption that it is pending anyone else who is well-versed in these areas of WP telling me that it isn't. Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [22 Oct] @Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up. Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on. Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [53] @Sandbh: And why should we consider what has not been publicly released when it is by definition not verifiable? Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [54] @Double sharp:. Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY. How do you see that? Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [55] I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread. I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. My profound apologies to all the regulars here who suffered through the previous threads and who would most likely have preferred it if they heard nothing else from us again. I understand. Almost everyone relevant to this who has participated previously in discussion of this matter has been pinged above, so I only have User:Softlavender left to ping. I can't thank her enough for pitching in in the previous incredibly long thread (and I am truly sorry that my opening statement is this long – that's why I restricted myself to one or at most two examples per bullet point), and I hope against hope that some way of solving this that does not involve sanctions is possible. Sandbh surely must have a vast library of sources, judging from his previous contributions, and his perspective would be very valuable if he was persuaded to respect policy. Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Size concerns and shortening the OP

• Below is a copy of the original report by User:Double sharp, reduced in size by me. I have removed quotes, details and longer decriptions (esp. in the examples). All diffs are kept. No text (but for ... ellipses) was added. I assume this is acceptible, but I can be teached. Double sharp. HTH -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Original report, reduced size

Summary: Despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. User:Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Detailed evidence with diffs: Since the two previous threads here regarding goings-on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I am pleased to say that User:EdChem's stepping in has helped us in many ways, and that so far as I can see, issues regarding User:DePiep's conduct have been totally resolved, and we are working together well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding User:Sandbh; there I do not think the issues are getting resolved yet. Below are examples of what I see as the most egregious conduct issues in talk page comments. Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, WP:IAR [56] (This one seems one of the most egregious to me.) Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus. See WT:ELEM#Noble metals. [57], he continued with his rewrite. How is there WP:CONSENSUS? Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute: [58][59] [60] ... I am not entirely blameless here, ... [61] (To me, this is another particularly egregious one.) Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others: [62] (For reference, what I wrote was ... Now, I did make a mistake; ... This aside, which I have corrected, ...) What drives me to take this back here is that EdChem's very helpful elucidations of policy and advice seem to me to be unfortunately getting absolutely nowhere with Sandbh. Leaving these behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources in the discussions. Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources. [63] [64][65] I go here again not because I want to. I have tried, over the last couple of days, to engage in dialogue. That is where most of the above quotes from him are coming from. And I also wanted to wait for User:R8R and User:EdChem to opine as neither have been active during the last two days, and it concerns them too. But if this is the attitude being taken towards WP policy in general, and the reaction to disagreement seems to be the same no matter who the disagreement is directed against (R8R or me), then I am really at my wits' end when trying to come up with ways this situation can possibly be resolved if User:Sandbh continues to act in this matter. Especially since he has stated that he has zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI[66] even after EdChem stepped in to help. That's why I'm back here. User:Double sharp (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yeah, that's nice. I only kept the quotes in my OP because two of them seemed really egregious: the one saying "I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI" and the one mentioning Trump supporters. Maybe those two can be left, the others remaining as diffs only. Thanks for your help, BTW! Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand your desire to be complete, Double sharp, but the fact is that the longer your complaint is on a noticeboard, the less likely it is that uninvolved editors and admins will choose to read it. Can you summarize the problem you are having with the editor in two sentences? Two medium-long sentences? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Here's my try to summarise the thing in one sentence: despite previous discussion and User:EdChem having started to participate at ELEM and trying to keep us on track in a content discussion, User:Sandbh is still discussing editors rather than edits (sometimes to my mind going way too far), shows zero interest in following policy, and continues to refer to unpublished sources. I hope that's better; sorry for making it so long at first. Double sharp (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That actually helps a lot, Double sharp, thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To hopefully draw more attention to this, I have copied this brief summary up to the top. Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the report

(ec) re Double sharp Ouch. My reply to the issue later.

Circumstances I want to note: being a long post is OK to me, bc it describes the complicated behaviour patterns that indeed might have an ANI angle. I note that EdChem, who contributed to the earlier ani-posts in this, has stepped in WT:ELEMENTS to contribute to content discussions and giving example of good talkhabits. Re my own contributions: I myself took a low profile (low activity) on the page. I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [67][68]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Procedure suggestion, to simplify this thread: Double sharp (Ds) raises two problems: "behaviour" and "... behavioural issues aside, I also have issues with his use of sources" (anchor). Make it 2 threads then? One on a "WP:ANI-for-source-handling" page? (Maybe EdChem can help in this). Anyway, let's not mix up these and give both due attention. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: I consider it to just be important that the issue is looked at; anything that will give it better attention I support. If you and uninvolved editors here think it's best to split the thread, possibly to a separate venue where source handling is supposed to be discussed, I have zero objections. Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    • 100%. I only wanted to note that these are 1. different topics in the report, and 2. each need their own attention. (Misunderstanding might be from my question: is ani the right place to do GF BAD source handling issues, or is that a content/RS/some-otherANI/... thing?). Some split would also prevent getting things mixed up into confusion, here. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't been at WP for several days and am disappointed to find this back at ANI.
• I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be. Several posts at WT:ELEM feel to me more like analysis of RS to support / justify his view rather than summary of RS, and thus wander into OR territory. This diff where Sandbh refers to unpublished insider information is absolutely not a basis for encyclopaedic content based on RS. I am concerned that Sandbh is heading for a topic ban as some of his contributions belong in the primary literature; they are not summaries of it. There is a behavioural / conduct issue here and some advice to Sandbh would be welcome.
• Double sharp notes Sandbh's not following my suggestion on the noble metals article. I was disappointed by his choice but also recognise that he was totally free to continue editing / pursue a different approach. He did restore material that Double sharp had removed but with changes meant to address concerns that Ds had raised – so this is a content dispute, IMO, at this time.
• I share Double sharp's concerns that some of Sandbh's comments needlessly personalise disagreements / issues, such as by attributing motives to others' posts rather than dealing with their content, and are worded in ways that might give offense. Certainly I object to comparing a disagreement between science educated editors about a science topic to dealing with the rusted-on views of Trump supporters, but ANI's history of dealing with civility issues is not inspiring. So, there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue. I don't want to call for or support a topic ban as I hope that one will not be necessary, but I do fear that that's where Sandbh is heading. Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science.
• Double sharp has been responding well to guidance and I am optimistic that ELEM can work cooperatively and collaboratively.
• I share DePiep's concern about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, for which I also accept some of the blame.
• I ask all contributors from ELEM to consider carefully whether any contribution to this thread is adding new material to help ANI-ites to understand the issues... and if it is not, to reflect on whether that contribution is needed. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In order to hopefully draw more attention to this, I have collapsed my OP and simply taken out the two quotes from it that I find by far the most egregious. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• ​​​My analysis of the report. (Had to be careful over being short; might contain repetition re original report). In section/subthread WT:ELEM#Noble metals (since 19 Oct, size 40k):

Sandbh about editors behaviour not content

[69] your "no category" agenda: having an "agenda"? Sandbh casting bad faith. [70][71] warnings by EdChem. [72] (1st paragraph) Sandbh not retracting, reconfirming instead.

[73] With my best German accent: ... verboten!: BF, attack, again.

[74] A little bit of homework would have ... I am not impressed snarky, talking down, cynical at best.

[75] You know nothing about ... (in an other subthread)

POLICY denouncing and ignoring

[76] edited the article under discussion, [77] "is disputed" says Ds, [78] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus.

[79] I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI: Rejects POLICY explicitly. (Fact: ANI is about behaviour, talkpages about content; Sandbh conflates these two and then claims this is a reason to ignore policies).

From subthread WT:ELEM#OR, SYNTH and DUE (18 Oct):

[80] I know more than I can disclose: ignores WP:V.

[81] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all.

[82] In writing all of this I realise the irony of myself quoting WP policy: not irony, but contradicting and cherrypicking.

[83] (17 July, Archive): rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR.

[84] WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies).

Responses

Responses by Double sharp (Ds) and EdChem, there are many, I mostly skipped here. Researching this, I do sense serious attitude and actions by Ds to correct the flow, also signs of desperation, resulting in this ANI report. There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [85][86] (is back now).

Conclusions

Sandbh behavioural issues are present. Attacking other editors, introducing bad faith.

Policy denials, present in writing and in edits, derail the discussion and so far resulted in unresolved editwarring (articles in bad state).

This behaviour is disruptive, attacking and editwarring editing. Maybe not worth ANI by itself, but in a broader sense it is spoiling productive discussion, preventing advancement of the project, at the cost of other editor's time, input and GF.

I therefor suggest Sandbh be topicbanned (WP:ELEMENTS) for one or two months, so that the discussions can be concluded in a sound way.

-DePiep (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support tban - I think EdChem has a good summation above - By my count this is ANI #3? I had a feeling by the end of ANI #1 that we'd end up here. My read of all three ANIs and the discussions linked therein (which is OMG like 75,000 words) is that while pretty much everyone involved has made some mistake somewhere, and thus no one is blameless and no one is solely responsible, everyone involved has made a real effort to (a) modify their own approach and (b) work towards a compromise with others, except, unfortunately, Sandbh, who, as can be seen in the two quotes at the top of this thread (which I will paraphrase as: "To hell with consensus, I will do what I want because I know what's best"), does not appear open to modifying their own approach or working towards a compromise with others. My read is that at this point, Sandbh's participation is getting in the way of all the other editors completing a resolution of this group of disputes. I think removing Sandbh from the topic area is what's best for all the other editors involved in the topic area. It's only fair that we give the other editors some help here, because the only thing more painful than reading 75,000 words of people arguing is writing it. I also think it'll be good for Sandbh to edit in another topic area, with different editors, long enough to forget all these conflicts, and then come back in the future and have a fresh start. Lev!vich 01:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Placeholder by Sandbh I hadn't intended to comment. Since an uninvolved editor has indicated support for a sanction, I'll address the various concerns raised here as soon as I can, subject to RL obligations. I regret the need to do so as this will increase the current ~4,200 thread word count. That said, I expect it will be in my interests, and possibly benefit interested WP:ELEM regulars and semi-regulars, to seek to give a fair account of my perceptions of recent events. Sandbh (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: I intend to start drafting my fair account now, subject to RL obligations. Thank you User:YBG and Double sharp, as colleagues, for your patience in waiting for me to do so. I don't know how long this will take; reading through the thread just now it appears to contain ~70 allegations concerning my conduct. Thank you User:Andrew for your RFC suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(minor TWIKITEXT fix: YBG = User:YBG, Andrew User:Andrew -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC))

---

Principles and preliminaries: Here are some contextual guiding principles, policies and statements that I feel are relevant to the thread. I'll be referencing these in my fair account.

[P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

"Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

[P2] From WP:NOR:

"This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."

[P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:

"General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors."

[P4] Ditto:

"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."

[P5] From the WP:BOOMERANG essay:

"Responders: Investigate fully"

[P6] From User:Lev!vich on Oct 11 [87]:

"I was going to close this with the following closing statement: …this thread is over 27,000 words in 14 subheadings, making up about 1/3 of WP:ANI. If any admin or other uninvolved editor wants to read it and close this with action, please feel free to revert my close, but I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time… If there are conduct issues that repeat and help is sought from uninvolved editors (e.g. admin), perhaps consider requesting 20 minutes of help (e.g. by limiting yourself to ~1,000 words in the ANI report) instead of requesting many hours of help (27,000 words). Lev!vich 03:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

[P7] From WP:ASPERSIONS:

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Arbitration Committee principle: Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[P8] This post by User:DePiep, on Oct 10 [88], to a previous WP:ANI thread:

"You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."

[P9] This following statement by me addresses the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI:

User:DePiep has been blocked on 13–15 previous occasions, for incivility and disruptive conduct [89].

Euryalus indefinitely placed DePiep under several editing restrictions in May 2018 [90]; namely [91]:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

On Sep 27th I filed a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [92]. I summarised the behaviour and provided relevant w\links, dates and times, but no diffs as I didn't know I had to. After I was asked to provide diffs, I replied as follows: "Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs." [93] Subsequently the report was closed by User:Salvio on Sep 28th, on the grounds that, "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented."[94]

On Sep 29th, User:R8R lodged a WP:ANI report re incivil and disruptive behaviour by User:DePiep [95]. It was in this thread that DePiep posted the hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment [Principle 8, above] aimed at R8R. The thread was closed on Oct 12th, by User:El_C with, "no action with some mild warnings." [96]

In the above context, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".

[P10] The following brief statement by me addresses my WP history and conduct:

• editor for nine years and WP:ELEM member for eight years;
• 18,000+ edits: quality, not quantity;
• never been blocked or formally sanctioned or received (AFAICR) a warning from an admin;
• I behaved like a bull in a china shop wrt to my Sep 27 WP:ANI complaint alleging misconduct by DePiep;
• I posted an apology about this conduct at WP:AN, on Sep 28 [97]
• I have three FA/TFA: metalloid; heavy metals; astatine (with R8R);
• Currently working on noble metal: before [98]; after.

[P11] From the closure report to ANI 2 [99]:

"…there has been some heated language and tone in this thread ("jerk" here, "fucking" there), but nothing that I would consider even coming close to being beyond the pale. This sort of thread, with its original post and following ever-compounding length shows the limitation of of this forum…Warnings: DePiep, don't warn other editors that you will block them (you can't, and even if you could, you would not be allowed to per INVOLVED). Don't even say that you will have them blocked. Say that you will report their edits to admins for review…Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Starting what I hope to be a fair account of my actions, in response to ~70+ allegations

Double sharp’s allegations and concerns

1. I am “still discussing editors rather than edits”

That's not right. I’m still discussing content. I've been discussing some editors, out of desperation, after citing innumerable reliable sources to no avail. I see my colleague User:R8R has likewise felt the need to discuss the conduct of another WP:ELEM member [100]. After four years of inaction on the part of the other editor concerned, that is reasonable, IMO, and I support R8R in making those comments.

2. (sometimes to my mind going way too far)

You’re entitled to your opinion. Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments you are referring to are relatively benign.

3. I “show…zero interest in following policy

I never said I had zero interest in “following” policy. Rather, I have zero interest in having a festival of policy-citing within our project. I note you are in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above, re WP:ASPERSIONS.

4. I continue…to refer to unpublished sources.

So? Per Principle 2 above, from WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Yes, I do refer to some unpublished sources, within the WP:ELEM talk page, based on my contacts within the chemistry community.

As I said, I do this, “Because we are project members who are committed to a common purpose, who bring gifts differing to our collective endeavours, and who hold each other accountable for our successes (or not), rather than citing WP:POLICY.”[101]

There is also Principle 1 which I set out above, “From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page: "Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

5. The 1st most egregious quote as DS saw it:

[23 Oct] "No, I do not intend to persuade others more than I can do by my editing or, by discussions here, as appropriate. Yes ANI is the Wild West of due process, IMO and experience. Ask R8R how he feels. I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. My only interest is in building a better encyclopaedia and in discussing matters of mutual interest here with other editors. I regularly speak with chemists, authors, or teachers outside WP and I can assure you all we talk about is ideas and viewpoints and, as appropriate, setting out our arguments in the peer-reviewed literature. That is no different to what I do here."

I confirm what I said. I edit a lot, and generally provide citations from the literature, and I discuss a lot at WP:ELEM, frequently with accompanying citations from the literature. IMO, and experience, ANI is the Wild West of due process. That's presumably why Principle 3 above suggests not going to WP:ANI, and if you do, it will be like war. In my experience of WP:ANI there is no surety of due process, and there is no WP policy that I'm aware of that sets out what editors, who raise things at WP:ANI, can expect. WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.

6.The 2nd most egregious quote as DS saw it:

[22 Oct] "Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. ... I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot.

Please User:Double Sharp, if you are going to cherry pick what I wrote, and join parts of two separate edits I made, then copy and paste the code, not the on-screen text. In this case the w/link to selective perception, behind "perceptual filtering" was left out. I put it their for a reason and have now reinstated it.

Briefly, the subject quote was a general comment about “not liking” scientific terminology used in the literature and deciding not to use any it on that basis, rather than, making a decision, within an encyclopaedia, based on scientific usage. The link to perceptual filtering explains the phenomenon. I made the comment after citing innumerable sources, without success.

As User:EdChem (whom DS likes to refer to) wisely counselled, "The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[102] Ditto, as I said, "…all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to our personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them."

6A. "I note User:Games of the world has previously commented on this behaviour of Sandbh at the second ANI thread."

I addressed Games of the world allegations. [103]

Games of the world has their own block record to reflect upon.[104] They recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.[105]

In my view, comments by Games of the World, within WP:ANI, have no credibility. Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

7. “Continued disrespect for policy and the standard Wikipedia processes that go on here, even after EdChem has explained to us what policy and in particular WP:IAR entails at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#EdChem.“

While I respect WP policy, understand it, and strive to uphold it, and occasionally fall short of it due to exasperation with the conduct of one or more WP:ELEM colleagues, I'm not interested in it. As far as IAR goes I fall back on Principle 1, as cited above, which asks WP: ELEM members to not adhere to WP rules and guidelines too strictly (linking to WP:IAR) in the interests of building a better encyclopaedia.

8. “Pushing his controversial text into articlespace even though some objections to it have been raised by me and User:EdChem has suggested we reboot a discussion for consensus.”

Per Principle 4—"Don't complain about content issues. If you're upset because another user disagrees with you and you can't come to a compromise, ANI isn't going to help you."—this was a content issue; as such, it merits no further comment. In any event, EdChem made a suggestion which he acknowledged I was under no obligation nor expectation to act on [106].

9. “Non-stop attributing of motives to other editors even after it was made clear at the second ANI discussion that it is not appropriate in a content dispute:

[20 Oct] The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Directed at User:R8R. [107]

[19 Oct] I may revert these deletions, which I feel are consistent with your "no category" agenda, rather than seeking to improve the graphic, accompanying table, or article. Directed at me. [108]“

No evidence has been provided for “non-stop” attributions, in breach of the ArbCom principle at Principle 7 above.

The 20 Oct comment was made out of exasperation with the conduct of R8R after I cited innumerable sources. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”

The 19 Oct comment was a courtesy post to Double sharp, as a fellow project member, rather than a revert without warning. He had a choice to add a citation needed tag to the article in question. He chose to instead delete the content involved and made no attempt to improve the article. His "no category" agenda is something DS has been pursuing within WP:ELEM.

10. “Extreme reactions to criticism of his approach by others:

[23 Oct] I object in the strongest terms to your libellous characterisation of my, “approach of article writing in general.” Directed at me. [109]

(For reference, what I wrote was I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general.”

Yes, I regard Double sharp’s allegations to my approach of article writing “in general” to be unfounded, having zero evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, and effectively trashing my reputation. Double Sharp's concerns with my approach of article writing in general are inconsistent with my WP history, as set out in Principle 10, above, including three FAs.

11 “ Continuing to refer to unpublished and therefore explicitly by policy unreliable sources.”

Per Principle 2 above, taken from WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." In this context, I have nothing to account for wrt Double sharp's concern.

I believe this essentially concludes my attempted fair account of my actions in response to Double sharp’s concerns.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

DePiep’s concerns
Aa a general observation, I regard DePiep's selective contributions as an example of sour grapes and cherry-picking, following the ANI I filed against him, which was followed by R8R's ANI against him.

Other readers can, and will no doubt, make up their own minds.

1. "I note that the project talkpage: now is 870k, has 6–12 huge sections that are interleaved and interacting(!), and has had between 17–23 Oct 360 edits (+200k text), that's 23 burning posts/day to handle -- read, digest & reply (basic stats: [144][145]; 2020). No happily involved editor can keep track of such discussions, let alone help brewing a consensus."

Yes, we talk about a lot of things on the WP:ELEM talk page. So what? I can keep track of the discussions. Double sharp does too. I suggest you are spreading yourself across too many projects to be able to focus on any one of them with sufficient depth.

2. "I also have issues with his use of sources"

You have provided no specific information.

3. "[110] “You know nothing about ...” (in an other subthread)"

Let me add the context to this extract:

"@Double sharp:. Quick comment. You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up."

Yes, in my opinion, judging by what I know of DS’s RL background, and other posts at WP:ELEM, DS has shown zero awareness of the organisation politics that go on in large entities like IUPAC. I was speaking from decades of experience in working in such organisations, and my contacts within the chemistry community.

4. "[111] edited the article under discussion, [112] "is disputed" says Ds, [113] continued changing the article, ignores WP:BRD and no-consensus."

That’s right, I edited the article as any editor is entitled to do so. As a courtesy I alerted DS that I reserved my right to revert one or more of his edits. Only after I did my research, and found citations in the literature, did I revert. There was no consensus needing to be established in the first place. DePiep likes to cite no-consensus in response to edits he does not like, when there was never a need to establish consensus in the first place.

I further note what EdChem had to say, which you chose to ignore, and as I quoted elsewhere in this thread:

"Double sharp notes Sandbh's not following my suggestion on the noble metals article. I was disappointed by his choice but also recognise that he was totally free to continue editing / pursue a different approach. He did restore material that Double sharp had removed but with changes meant to address concerns that Ds had raised – so this is a content dispute, IMO, at this time."

5. "[114] only interested in blanket WP:IAR, that is: accepting no POLICY at all."

This selective extract has no basis in fact. Here’s some more of what I wrote:

"I’m more interested in WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia. The quality of an encyclopedia doesn't rest on quoting WP policy to one another. Much more relevant is Wikipedia has no firm rules:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles…"."

"This is particularly relevant, I feel, in chemistry, where there is much fuzziness not helped by the disinterest of the IUPAC, when it comes to terminology. Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy."

I further point to Principle 1, above:

From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

"Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

6. [115] (17 July, Archive): “rest of the editors ... a personal preference or a very limited grasp. ... I've been arguing the question with Scerri [RL publishing scientist, DePiep] since 2008 ... I'll have to deal with personal opinions and their associated perspectives”. Claiming authority, skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR."

Your conclusion has no basis in fact. I made no claim to authority. Rather I set out what I can bring to the project. And, yes, the realities of operating within a project invariable involve dealing with person opions, and their associated perspectives. but that’s life.

On "skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR" you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

7. "[116] “WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace” ? (No one said so. Anyway another claim to ignore content discussion policies)."

That is another selective, out of context, quote. Here’s some more of what I said in that post:

"Thanks for your interest. Anybody can improve an article anytime they like. As you can see YBG has already taken a keen interest in my efforts to do so. I'm not doing anything different to the approach I took to metalloid and heavy metals. There is no controversy of any significance as I have improved the article consistent with the approach I took to the PTM article, the metal article, and the nonmetal article."

"I don't understand your reference to rolling out "sweeping" change into the mainspace. WP:ELEM does not own any articles in the mainspace. The first improvement I made was to restore (and improve, with citations) the electrode potential table that you deleted. The second improvement was to restore (and improve, with citations) the colour coded periodic table that you deleted. As you said on the talk page, "…I remove the text pending actual citations that use this as a benchmark. For similar reasons I also remove the periodic table." I have now addressed your "pending actual citations" suggestion."

8. "There is an earlier history; e.g., Ds left the project for a while [117][118] (is back now)."

As I recall, DS temporarily left the project due to, among other things, his failed ANI notification; and failed RFC re the composition of group 3; and his failure at the WP:ELEM talk page to convince me to support his perspective on group 3. I recall he said our philosophical differences, which arose in the WP:ELEM talk page, were causing him undue stress.

9. "I therefor suggest Sandbh be topicbanned (WP:ELEMENTS) for one or two months, so that the discussions can be concluded in a sound way. -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)"

A TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

Principle 5 above says, "Responders: Investigate fully". Principle 6 acknowledges that this does not happen, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…". DePeip himself said he cannot keep up to date with WP:ELEM dicussions. In this context, I allege DePiep is in breach of Principle 5.

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

EdChem’s concerns

1. "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"

EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my Principle 2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however.

2. "I share Double sharp's concerns that some of Sandbh's comments needlessly personalise disagreements / issues, such as by attributing motives to others' posts rather than dealing with their content, and are worded in ways that might give offense."

Yes, I can get snarky at times, as I’m sure other editors can, after providing innumerable citations from the literature, and then running into the "I don’t like it" phenomenon, which arises from the subconscious auto-pilot of perceptual filters. I commented elsewhere at WP:ELEM: “…here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!”

Compared to the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI, per my Principle 9 above, I suggest the few comments EdChem is referring to are relatively benign.

3. "Certainly I object to comparing a disagreement between science educated editors about a science topic to dealing with the rusted-on views of Trump supporters, but ANI's history of dealing with civility issues is not inspiring."

Omitted by EdChem is the "(no offence intended)" caveat I included with my original comment [119]. We have it here in Oz, with rusted on supporters of the Coalition, and rusted on supporters of the Labor party. Everyone knows that politics hinges upon speaking to the swinging voters and parties in the middle. I note EdChem’s comment about ANI’s record of dealing with incivility.

I used to do this too, i.e. basing some of my decisions within WP:CHEM on what I did or did not like, rather than accepting that science sometimes produces ugly outcomes, and reporting that.

As EdChem commented, ""The central point, IMO, should not be about the dispute, it should be about the science."[120] Bravo!

4. "…there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"

Per my Principle 2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

5. "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."

No evidence has been provided for these implied observations about my conduct, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I have noted repeatedly, per WP:OR, the policy of no OR does not apply to talk pages.

6. "I share DePiep's concern about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, for which I also accept some of the blame."

I have no concerns about the volume of material posted at WT:ELEM, given the nature of some of the topics we discuss there, including the fuzzy nature of chemistry.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Lev!vich's concerns

1. "I think EdChem has a good summation above."

You’re entitled to your opinion, and to express it.

More relevant factors to consider are that core members of WP:ELEM have been such members for nearly ten years, whereas EdChem, who is not a member of the project, has been participating for a number of weeks. I regard his perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial.

You may wish to consider my response to EdChem’s summation.

2. "By my count this is ANI #3?"

So? I filed the first ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. R8R raised the second ANI re alleged misconduct and disruptive behaviour by DePiep. Double sharp filed the third ANI re my alleged conduct.

3. "My read of all three ANIs and the discussions linked therein (which is OMG like 75,000 words) is that while pretty much everyone involved has made some mistake somewhere, and thus no one is blameless and no one is solely responsible, everyone involved has made a real effort to (a) modify their own approach and (b) work towards a compromise with others, except, unfortunately, Sandbh, who, as can be seen in the two quotes at the top of this thread (which I will paraphrase as: "To hell with consensus, I will do what I want because I know what's best"), does not appear open to modifying their own approach or working towards a compromise with others."

That is an unfounded and sweeping generalisation. The first two ANI’s were about DePiep, not me. The third, which is unconnected to the first two, is about me. Ditto your paraphrase, which unjustifiably misrepresents what I said. What I have said is that I have no interest in WP policy, nor in having a festival of WP policy citing within WP:ELEM. As is said, I respect WP policy.

4. "My read is that at this point, Sandbh's participation is getting in the way of all the other editors completing a resolution of this group of disputes."

There is no "group of disputes". ANI 1 was closed, with no action. ANI 2 was closed with some mild warnings. ANI 3 is unrelated to ANI's 1 and 2.

5. "I think removing Sandbh from the topic area is what's best for all the other editors involved in the topic area."

In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, I suggest such a removal is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread; and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.

In my view, Lev!vich's comments and conclusion fall short of Principle 5, i.e. "Responders: Investigate fully". Lev!vich himself acknowledge that this does not happen, per Principle 6, e.g., "I suggest it's not really reasonable for us to ask a volunteer to donate that much time…".

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Softlavender's concerns

1. "It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [121] [122] (and also from one in August [123]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch."

You're entitled to your opinion, and to express it.

It's easy to throw mud; some of it well stick, never mind its veracity.

The 4 August 2014 ANI "Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh" was lodged by Double sharp [124]. Among other things it included allegations of WP:OR on the WP:ELEM talk page. As noted by me, WP:OR does not apply to a talk page. Since Double sharp’s concerns were deemed to be content related [125], Double sharp advised he had withdrawn the report[126]. The WP:ANI was closed on the same day [127].

Note Double sharp's "obsession" with my use of sources.

The context for DS's 4 Aug ANI filing was an 8,000 word RFC initiated by him 20 Jul 2020, re matters we had been discussing at WP:ELEM. [128] I objected to way this RFC had been put, including, "…other unacceptable behaviour alluded to on his part, including his hack work on our periodic table article; removing some of my citation supported content; slandering me; swearing; and effectively demanding I provide a falsifiable hypothesis when I was under no obligation to do so."[129]

The RFC came to nothing after another editor from WP:CHEMISTRY posted:

• Extremely strong oppose (I have to make this prominent to balance and counteract the supports above) Just about all the arguments are irelevant and we should just use the traditional form eith La and Ac under Y. If needed we can use the place holder * or **." [the caps and bolding are from the comment as posted] [130]

DS subsequently posted, to me, "Now I have stepped back and thought about it. I have gone overboard, and I apologise for it."[131]

The RFC was closed with this comment, "Per consensus to abandon this trainwreck of a thread as-is. (non-admin closure)" [132]

As for allegedly being "by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch" [italics added], I'm not the editor in the bunch who has 13 to 15 previous blocks and who is under threat of an indefinite ban, for the slightest transgression.

Nothing came out of the last two recent ANI filings Softlavender referred to, in respect of me.

2. "He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines."

For my cooperative behaviour, I've been discussing matters of mutual interest with fellow WP:ELEM members, Double sharp and YBG [133], and with EdChem [134]. WP:ELEM member DePiep recently asked me for some advice concerning another matter of mutual interest to WP:ELEM members and I said I would try and put something together for him [135]. I’ve been working on the noble metal article. WP:CHEMISTRY member User:Smokefoot, a chemist who works with noble metals, provided some helpful commentary [136] and I incorporated and responded to, his concerns[137].

In terms of progressing some of the content issues at WP:ELEM, there is a kernel of agreement amongst different combinations of us [138], but not agreement to proceed. I put forward a compromise solution in one matter [139]. Neither of the other parties were prepared to move a little bit. On another matter I have put forward about 28 alternatives [no diffs here; anybody from WP:ELEM can shoot or salute me on this one]. Nobody will move. For R8R I attempted to reach a win-win solution with him [140]; he was not interested, and remains so. On Double sharp's no category agenda, I put forward a hybrid solution to him, here. While nobody else in WP:ELEM expressed an intersted in DS' agenda, DS did recently express a passing interest in my proposal [no diff as I've forgotten where DS posted this comment].

As for your allegation concerning my dishonesty, you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. I object in the strongest possible terms to your unfounded allegation that I am not honest. Where is your evidence?

On taking guidance or instruction, and following policy or guidelines, I learnt many lessons after my ANI re DePiep, and I apologised for my bull in a china shop conduct, that I showed at that time. While I have no interest in policy, or unasked for guidance from people who assume they know better than me, I follow it, according to the advice given at WP:ELEM, per Principle 1 above, namely:

"*Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

Yes, I have many good days, and a few bad days now and then, especially after repeatedly banging my head against the wall within WP:ELEM no matter how many citations I provide, and despite the advice of Ed:Chem to focus on what the science is telling us. But that's life, and I have to navigate my way through the nature of politics within a WP project like WP:ELEM. At least I know the nature of the WP:ELEM landscape, and the views of members. And this will guide me in putting forward at least one RFC to the wider WP community. WP:ELEM is a very small project, and I feel an RFC will be appropriate in the case I have in mind, following extensive discussion within the project, and over ten years of WP:ELEM history behind it.

On taking advice, I will be following your good advice regarding how to start an RFC. [141]

3. "In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop"."

You’ve inappropriately chosen to take what I said out of context. I object to your WP:INCIVIL behaviour in this regard. Here is the full post of mine, as posted to WP:AN, concerning my behaviour in ANI 1 [142]:

"I apologise for acting like a bull in a china shop

with respect to my allegations of incivil behaviour by User:DePiep. I'll discuss my remaining concerns with the individual editors involved. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So, I reject your assertion. I may get snarky from time to time with WP:ELEM colleagues, after beating my head against a wall, never mind how many citations from the literature I provide. I suggest this is a far away from being a bull in a china shop. Per my Principle 8 above, and DePiep's hostile, expletive-laden shouty comment addressed at R8R, namely, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R.", which result in nothing other than a mild warning to DePiep, the incivility tolerance bandwidth at WP:ANI seems to have become, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide".

4. "Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked)"

In my view, including in the context of Principle 11 above, a TBAN is unjustified; unsubstantiated; out of all proportion to the allegations made in this thread;, and is inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME; and your reputation, from what I recall reading, as a respected editor [143].

I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:OR, noting it does not apply to talk pages; and Principle 5 above, re responders investigating fully; and Principles 9 and 11.

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Andrew’s comment
Oppose sanction – suggest RfC

1. "The issue seems to be a detail of the layout and colour scheme for the periodic table."

Yes, that is essentially the content issue, in varying aspects. I’ve expressed my views about these at the WP:ELEM talk page, including some instances of snarkiness. The main contention, according to Double sharp is that I should not be allowed to discuss OR on a talk page, when in fact WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Any of the content issues of contention within WP:ELEM could be put to an RFC at any time.

--- Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

YBG's concerns

1. "I will reiterate what I said in a previous round, that at ELEM, DePiep, whose past behavior has been highly objectionable, has significantly improved of late, save for one or two unfortunate outbursts."

"Sandbh's recent behavior, in contrast, is worse than in the past."

Outside of WP:ELEM, my editing speaks for itself. Inside WP:ELEM I rarely become snarky, as a proportion of my contributions. I don’t know what YBG is referring to as he has never, AFAICR, raised any concerns within WP:ELEM. If I ever become something more than snarky, then you will know about it as I will post something along the lines of DePiep's foul-mouthed attack against R8R, in this very forum. I've never done so during my time as an editor, and never intend to.

2. "But a tban is not my desired outcome."

"What I hope to see is Sandbh's recognition of a need to change his editing and discussion behavior, and a commitment to do so."

If he responds defensively without recognizing a need to change, particularly if it entails a huge volume of text, then I will sadly have to recognize that my preferred outcome is unlikely to occur."

I was dismayed that YBG appeared to to judge me before I had an opportunity to give a fair account of my actions. Further, that there seems to be some kind of limit in his view as to what length I can go to defend myself. It is easy for others to raise 70+ allegations, a significant number without evidence, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. It is quite another thing to attempt to address such allegations.

I believe my behaviour falls within the bounds of rhetoric, which deals with the need to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences—a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics, as our article puts it. While mine and Double sharp's philosophies may differ, I have never attacked DS the person, nor has he me, although we have attacked one another's philosophies, which is an aspect of rhetoric. Indeed, while we have our differences we agree in other matters.

That said, I regret any offence unintentionally given to WP:ELEM colleagues.

I’m happy to consider a request to change my behaviours at any time in response to specific, justified, reasonable concerns, and in the context of Principles 9 and 11, above. I’d expect the same courtesy to be extended to me, if I have concerns about the conduct of colleagues.

At the same time—per Principles 9 and 11 above—I don’t expect to be an angel 100% of the time nor do I expect colleagues to be paradigms of conduct at all times. I have a reasonable tolerance for snarkiness. In nine years of editing I’ve experienced intolerable behaviour from just two editors, one who has retired; the other was DePiep, on three occasions, the second of which resulted in my first ever WP:ANI report, and the follow on report by R8R.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Sandbh's conclusions

1. Principle 11, from the closure report to ANI 2, speaks to a lot of my conclusions:

"Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on"

2. Among WRP:ELEM members, Double sharp is not looking for a sanction (from what I can see), neither is YBG. I'm ignoring DePiep 's selective contribution on the grounds of sour grapes, cherry-picking, and bias, following the ANI I filed against him, which was followed by R8R's ANI against him. R8R seems to be staying out of it.

3. Many of Double sharp's concerns arise from his allegations of OR on my part. As noted, WP:OR does not apply to discussions on talk pages.

4. As to my conduct, I defer to Principle 1 above. Harden up people.

5. Per User:Andrew, the RFC option is available to all.

6. My responses to User:Lev!vich and User:Softlavender speak for themselves.

7. If I've shot myself in the foot in error, please let me know and I'll fix it. There's a lot to remember in attempting to give a fair account of myself, in the face of a "huge volume of text" as YBG put it, containing multiple breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS.

8. I expect someone will play the Wikilawyering card as per the previous example by Softlavender [144]. That would be funny given the approximately 70+ allegations made against me, in the form of a hugh volume of text, including slander by Double sharp; and the fact the I allegedly don't follow WP:POLICY. Not to mention the absence, across our 6,000,000 articles of any guidance for respondents as to due process at WP:ANI. In presence of that void, all I can do is note the WP-based Principles I feel are relevant to the allegations made against me.

9. In accordance with Principle 3, "Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." I make the following allegations, as set out in my responses, and my comment re Softlavender's breach of WP:BRD:

• Double sharp has breached WP:ASPERSIONS three times;
• DePiep has breached WP:ASPERSIONS once; and twice more [145]
• EdChem has breached WP:ASPERSIONS three times; and
• Softlavender has breached WP:ASPERSIONS once, WP:CIVIL once, and WP:BRD once.

I call for WP:BOOMERANG action in respect of the above bullet points.

10. Alternatively, @Double sharp::

• we can recognise what a cobbler's time-sucking hamburger this thread is, per Principle P11
• you could withdraw your complaint
• WP:ELEM members can reflect on what has happened, and the wild West nature of WP:ANI, and learn from it
• WP:ELEM members can draw up a protocol of expectations for conduct within WP:ELEM, including principle P1
• we can put forward this protocol to WP:ANI as a basis for a set of principles governing how complaints of this nature will be handled here, including due process considerations, and expectations for the conduct of editors who comment here.

Your choice. As you have recognised the resources I bring to WP:ELEM, I recognise the resources and knowledge you bring. Even though, our philosophical approaches may differ in some areas. As User:R8R commented:

"In this beautiful language that you speak and I attempt to speak, there's the magnificent concept of "contest of ideas," something that does not have nearly as much currency as in my own mother tongue."

As EdChem noted, it's the science that counts, at the end of the day. We can seek to build this in to our protocol.

As Andrew has suggested, a few RFC's are always on the table.

Over to you.

---

Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Support TBAN of Sandbh. It was obvious to anyone watching the last two very recent ANI filings on ELEM [146] [147] (and also from one in August [148]) that Sandbh was and is by far the most disruptive editor in the whole bunch. He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines. In his own words and by his own admission, he is "a bull in a china shop" [149]. Therefore, to maintain order and Wikipedia protocols at ELEM, I feel that Sandbh needs to be taken out of the equation until he demonstrates elsewhere that he is able to edit cooperatively and collaboratively with editors who substantially disagree with him (or until he successfully appeals the TBAN by assuring the community what he will refrain from doing on pain of being blocked). Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by another ELEM editor I will reiterate what I said in a previous round, that at ELEM, DePiep, whose past behavior has been highly objectionable, has significantly improved of late, save for one or two unfortunate outbursts. Sandbh's recent behavior, in contrast, is worse than in the past. But a tban is not my desired outcome. What I hope to see is Sandbh's recognition of a need to change his editing and discussion behavior, and a commitment to do so. If he responds defensively without recognizing a need to change, particularly if it entails a huge volume of text, then I will sadly have to recognize that my preferred outcome is unlikely to occur. I am waiting to see how he fills out his placeholder above. YBG (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction – suggest RfC I have read through the discussion. The issue seems to be a detail of the layout and colour scheme for the periodic table. This is naturally of great interest to chemists – an issue comparable with the IAU definition of planet which caused Pluto to lose its former status. The trouble seems to be that IUPAC has not come to a conclusion and so the matter is not settled. As and when IUPAC does so, the issue will presumably then be settled here too. In the meantime, some provisional version is required. The discussion about this seems to be reasonably civil and Sandbh's part in it seems acceptable. The main thing that seems to be missing is a mechanism for arriving at a conclusion. We have such a process – WP:RFC – in which specific questions are put, discussed and then a formal close is made so that everyone can move on, There has been some talk of an RFC and Sandbh has indicated that they would accept the outcome. A particular obstacle seems to be that Double Sharp is too busy in RL, "I have drafted a second RFC on the group 3 dispute. I may still post it for the others who have talked about this, because after over seven months of arguing, they deserve an RFC. ... Since the RL time and situation-inflaming issues apply even to starting an RFC: I will not start one." We should encourage someone else to step up and start the RfC. In getting this done, the parties should please consider the following good example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic. Whatever this is and whoever posted it, it's not helping. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed. — Richard Feynman, "Los Alamos From Below", Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)

Re-revert by Softlavender. I reverted [150] the above hatnote by User:Softlavender, adding the following reason:

"This post formed a part of Andrew's contribution. As he said, it's an example of a decision-making process, not too dissimilar from a RFC. As such, it is on-topic."

Softlavender has now reverted my revert. Seemingly this is in breach of WP:BRD:

"These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block."

I intend to discuss this matter with Softlavender at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: In fact, that information about my level of busyness IRL is not currently true (it was then, but not now): as you can see, I am currently active on the project matters, and I have already started such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#The actual formal group 3 proposal. Others outside the project have also commented. It is true that I did not formally file it as an RFC; if the general consensus here is that that I should have done so, I can change that. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by OP. I agree with the assessment of User:YBG and likewise await User:Sandbh's filling out of his placeholder. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have seen the start of Sandbh's long comment; since there is still a TBC at the end of it, I will wait until he is finished to comment. Double sharp (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by respondent: I thank my colleagues @Double sharp: and @YBG: for their patience as I complete my fair account of my actions. Progress has been good today; the end is in sight. Sandbh (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• DePiep interfering with my fair account. DePiep took it upon himself to replace the horizontal rules in my attempted fair account, with breaks [151]. @DePiep: Stay out of my comments. Do not interfere with them. That is a courtesy I extended to you, following your request, in ANI 2. It seems you are unable to follow the standards of civility you expect of other editors. Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see that Sandbh has finished his very long response. I will try to find some time to read it before finalising my view. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

[152] Was posted after your sign, so not interfering. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments now that Sandbh has posted comments and conclusions

Sandbh, thank you for posting comments. I think a more concise response would have been preferable and it is difficult to decide what to address. Nevertheless...

1. It is asserted that the prohibition on original research does not apply to talk pages. Quoting from WP:NOR, it is "one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." So, the issue of OR on talk pages goes to whether the discussion is about putting OR into articles. Sandbh's comments that I linked to above are exactly as I described them, as they refer "to unpublished insider information is absolutely not a basis for encyclopaedic content based on RS." It reads as a declaration that Double sharp is only able to see the published information, which is put as ≤20% and that you are privy to the other 80%. The implication is that Sandbh's view should prevail due to access to unpublished information, which is inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:V. A talk page discussion can contain OR but article content can't and the post is problematic because it is about what should be included in article content.
2. Adding "(no offence intended)" immediately after a comment does not cause that offensive comment to become inoffensive. Comparing editors to "rusted-on Trump supporters" and implying that those who disagree are not worth working with is not only insulting to those editors, it is unhelpful as a comment on contributors rather than content, and it is inconsistent with the basis of WP as a collaborative project. Contributors at WT:ELEM are not actively denying information / facts that are supported by overwhelming evidence, nor are we / they advocating based on personal beliefs or politics without regard to the literature and RS, in line with WP policy.
3. It is true that I am not a member of WP:ELEM and have only been contributing at WT:ELEM comparatively recently – but so what? Any editor is free to contribute. I offered to help during the last ANI thread. I have been a Wikipedian for more than a decade, I am a qualified chemist, and I bring to the discussion knowledge of science and of WP editing / policy. In response to Levivich, Sanbh writes that "core members of WP:ELEM have been such members for nearly ten years, whereas EdChem, who is not a member of the project, has been participating for a number of weeks. I regard his perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial." Sandbh is entitled to his opinion of me, and I may have a superficial perception of events... but I have knowledge of science and editing and policy that is far from superficial. ANI contributors are well able to assess comments from editors and attempts to discredit others rather than refuting points being made are unhelpful.
4. It is true that ANI threads will look at all contributors. However, it is my view that the references to casting aspersions and calls for boomerang sanctions (against me, Double sharp, DePiep, and Softlavender) are out of place in this case. My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page. Further, unlike some others, I did not call for a sanction on Sandbh; rather, I expressed concerns that a topic ban may become necessary. Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content. I have read the published article that Snadbh link on my user talk page. It is interesting but significant parts are not suited to article space on DUE grounds and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature. Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome... I do not agree with this view of IAR and have commented at WT:ELEM that I see it as dangerous. Maybe Sandbh's views align better with policy that appears in recent comments – his editing history would suggest this – but comments and actions in the discussions of the periodic table could definitely be improved.

EdChem (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @EdChem: for your prompt response. I agree with you that a more concise response would have been preferable, Given 70+ allegations were made against me, a fair number in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm all ears as to your suggestion for a better way of responding, given the absence of any WP:ANI-specific protocols.

1. "The implication is that Sandbh's view should prevail due to access to unpublished information, which is inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:V. A talk page discussion can contain OR but article content can't and the post is problematic because it is about what should be included in article content."

Pardon me for expressing my thoughts frankly and in plain English: this is "bunkum": The views I express live and die according to reception afforded them at the WP:ELEM talk page. If you think a post of mine there, is problematic, then you can choose how much and what kind of attention to give to it.

2. "Adding "(no offence intended)" immediately after a comment does not cause that offensive comment to become inoffensive. Comparing editors to "rusted-on Trump supporters" and implying that those who disagree are not worth working with is not only insulting to those editors, it is unhelpful as a comment on contributors rather than content, and it is inconsistent with the basis of WP as a collaborative project.

As I caveated IGF, I did not intend to give offence. If you choose to interpret my IGF comment as offensive, on the basis that doing so works for you in some way, power to you. My example of "rusted on supporters", is a widely recognised phenomenon across the world. As I said, that's life (even within collaborative projects) and I accept it, and I have to move on e.g. by way of an RFC or seeking a compromise, as I mentioned. You draw a very long bow, bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS by interpreting my comment as "implying those who disagree are not worth working". Where is your evidence for my conduct in this regard? I have continued to work with all WP:ELEM members, and yourself throughout this WP:ANI report. As I have recounted, I proposed compromise solutions to some of the issues under discussion at WP:ELEM. Why do you choose to overlook these things?

3. "It is true that I am not a member of WP:ELEM and have only been contributing at WT:ELEM comparatively recently – but so what?"

I agree, it doesn't matter to me! In fact I posted an invitation for you to drop by for a metaphorical cup of tea. Yes, I said your "perception of events at WP:ELEM, welcome as his involvement is, as being superficial." And you said, "I may have a superficial perception of events".

And then you added, "I have knowledge of science and editing and policy that is far from superficial. ANI contributors are well able to assess comments from editors and attempts to discredit others rather than refuting points being made are unhelpful."

Where is this coming from? Where is your evidence that I criticised your knowledge of science and editing and policy, or implied that is was superficial? Once again you are bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

4a. "…it is my view that the references to casting aspersions and calls for boomerang sanctions (against me, Double sharp, DePiep, and Softlavender) are out of place in this case."

Did you read Principle 3? Here it is again:

"[P3] From the Wikipedia:ANI advice essay:

"General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors."

I didn't start this WP:ANI report. Where is your specific, factual evidence countering my allegations of you breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, three time? You cannot get away with blithely saying, "My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page." Where are the diffs?

4b. "Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content. I have read the published article that Snadbh link on my user talk page. It is interesting but significant parts are not suited to article space on DUE grounds…

Oh my. I face 70+ allegations, including those in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. I have explained my approach to WP:POLICY, and cited WP:POLICY extensively. I continue to work with all WP:ELEM members. Why do you WP:SYNTH a peer-reviewed article of mine appearing in an academic journal with DUE? Have I cited the article? Have you raised any concerns about these cites on DUE grounds? Once again, your implications are bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

4c. "…and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."

Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

4d. "Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome…"

Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.

Did you read Principle P1? Here it is again:

[P1] From the Collaboration section of the "Welcome to WikiProject Elements!" page:

"Be bold in making sure that our articles exhibit the best article standards and follow our guidelines. But please do not follow the rules and guidelines too strictly, keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible."

Please note the link to WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

You are entitled to your views on IAR. Please do not judge me in this light. Judge me in light of what WP:IAR actually says, and Principle P1. Personally, I do not care that you "see it [IAR] as dangerous". Fire is dangerous too. Of course, you are entitled to your view, and to express it, and I respect that principle.

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Sitrep: WP:ELEM
​​​​​​ 1. With input from User:DePiep and User:Narky Blert I'm drafting an RFC dealing with how many nonmetal categories we show on the WP periodic table.

2. I understand User:Double sharp intends to put forward an RFC on the composition of group 3.

3. After four years of nil progress,[153] it seems the development of a proposed a new colouring scheme for the WP periodic table, is progressing.

There are no other controversies at WP:ELEM that I'm aware of. User:Double sharp may have some remaining concerns about the approach to periodic table colour categories generally. He's been discussing a preference for a periodic table "blocks only" approach. I put a compromise hybrid approach to him. I haven't heard anything further about this, nor from other WP:ELEM members, that I can recall.
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here. I am not convinced there is atonement. Which implies that the issue we are here for, ANI=behaviour, may not be solved or corraled. I might reply more specific (in a later reply).

Ah and oh, your 00:51 post above contains (apart from harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here), another fine filthy stab directed at me. "Thanks". -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thank you. Feel free to post a more specific reply. With respect to your allegations of…

(1) "harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here)"; and

(2) "another fine filthy stab directed at me"

…you are, twice again, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. Consistent with Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors.", I'll add this to your list of breaches, for WP:BOOMERANG consideration. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: PS: With regard to your comment, "I have followed, sometimes glancing, the posts here." please see Principle P5 above, "From the WP:BOOMERANG essay: "Responders: Investigate fully". You may wish to reflect upon the question of whether, "sometimes glancing" would be construed as meeting the requirement of responders, such as yourself, to "Investigate fully". Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I also have plans for a later reply. Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you. No rush on my part. Take your time. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Holy walls of text, Batman! EEng 02:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been wondering how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block. I'm sure Sandbh does useful editing but how could anyone imagine that it is appropriate to spam this page so much, or that doing so would help their case? Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @EEng and Johnuniq: In my posts above I broadly hinted that my friend Sandbh would be better off with brevity than verbosity. From his posts, he apparently feels a need to answer every single claim. Your responses here confirm my concern that he has done himself a disservice, at least in the eyes of some ANI watchers. YBG (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

      @EEng and Johnuniq: Correcting malformed ping above YBG (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng, Johnuniq, and YBG: Thank you. ANI#2, which I did not file, ran to 30,000 words; This ANI runs to 15,600 words. By my reckoning, the opening statements alone amounted to some, 4,000 words. Should this merit a WP:CIR block, just by itself? Other editors have since added about 6,100 words. How much of that is "spam", as you put it User:Johnuniq?

I'm all ears as to how to respond to 70+ allegations, with multiple breaches, per WP:BOOMERANG, by other editors, of WP:ASPERSIONS (an ArbCom policy no less) in another form. Note WP has 6,000,000 articles but nothing on the "rights" of editors who raise things here, nor the "rights" of respondents. There for sure is WP:BOOMERANG however. I say these things not out of disrespect for WP:ANI, since ANI is potentially bad news for anyone, and that warrants a lot of respect. I say it rather as a statement of how things tend to work around here.

Recall, per Principle P3 above namely, "General advice about opening a dispute: Don't. Just... don't. Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." It's easy for editors to make allegations; it is much, much harder to respond to them. In any event, I recall I responded to about 2/3rds of the allegations against me, rather than all of them.

Let us too consider the remarks made by the admin who closed the "wall-of-text" of ANI 2:

"Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on."

I agree. Your thoughts? Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well I've been watching for the past week since being pinged. Sandbh at no point are you helping yourself here. Instead of saying hands up sorry for the personal attacks, you continued to attack other editors and accuse them of this that and the other. Citing things which are not policy and accusing others of casting aspersions. Since most of us here were involved in the previous discussion or are involved with you in other areas where your conduct is under scrutiny, it is not an aspersion, we can all read and remember for ourselves. At no point have you recognised why bringing unpublished material to a talk page is unhelpful, unless it explained a point of view, that was already published, better than said published sources. In addition Sandbh you do not have to answer every single accusation, you could have said a conscise apology for the PA's and that unsourced material on the talk page was unhelpful and left it at that. You do not have to keep quoting this that and the other. Drop the stick - you'll get further in this discussion. But what is really concerning is your comment saying the last ANI was shut and no points were made to me to alter my behaviour. Not true. There were several comments from users asking all members of elements to modify there behaviour and that included you Sandbh. I thought that topic banning you for a period of time was a bit harsh and that a self imposed exit from the site or topic for a period to chill out and reflect on things before coming back and being useful without the bagage would be helpful. But your response on this thread is not helpful and frankly now it looks like that you could end up with a worse outcome for yourself. Games of the world (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Games of the world for your polite comments.

• I appreciate what you said wrt "at no point are you helping yourself here". There is an important principle I'm seeking to uphold here which is to "defend" my integrity.
• I've freely acknowledged prior instances of snarky behaviour. As the editor who closed ANI:P2 said, "Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."
• I make my responses here in WP:IGF. I'm sorry you interpret them as personal attacks, and accusations of casting aspersions. I've provided diffs and evidence; I did not cite AFAICR things that are not policy, nor post WP:ASPERSIONS, the latter being ArbCom policy.
• Per WP:OR there is no prohibition on bringing unpublished material to a talk page. In each case I explained the context for doing so. WP does operate in a vacuum isolated from the real world. I speak with many non-WP chemists, where real chemistry, real research, real WP:RS publishing, and real policy-making happens. Sometimes this motivates me to publish a related article in a peer-reviewed journal. In another case this resulted in offer to me from a non-WP scientist, to collaborate on writing a peer-reviewed article, of direct relevance to WP:ELEM. Whether or not WP:ELEMEM members take note of this is us up to them. At least one WP:ELEM member has expressed interest, e.g. in the workings of the IUPAC. If I know someone outside of WP who knows about this, I ask them, and with their permission, report back to WP:ELEM.
• Contrary to your assertion I have not sought to, "answer every single accusation". As I said earlier in this thread, I answered about two-thirds of them. You evidently missed that one in the context of "watching for the past week". Having Christian values, I apologise for behaviours that give offence. That said, I will not have my name dragged through the mud by unfounded, out-of-context, allegations. As I have said, it is easy to make these; it is much, much harder to address them.
• Re the last ANI being shut, and "no points were made to me to alter my behaviour." The close on the last ANI said, "

"Closing with no action with some mild warnings. First, there is no incivility in the opening wall of text that I was able to discern. None whatsoever. By contrast, there has been some heated language and tone in this thread ("jerk" here, "fucking" there), but nothing that I would consider even coming close to being beyond the pale. This sort of thread, with its original post and following ever-compounding length shows the limitation of of this forum. Obviously, no admin wishes to conclude it (so it may well be me) at this point. We are volunteers, too. ANI reports ought to be succinct, with the complaint clearly and unambiguously highlighting (prioritizing) the evidence which represents the most egregious conduct. That has not been the case with this report. Warnings: DePiep, don't warn other editors that you will block them (you can't, and even if you could, you would not be allowed to per INVOLVED). Don't even say that you will have them blocked. Say that you will report their edits to admins for review. So, that settles that. To the OP, if you're going to file a report here, you need to do better. A lot better. I already addressed what that would entail above, so I won't elaborate further. Above all else, this thread represents a worrying trend on the project of editors responding to comments with such oversensitivity, nothing can really get done. Participants, sharp points are allowed. Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith. Ultimately, this is a nothing-burger that basically drained a lot of time and energy — for naught, I would argue. Time to move on. El_C 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)"

I see no mention of my name here, noting I was not the OP.

• Thank your frank closing assessment. Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELEM Protocol (very draft)
As I said I would do, here it is. Sandbh (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Break

I'm trying to overcome my urge to TNT this discussion, or archive it and start it from scratch, limiting each editor to ONE paragraph and 5 diffs. This is more than a wall of text, it's a skyscraper of text and any admin who tries to wade through it deserves to be called AdminPlus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I agree that this is a skyscraper of text that no one really deserves to have to read through. However, if you don't mind, I'd just like to point out that after your advice early in this thread I trimmed my OP down substantially and thereafter have only commented briefly: if what I have written in this thread is not brief enough, please tell me and I will be more than happy to trim it down even more. So far as I can see, pretty much everyone is writing reasonably-sized small posts, with one single exception: Sandbh, the editor I complained about in the first place. So, while I fully understand where you're coming from, I would like to very much kindly ask if something can be done about this text-spamming from him? Because I really do worry about your fully understandable urge to WP:TNT this or archive and start from scratch; surely we should not be in the situation that a single editor can derail ANI discussions about himself just by spamming so much text that nobody wants to read it, when everyone else is trying to behave, forcing those who want to take him to ANI to come again and again with nothing substantial happening... Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Liz: The discussion now runs to 17,200 words. ANI #2 (R8R v DePiep) ran to 30,000 words. It's easy to make allegations, including those in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. It's much, much harder to address these allegations IGF, including filling-in the missing context. As Double Sharp said, pretty much everyone is writing reasonably-sized small posts. That is because they don't need to respond to the allegations that are the subject of this ANI filing. Even then, as I noted, "By my reckoning, the opening statements alone amounted to some, 4,000 words…Other editors have since added about 6,100 words."

The bulk of the ANI seems to originate in allegations of OR discussed at WP:ELEM. Per WP:OR, WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The rest of the ANI mostly deals with allegations of sharp behaviour. As the editor who closed ANI #2 said, "Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."

I appreciate the fact that you encouraged DS to briefer, and that DS recognized he had been overly verbose and hatted all but two of his claims. If anybody has any further questions I will be glad to respond. Otherwise, out of respect for everyone's time, I do not intend to further respond to this ANI.

We've made a start on some WP:ELEM protocols.

I'd prefer this ANI be closed, in the same way ANI #2 was closed. I'd prefer not to drag out the stress associated with starting again from scratch. But that's not my call. Sandbh (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: That is assuredly not the case. As User:Games of the world mentioned: you could have easily addressed the allegations. Such as by apologising for attacking and accusing other editors, and stopping to do so. Instead what do you do? You continue. You could also have learnt from the previous ANI and noticed that people have raised concerns about your behaviour, just as they did for others'. And the rest of us indeed have made an effort to improve. Instead what do you do? You carry on as if there was no reason to do it. And you continue the feud with DePiep and continue attempting to throw out WP:BOOMERANGS to us. (Funny how "undue policy citing" is something you speak against in your proposed protocol, yet you have no problem doing it when you think it'd support you.) You derail what was shaping up to be a reasonable discussion with multiple perspectives (yes, including one more favourable to you even) by spamming elevator shafts' worth of text until no one is willing to join in, and then make noises about "respect for everyone's time" when you, with your incredibly long posts, did not show any. Finally you continue with your WP:IDHT mantras, carry on stating your preference that the ANI is closed as a nothing-burger, despite almost everyone here having some sort of concern with your behaviour. In your account, somehow everybody is at fault, except you. There is no way to "improve the article" but yours. And the same thing seems to be true of policy interpretation here.

If we could all stay within general WP bounds, then there would be no problem with us working together. It is clear that we cannot. It is also clear that the problem lies more with you than with me or anyone else at this point. Everybody who tries to mediate the situation gets accusations from you. User:EdChem got them above. User:Softlavender got them above. With everybody else, their approach got good results. Just not you.

Therefore, having had frankly enough of this behaviour of yours, I have decided to join the calls to support a TBAN for Sandbh with Softlavender, Levivich, and DePiep. Because I have very little hope at this point that anyone is going to be able to get through to you. And I am going to support that its length be indefinite with the possibility of immediately overturning it the moment you show some awareness of just what has here generally been considered unacceptable about your past behaviour and pledge to not continue with it. In fact, if you show this now, I will happily strike this support. Naturally enough, I point out here that I am the OP who started this thread. Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging people I forgot to ping in the above post: DePiep, Levivich. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(For clarity: the TBAN I support would be for chemistry-related topics in general, but I would also support one for just the periodic-table-related topics.) Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Sandbh, as respondent: In light of this development I'll need to go back on my intention to not further respond to this ANI. I apologise for the need to do so and to add to the word count of the thread. I intend that my response will not be longer than Double sharp's response, above. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for any unintended offence, past or present, given to WP:ELEM editors, and to editors involved in this thread.

1. Yes, I’ve made allegations in this thread of breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have any evidence of me “attacking” other editors please be specific.
2. My WP:BOOMERANGs were in response to what I alleged as multiple breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS, an ArbCom principle, no less.
3. Yes, “undue policy citing" is something I speak against in the proposed protocol at the WP:ELEM talk page. In contrast, since we're at WP:ANI, and taking a dispute to ANI has been described (not by me) as "like going to war", and other editors here freely cite WP:POLICY, I do as I see others do.
4. What you regard as “spamming elevator shafts' worth of text” I regard as attempting to give a fair account of my actions, based on the principles I set out at the very start of my response.
5. Yes, my preference is to close this ANI as, essentially, a "nothing-burger" in the same way that the 30,000 word Mt Everest wall of text that was ANI #2 (R8R v DePiep) was closed and described as a nothing-burger, along with comment by the closing editor, “"Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility, nor a failure to assume good faith."
6. Re, "In your account, somehow everybody is at fault, except you." No. In this thread, I have repeatedly referred to past instances of my sharp behaviour.
7. Re there is no way to "improve the article" but yours. No, I can remember at least one of my RFC’s failing. I put up numerous ideas, suggestions, and compromise proposals at WP:ELEM, and I guess < 5% ever get up.
8. I'm pleased you said, "If we could all stay within general WP bounds, then there would be no problem with us working together. It is clear that we cannot. It is also clear that the problem lies more with you than with me or anyone else at this point."
9. So it's not exclusively about me. According to you, "we" all have a part to play, and it is clear that "we" cannot "all" stay within general bounds. Smells like nothing-burger to me.
10. Yes, I allege EDChem breached WP:APERSIONS. Yes, Softlavender re-revereted me in this thread.
11. IMO, including in the context of Principle 11 at the start of my response, a TBAN is unjustified (let alone one of indefinite duration); and inconsistent with WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.
12. On my conduct, I intend to uphold the protocol being developed at WP:ELEM. I thank WP:ELEM member User:R8R, and User:EdChem for their initial thoughts on the protocol.

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Should we approach an uninvolved admin seeking their assessment and closure of this ANI? Sandbh (talk)

• Whoever takes on that job will deserve a medal, a vacation, and dinner for two at the restaurant of their choice. EEng 01:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• To think the discussion began with: To hopefully draw more attention to this, I have copied this brief summary up to the top ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And that's why I think something needs to be done about this. It should not be that one single editor can derail an ANI discussion about himself by spamming it until no one wants to read it. Should we perhaps collapse Sandbh's lengthly posts and ask for a brief summary? I only don't do it myself because I'm clearly involved as the OP. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @EEng and ProcrastinatingReader: Forgotten pings, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with WP:CIVIL and WP:IGF, and presuming due process is observed at WP:ANI, any respondent has the right to address allegations made against them. In this case there were 70+ allegations, including those that breached WP:ASPERSIONS. I addressed about ⅔ of these allegations. Any respondent should be free to give a fair account of themselves, without their attempt to do so being implicated as an attempt to derail an ANI discussion, or being referred to as spam.

I note from Wikipedia:No personal attacks that accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence, represent a breach of this policy. As documented in my responses, there have been numerous such personal attacks made against me. I also regard Double sharp's support for an indefinite topic ban, coupled with (1) the "possibility of immediately overturning it the moment you show some awareness of just what has here generally been considered unacceptable about your past behaviour" and (2) "pledge to not continue with it" and, (3) "if you show this now, I will happily strike this support." as pre-emptive form of threatening behaviour. That is my interpretation of it and I am ready to be corrected, if my perception is regarded by others as groundless.

I agree with Double sharp that WP:ANI does not appear to be well-equipped to deal with reports such as this. It seems to me that, in future, complainants should be given an opportunity to present their allegations; followed by the respondent's account. Repeat this process once. Other editors are free to present their views, once. The responder is entitled to reply to the views of other editors, once. Then assess and close the report. It would be helpful too, to have an article setting out the rights and expectations of complainants and respondents, including an expectation of due process and an expectation that WP:ANI is ordinarily a forum of last resort.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: On the contrary, it was dealing with the report quite well once I understood and adapted to the general norms here and expressed my complaint concisely. We had multiple people commenting and offering various perspectives and it was going on like a pretty normal ANI thread from what else I can see here. Then you came with your walls of text, and all of a sudden everybody else, if they commented at all, was only aghast at its length. (Except for me, because I'm involved and even then I complain about length. And except for EdChem, who commented as well as making comments about the length, and I agree with EEng on just how much he deserves for that.) You in your 05:41 post on 29 October say to me we can recognise what a cobbler's time-sucking hamburger this thread is, per Principle P11 when you are the one who made it that. There you say to me you could withdraw your complaint while recognising nothing about why almost everyone else who commented is concerned. And you continually suggest new ANI protocols when it's quite clear it does not in any way reflect general community norms. And you do the same thing at WT:ELEM when it comes to interpreting policy. For you WP:IAR is still an excuse to ignore policies you don't like because you think it would improve the encyclopedia, even after User:EdChem has already told you that that is not how it works in practice. Just look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#WP:ELEM_Protocol_(very_draft) where you again start suggesting a new protocol (it is the source for exactly what I just said in my previous sentence). General WP norms must be wrong, you come in and interpret them in a way suited to yourself. Absolutely nothing has changed about my complaint with your behaviour: continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse. Well, if you have this much of a lack of interest in general WP norms, then are you here to build the kind of encyclopedia that WP by policy is supposed to be? And if you're not, then doesn't that get in the way of people who want to build that kind of encyclopedia instead of what you seem to want? That's pretty much why I said what I said when I expressed support for TBANning you. Double sharp (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks for the ping.

• I'm sorry to learn you felt things were going well until I had the temerity to respond to my accusers. As you can see from the word count metrics, I responded to 7 editors, with 1,504 words per editor, or about 150 per allegation. I thought that was an OK effort in light of your own word count of 2,801.
• In terms of "walls of text" etc you just posted a 400-word paragraph! Apparently (= I read it on the web) readability studies point to 70–120 words being the most usual paragraph length. You have yourself said you are loquacious. Per WP:CIR I'd regard it as an inability to express your thoughts concisely, in writing. That is OK and could be addressed by learning a few compensatory techniques.
• You allege, I "continually suggest new ANI protocols." Do I now? Where is your evidence? What is wrong with them?
• The WP:ELEM "very draft" protocol is just that. R8R and EdChem have made suggestions which I’ve attempted to address. You can do that to, but have not, so far.
• You allege, "continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse." Where is your evidence? Once more you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS.
• Despite my apologies to all concerned; and acknowledging my sharp behaviour; and my multiple options and my proposed compromise solutions at WP:ELEM; and the availability to you of an RFC at any time; you continue to pursue this RFC.
• You have your own conduct pattern of losing the plot and then apologising. Should I plumb the archives of WP:ELEM and post the diffs here?
• How about taking a tea spoon of cement powder, and hardening up?
• It annoys, pains and stresses me to advise that I intend to file a further time-sucking WP:ANI report alleging multiple breaches by you of WP:ASPERSIONS, since that seems to be the only way that could get you to cease and desist. Bear mind that (a) being at WP:ANI is like being at war; (b) that there are no winners, only survivors; and (c) you started the "war"; and (d) you can finish it too.

--- Sandbh (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

In summary form, here are the word count metrics (not counting Double sharp's 23:38 post, of 3 Nov).

Totals

• Double sharp: 2,801
• DePiep: 1,752
• EdChem: 1,407
• Games of the world: 317
• Lev!vich: 268
• Softlavender: 150
• YBG: 134

Grand total: 6,829

• Sandbh, responding to 7 editors: 10,528, or 1,504 per editor, or about 150 per allegation

Since I've been accused of spamming[154][155] and the question has been asked "how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block"[156] I suggest Double sharp, DePiep, and EdChem fall within the scope of this question.

Bear in mind it's easy to raise an allegation. It's much harder to respond to allegations and address zero or more of generalising; lack of context; distortions; and deletions, as I've tried to elaborate IGF in each my responses. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Details follow

Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh

• DS opening statement: 1,780
• DS follow ons: 236

Sub-total: 2,016

Size concerns and shortening the OP

• DePiep: 587

Discussion of the report

• DePiep: 1,089
• EdChem: 479
• Lev!vich: 268

• Sandbh: 158
• Sandbh principles: 991
  • re DS 1,663
  • re DePiep 1,221
  • re EdChem 651
  • re Lev!vivh 472
  • re SL 1,278
  • re YBG 498
  • my conclusions 642

Sandbh subtotal: 7,574

Comments now that Sandbh has posted comments and conclusions EdChem follow on: 756

Sandbh response: 1,028

DePiep: 76

Sandbh response: 155

Games of the word: 317

Sandbh response: 674

Break

• DS: 216
• Sandbh: 261
• DS: 484
• Sandbh: 516
• Double sharp: 85
• Sandbh: 320

Sub-totals:

Double sharp: 785

Sandbh: 1,097

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 01:12 4 November 2020 (UTC) per special:diff/986964841 YBG (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Important details that my good friend Sandbh omitted: My other friend Double sharp was told that he was much too verbose. His reaction was to hat his original post, leaving only two allegations unhatted. Had it been me, I would have withdrawn the ANI and started a new one with just the unhatted text, that was his choice, not mine. Sandbh was encouraged to be brief, and I believe eventually reduced the volume of his posts. I would have been even briefer and hatted some of the previous text, but that was his choice, not mine. YBG (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the math to help answer how much text someone would have to post at ANI before they got a WP:CIR block. The answer might be: "more than everyone else combined". Lev!vich 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That is a good point. My GF intent was to list the principles I thought were relevant. That would save me having to repeat things, as I'd only list the principle number. I then read somewhere that at ANI you should explicitly spell out everything. So, that kiboshed my original GF intention. The principles are still good, however, since my responses were constantly informed by them rather being all over the place.

Yes, since in putting my GF responses I needed to fill in or address address zero or more of generalising; lack of context; distortions; and deletions, I'd expect the outcome would be to exceed the word count of everyone else combined.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a happy closure

@Sandbh: ... I needed to ... No, you chose to. You never needed to, and in fact, it did not help, which means you would be in a better position now if you hadn't at all, and that's why several editors wish you wouldn't. If you continue to choose to, the community will take that choice away. (That's not a threat, it's just my prediction of what will happen, based on seeing it happen before, and have been in your position myself on multiple past occasions: these things are always easier to diagnose from outside.) If I were you, I would make one more post here asking a simple question: what is it that other editors want you to do or not do in the future? When they answer, tell them whether you will or will not agree. Assuming the requests are reasonable and you agree, I think that could lead to a quick and happy closure without anyone being sanctioned. (If there are also things you want other editors to do or not do, don't tell them. Wait for them to ask first. Lead by example.) Lev!vich 06:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: As I wrote, I didn't intend to respond. Subsequently, I chose to respond to what I read as unfounded, incomplete, distorted, untrue and slanderous allegations, including misinterpretations of WP:POLICY.

While I strongly fear adding to the 20,500+ word count, I'll take your advice in pursuit of a happy closure. Does this look OK to you(?):

"What is it that other editors want me to do or not do in the future? I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. In the case of the latter I'll explain why based on WP:POLICY, and precedents set here at WP:ANI."

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, looks good to me -- thanks! Lev!vich 07:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Will User:Levivich’s proposed solution work for you? Sandbh (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Yes, I am willing to give it a try. So this is what I would like you to do: (1) please stop personalising disputes by attributing motives to others' editors posts, (2) please stop referring to unpublished sources, and (3) please stop treating WP:IAR as an excuse to ignore policy. And finally (4) please stop it with the tone like How about taking a tea spoon of cement powder, and hardening up? [157] Could you agree to these four? Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp's requests are reasonable, but because of subjectivity and human frailty, I would ask of Sandbh (5) please show your receptivity to feedback by responding to any concern raised along one of these lines (a) You're right, I will strike the offending language; (b) I did not mean it that way, I will strike the offending language; or (c) I respectfully disagree with your assessment, but if others agree with you, I will strike the offending language.

I ask for such feedback from my fellow editors and promise to respond in the way I have asked of Sandbh. YBG (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I would like an assessment from you or some other person outside the ELEM disputes / discussions to comment on the claims of ASPERSIONS from Sandbh and on the comments about IAR. If my understanding (and hence actions) have been problematic, I'd like to know... if they aren't, I'd like someone else to comment on this directly to Sandbh. EdChem (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding User:EdChem. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a 3rd party evaluation of ASPERSIONS claims would help. I am encouraged that EdChem voices an openness to correction and assume that Double sharp and Sandbh are also open to such feedback. YBG (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Seconding that I am open to corrections, just as I have been earlier in this thread and elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS says "It is unacceptable for an editor to [(1)] routinely accuse others of misbehavior [(2)] without reasonable cause [(3)] in an attempt to besmirch their reputations." and "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior [(4)] without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." I think this is an exhaustive list of the alleged aspersions (I didn't track who said what), and I don't think any of them are aspersions because they don't meet #2, #3, or #4 (and some don't meet #1 but others arguably might). More specifically:

• IMO, this group of quotes are legitimate expressions of concern about an editor's behavior, made in a civil way, mostly in an ANI thread (i.e., the right place), and with evidence, either inline or elsewhere in the same thread:
  1. "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"
  2. "...there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"
  3. "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."
  4. "Sandbh's comments on WP policy may not convey his views accurately, as the impression that I gain from them is that policy can be overruled by IAR in pursuit of what Sandbh sees as the "right" outcome..."
  5. "Sandbh's extensive response contains little that points to awareness of underlying issues, intentions to give greater regard to WP policy, or of an appreciation of problems with the process of collaborative development of WP content."
  6. "skips handling like RS, V, SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:OR"
• I don't think this second group qualifies as aspersions (they are evidenced and arguably have reasonable cause), but they are more firery, IMO comment a bit too harshly on the editor instead of the edits, and approach incivility. I think this group generally count as the sort of "sharp words" mentioned in the close of the last ANI thread. Not great but not sanctionable; bottom line is the same things could have been expressed in a more-collegial manner, which is what should be done going forward:
  1. "I am not convinced there is atonement. Which implies that the issue we are here for, ANI=behaviour, may not be solved or corraled ... your 00:51 post above contains (apart from harvesting other editior's contributions to favor your ani case here), another fine filthy stab directed at me"
  2. "continued flagrant disrespect for policy, now in the form of WP:IAR abuse"
  3. "show…zero interest in following policy"
  4. "...it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."
  5. "He is neither cooperative nor honest, nor able to take guidance or instruction, much less follow policy or guidelines."

As to WP:IAR, there still needs to be consensus that the action taken under the banner of IAR is "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". If consensus is that a particular edit does not improve or maintain the encyclopedia, IAR does not permit an editor to make that edit. IAR doesn't authorize unilateral action against consensus, it authorizes consensus to make exceptions to other consensus. In other words, whether IAR is properly invoked is a matter of consensus. Not too long ago, an admin IAR undeleted a page without consensus and was desysoped for it. But I think what I'm hearing here is that Sandbh is being asked to invoke IAR much less frequently, and only when consensus supports it? Lev!vich 19:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thank you for your assessment and comments. One thing that I should have said in my earlier request, but didn't, is that I didn't intend a binary situation – either "my understanding (and hence actions) have been problematic" or "they aren't" – as the situation is not a dichotomy where Sandbh is 100% right or 100% wrong. I am grateful that your feedback is more nuanced, and provide examples of comments that are below the standards for collegiality to which we should aspire; even if they are not sanctionable, the editors concerned (which I recognise includes me) can (and hopefully will) benefit from this being noted.

Sandbh, you can obviously reflect on and evaluate Levivich's words for yourself. I believe that comment 4 in the "less than great" group was made by me and I accept Levivich's assessment that it was overly harsh and an example of the "sharp words" that we should all seek to avoid. I apologise for falling below the standards of civility and collegiality that I believe are appropriate. My comment should not have reflected on your judgement but rather been focussed on content, even though behavioural issues are appropriately discussed in a venue such as ANI. A more appropriate comment would be "Sandbh has made interesting contributions to the published literature where content that on WP would be new ideas, OR, or SYNTH can be appropriate and originality is encouraged. Unfortunately, some contributions to talk page discussions and ideas for article space appear to me to be problematic in terms of producing encyclopaedic content in line with these policies."

Levivich, on OR, I was thinking of exchanges like [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]. EdChem (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my above post says "on OR" but it is meant to say "on IAR." I was hoping you might look at these diffs of a discussion involving me, Sandbh, and Narky Blert regarding IAR and comment if you see fit. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, I hadn't read your comments at the time, but my 4 Nov comment above basically says the same thing you were saying on 2 Nov and 3 Nov: I think its implied that whether or not an edit is an improvement is subject to consensus, and that it's virtually guaranteed that OR (in mainspace) would never have consensus, and thus IAR cannot (properly) be invoked to avoid the requirements of OR. (This raises an interesting question, so I've asked at Iridescent's talk page whether IAR has ever been successfully used to avoid a core content policy in the past.) W/r/t Sandbh's replies here and here, I wonder if the disagreement is more about semantics than substance. As I see it, a BOLD edit isn't one that does not have consensus, but rather it's an edit that presumes consensus. So, one could make a bold IAR edit if one presumed that consensus would support it, but not otherwise. Lev!vich 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe comments 2 and 3 in the "less than great" group are mine and I likewise accept User:Levivich's assessment and apologise like User:EdChem did. More appropriate, I believe, would have been "Sandbh seems to have a view of IAR that is at variance with community norms, and I am concerned that he may not be interested in matching those norms" for both. In any case, the same exchange EdChem links very well illustrates the point I was making. I generally feel that all five of the comments in the "less than great" group, however, raise valid and substantiated points about Sandbh's conduct that should be noted, although indeed the manner in which they were expressed could clearly be called too fiery. That nature of rhetoric is understandable given that it seems to be very difficult for others to get through to Sandbh on these issues in any way, whence comment 5 (I believe User:Softlavender wrote it), but indeed it shouldn't make us lose our cool even slightly and we should still try for as long as it seems generally reasonable. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Ping fix: Softlavender) Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh's intentions

Thank you everyone. How does this look(?):

1. I intend to stop personalising disputes via attributing motives to others editors' posts.
2. I intend to refer to unpublished sources where I feel these are relevant, but only on talk pages, consistent with WP:OR. Frex, as Double sharp [165] and I have discussed[166], I will ask Eric Scerri when we might expect a final report from the IUPAC Group 3 project and, if Eric agrees, pass on his advice to the WP:ELEM talk page.
3. I have no interest in policy but respect it. I reserve the universal right to invoke WP:IAR, as derived from WP:5P. In nine years of editing at WP I may have argued for WP:IAR on a handful of occasions, never successfully AFAICR. I cannot recall ever acting on WP:IAR.
4. Consistent with WP:BOLD, there is no requirement to achieve consensus before invoking WP:IAR. Of course, any such edit then becomes subject to BRD. That is why I’ve always checked with other editors before so doing (which I never have).
5. I intend to stop with the tone.

There are two caveats to the above.

1. While I will strive to uphold and observe WP:CIVIL, I'm no angel.
2. The sharp conduct tolerance bandwidth, as set out here at WP:ANI is now very wide, as per the hostile fruity SHOUTY language demonstration (not by me) in this very forum [167]. I’ve never used such incivil language at WP and intend never to.

I'll strike my offending language examples.

I accept the apologies given for the behaviours in the less than great group.

I intend to aim for reasonable behaviour in all cases. I accept that some of my past contributions were perceived by some editors as hurtful or too fiery, and hence unhelpful.

I’ve pleased with the way this part of the thread, thanks to @Levivich:, has developed. Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you. This is certainly a welcome development. However, when it comes to your use of sources, I have a couple more things to ask, because this has gone on for so very long and I would like some assurance that things will not immediately turn sour again once you're out of the ANI spotlight.

1. Over at the group 3 discussion you stated that the single-argument sources for Lu are "unscientific" as a means of discounting them. This is not a characterisation that appears in any reliable source, and it appears to be an inaccurate reflexion of what appears in the literature as they were written by scientists and scientists seem to have no problem continuing to cite them. Do you still think this characterisation was appropriate for a WP discussion?
2. A significant amount of your !vote there is still based on the case of unpublished sources. Do you still feel that this is legitimate when it is influencing a site decision?
3. When you say I reserve the universal right to invoke WP:IAR, do you mean that you plan to use it directly to put things into articles, or only to suggest them on talk pages and see if consensus is for such a use?
4. It seems that the group 3 discussion is not going your way. It currently has a 4–2 majority (i.e. 2/3) among eight editors (two participated but did not take a side) of restoring the Lu form, in which everyone still here from the first discussion (the one more based on the science) is still giving the same opinion they had there. In that discussion (just a few months ago) it was even 6–2 (i.e. 3/4) just because User:Dreigorich and User:Officer781 have stopped being active at the project. If one of us was to act on this consensus and made a general change back to the Lu form, would you be able to accept this in spite of your own personal opposition to the change? (This is as of now theoretical since I am still discussing things over with User:R8R, so the discussion is not quite over yet; but if he should change his mind, then the consensus against your preferred outcome becomes stronger, so I would like this assurance now.) Rephrase to get to the point of the question: If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus?
5. Finally, when other editors have policy concerns with your work, do you intend to follow the general community interpretations of the policies once they are explained to you?

Thank you and looking forward to the answers. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, I have a concern about your request in point 4, above. If you are asking that Sandbh will abide by consensus, that is a reasonable meta question. However, if you are asking whether there is such a consensus on the specific La / Lu question, I am concerned that this is a content question and not suited to resolution at ANI. I note the caveat given a discussion with R8R, and so am hoping you are asking only the meta question. If you are asking for a specific agreement on the La / Lu question then:

1. it is not fair to ask ANI contributors to make an assessment of consensus, particularly on a question where the number of words in the discussion might best be counted in megamoles (non-chemist ANI readers: chemistry joke for very many).
2. it is not fair to Sandbh to make a commitment at ANI on a question where most readers will not be able to judge whether it is reasonable.
3. predicating any consensus as you have is problematic IMO as consensus is determined based on all participants' views and the implementation of policy and not on a !vote count. Theoretically, a discussion could have 100 participants, with 99 saying X and only 1 saying Y but only the Y view being supported by RS and policy. Further, there are participants who have not taken a position (such as me), but that doesn't mean they / I won't take a position at some point.
4. even if R8R were to change his position, any resulting change in consensus / plurality of views, etc, would depend on reasoning and policy. Taking an extreme (and absurd) example by way of illustration, suppose R8R gave as his reason for changing his view that he was visited by the ghost of Mendeleev who told him what to do... in that event, I would say that his new position would add little to the question of policy-based consensus. In other words, it does not necessarily follow from the example that you offer that a definitive outcome in terms of consensus necessarily follows.

While it is reasonable to expect any editor to follow consensus, I do not recall seeing Sandbh ignoring / disregarding a clearly-established consensus. Often the best way to determine what is a clearly-established consensus is to hold an RfC and have it closed by an uninvolved administrator. Sandbh is trying to set up such an RfC, which shows actions in line with policy and seeking consensus. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, my intention was the meta-question as I thought things were looking fairly clear at this point on the group 3 discussion. The reason I asked was because of the first discussion of this matter, in which his reaction to me pointing out that no one else was supporting his stand was "And your science-based point is?" (Should be noted that we were both not exactly being very polite there: the general tone degenerated slowly through archives 42, 44, 46, and 48 where that discussion lives; we've improved since then. Frankly it went rather in circles after a while and only archive 42 is really worth reading, I think.) To make it clear, I have replaced it with the general question: If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus? Hopefully this is better. Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarificiation, Double sharp. I am hoping we can get a resolution and closure here, so I'm glad you have struck and re-focussed your request to avoid the content issue that is best left to talk pages rather than ANI.

PS: Just noting I have moved my question to Sandbh down to the bottom and changed the indenting to match standard practices. EdChem (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: You're welcome. (For the record, I think I got that reaction in Archive 48 just because that discussion was rather messed up from the beginning by mixing of the source-based and scientific cases, so I don't think I'll get it again, but I just wanted to be sure since part of this whole thing was about the impression of policy being seen as an impediment to getting what's seen as "correct" into articles. We were all being rather uncivil there, but I think we've learned.) Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I would appreciate hearing your view of your repeated references to several editors (including me) having violated WP:ASPERSIONS and calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions throughout this thread in light of Levivich's comments. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you for the opportunity to address your remaining concerns.

1. Wow I'd forgotten that. Here it is again:

"On sources: Most of those focusing on the group 3 issue, and finding in favour of Sc-Y-Lu, are based on single arguments. This is unscientific. In contrast, Jensen (for example) commendably attempted a multi-argument approach. His work failed to gain traction since, as Scerri, mentioned, Jensen was too selective in his arguments (Scerri & Parsons 2018, p. 143; Scerri 2020, p. 394)."

Yes, IMO, arguing for the composition of group 3 based on a solitary scientific argument is unscientific, as in "not scientific". That's nothing unusual; there are thousands of articles in the literature with poorly designed approaches, claiming support for whatever.

In contrast, I regard Jensen's approach, unconvincing as it was, as being scientific in intent. As we've discussed, I draw on Jones (2010, p. 169) where he discusses the role of classification in science:

"In science, classification provides an economy of description, a tool for structuring knowledge and can also lead to deeper understanding…Classes are usually define by more than two attributes…"

Jones BW 2010, Pluto: Sentinel of the outer solar system, Oxford University Press, Oxford. p. 169

@Andrew Davidson: given you wrote, "This is naturally of great interest to chemists – an issue comparable with the IAU definition of planet which caused Pluto to lose its former status."

A related consideration is that the internal structure and external shape of a chemical periodic table is determined by chemical facts rather than considerations of regularity, beauty or symmetry (Cao et al. 2019, p. 26, passim). Here, the use of multiple considerations to triangulate a solution is consistent with the role of classification science, and Jones' premise. In other words, in the absence of a supposed categorical solution (as per Scerri) we are obliged to use quantitative or qualitative arguments to establish a solution.

Cao, C., Hu, H., Li, J., Schwarz, W.H.E.: Physical origin of chemical periodicities in the system of elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 91, 1969–1999 (2019)

Yes, I think my characterisation was appropriate for a WP talk page discussion.

2. It's not clear to me which unpublished sources you're referring to. Could you be more specific? If you're referring to my opinion on the group 3 issue, I base this on my recent peer-reviewed article in Foundations of Chemistry, and its 100+ citations.[168]

3. Per prior practice, I reserve the right to quote WP:IAR on talk pages and test the water. As noted, I cannot recall relying on IAR in the article space which, in any event, would be subject to BRD.

4. I agree with the lambasting retired editor User:Flying Jazz gave to WP:ELEM on making decisions within our small project that have a WP-wide impact namely on the appearance of the WP periodic table, and the article's 11.7 million+ views a year. Such a decision, IMO, should be subject to an RFC at the PT talk page. I further suggest an RFC in light of:

• the failure of the recent RFC (proposing Lu) on this very question;
• the IUPAC Group 3 project looking at this very issue; and
• the fact that the La form is still the most popular form in the literature, as R8R recently noted, and as acknowledged by Eric Scerri, the chair of the IUPAC Group 3 project.

I draw a distinction here between personal support expressed by colleagues at WP:ELEM for Lu, in contrast to support for rolling this out into the article space. In light of the above three bullets, the latter seems to me to be a horse of an entirely different colour i.e. personal preference (for one's own book or journal article e.g.) v encyclopaedic considerations.

@Double sharp: Re: "If consensus for any PT issue being discussed on the talk page results in an outcome you personally are against, would you accept the result of the consensus?"

Yes, I would, as per a past example set by R8R. Sandbh (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

5. Yes, provided the explanations are consistent with WP:5P and the associated WP endorsed policy.
--- Sandbh (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you. I'm indeed very pleased with your answers to Q3, 4, and 5; although I am not totally in agreement with the need to go to a full-blown RFC for these issues, your suggestion is definitely in line with the idea of seeking consensus, so I have no worries on that front at all when it comes to behavioural issues.

Regarding Q2, what I was referring to was your statement there You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up.

As for Q1 and Q2 – I would prefer to have someone else like User:EdChem comment before I say more. My question is more or less about the general behaviour than about the specifics of this individual case, and I hope it may be treated as such here. Double sharp (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, it is true that there is much in the literature that is of questionable quality or value. There is even material that should never have made it past peer review. I ask that you consider, however, the use of the term "unscientific" when applied to an argument or a paper as opposed to in reference to a person. For example, I am a scientist. It is a core part of my identity. I tend to approach problems in rational and evidence-based ways, in line with both my education and the accepted methods of the communities of practice into which I have been accepted and whose cultures I have adopted. If someone calls me "unscientific," I am likely to feel insulted / offended as a result of an attack on who I am. In fact, I took up the issue when an academic colleague said that I "don't write like a scientist," even though the comment was made as a compliment. My colleague (from an Education Faculty) meant that my writing was of a quality that she found was atypical of a scientist – and I could see her point, some scientists can write in a dreadful way while still describing quality scientific work – but I still found her comment objectionable. I believe I write very much like a scientist – logical, ordered, evidence-based, etc – but as a literate scientist as I have skills with words and expressions that many scientists do not. So, rather than going over content arguments, can you see and respond to Double sharp's point that dismissing an argument as "unscientific" is unhelpful in the absence of RS that make that point, and that it is literature views of existing work rather than personal views that are the central consideration in deciding article-space content?

On question 2, I am interested if you can get any word from Scerri of a timeline for a decision from the working group. However, I think Double sharp is referring to your statements implying that you know more than everyone else, from which it is easy to infer that we should all just accept what you say. I hope you agree that deferring to anyone on the grounds of "insider" knowledge is neither appropriate for an encyclopaedia nor is it a reasonable basis on which WP can function. Would you provide a clear statement that what you know but can't disclose and which is not in RS is not relevant for determining what RS provides for inclusion with DUE weight and in an NPOV way in article space? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem:
Q1. To clarify, I've never said (in person or online) to a scientist that they or some of their work is unscientific (nor did you intimate this of me).

Some things are so obviously unscientific that they ought to be able to be referred to as such. Indeed, both Double sharp and I have said of sundry authors that "they most be wrong" or "are wrong" or words to that effect. I agree it is literature views of existing work that are the central consideration of deciding article-space content. That said, some discretion is warranted, given the phenomenon that "there is much in the literature that is of questionable quality or value," as you say. Indeed, by its very (so far) irreducible nature, chemistry itself calls for a lot of this:

"If one allows oneself to use a multiplicity of criteria, bonds may exist by one measure, not by another. This is not a reason to wring our hands, nor complain how unscientific chemistry is (or how obstinate chemists are). Chemistry has done more than well in creating a universe of structure and function on the molecular level with just this ‘‘imperfectly defined’’ concept of a chemical bond. Or maybe it has done so well precisely because the concept is flexible and fuzzy."

Alvarez, S., Hoffmann, R., Mealli, C.: A bonding quandary—or—a demonstration of the fact that scientists are not born with logic. Chem. Eur. J., 15(34), 8358–8373 (2009)

The title of this article is a cracker!

Q2. If you think Double sharp is referring to my statements implying I know more than everyone else, from which it is easy to infer that "you" should all just accept what I say, then I cannot help it that you and he chose to interpret or pay attention to my contributions in this way. Yes, I am old (experienced, not yet ossified). Yes, I talk to a lot of chemists and scientists. Yes, I have an academic publishing record, with more articles in progress.

What started me off on academic writing was being a member of WP:ELEM and recognising there were contributions to the literature that I could make, rather than complaining about whatever it was, at WP:ELEM. So I wrote to Scerri asking him if could do this in the absence of any science qualifications. He wrote back, encouraging me, noting there had been an appreciable number of non-scientists who had made significant contributions to chemistry.

Yes I expect I'd have spent about 10,000 hours on metalloids, and about the same on the group 3 question. So I suppose I know a bit about the elements. So what?

In any event, never mind how many citations I provide, no one takes any notice of what I say judging e.g. by the number of WP:ELEM members who support Lu in group 3. But that's life. I guessed earlier that of my numerous suggestions, ideas, and compromise solutions, < 5% of them ever get up. On ignoring my citations, this includes the citations I provided in my original statement above addressing DS Q1 i.e. Jones 2010; Cao et al. 2019.

My reputation must precede me if other editors take note of what I say I know but can't disclose.

I found your IGF request, "Would you provide a clear statement that what you know but can't disclose and which is not in RS is not relevant for determining what RS provides for inclusion with DUE weight and in an NPOV way in article space?" to be quite troubling. What I know but can't disclose nevertheless influences my thinking, and my discussions at WP:ELEM e.g. when I'm asked to express an opinion on something. We do this all the time at WP:ELEM i.e express opinions. Now, should I express my opinions, and hide what they are based on? Or should I disclose what my opinions are based on, in the interests of transparency?

I note DS' statement was, "A significant amount of your !vote there is still based on the case of unpublished sources" and no evidence has been provided for this statement. I said, "It's not clear to me which unpublished sources you're referring to. Could you be more specific? If you're referring to my opinion on the group 3 issue, I base this on my recent peer-reviewed article in Foundations of Chemistry, and its 100+ citations."

I'm still in the dark as to what evidence DS' statement was based on.

I regret having to revisit these matters the broader implications of which are repeatedly elaborated in terms of my conduct, not by me, and without any evidence in the form of diffs, which is the ANI standard. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BOOMERANG

@EdChem, Levivich, and Double sharp:

Thank you EdChem for your interest, concern, and laser-like focus on better relationships within WP:ELEM.

I take a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS. For example, I regarded this allegation by DS: "I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general" as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence. And I regarded what Double sharp wrote namely that I "show…zero interest in following policy" as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence.* All I said was that I have zero interest in WP policy. I never said I have zero interest in following policy. My primary interest is in building a better encyclopedia.

*I acknowledge Levivich was of the view that this one was accompanied by, "evidence, either inline or elsewhere in the same thread".

Note my use of past tense.

Anyway, given the way this "looking for a happy closure" sub-thread is going now, I've more or less forgotten about the multiple alleged aspersions, and I intend to forgive all those editors who I alleged made aspersions (i.e. those without e.g. diffs) against me. Sandbh (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, your stated intention "to forgive all those editors who I alleged made aspersions (i.e. those without e.g. diffs) against me" is somewhat less than I was hoping to read. You can "take a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS," but unfortunately that view is not the one presented at the page WP:ASPERSIONS nor is it the one that is applied at ANI. Levivich will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of Levivich's contribution is much more that there has been no contribution that is a clear violation of ASPERSIONS, and even though some comments were below the desirable level of incivility, there has been nothing from any of the editors against whom you have made claims that is even close to actionable. In other words, the allegations of ASPERSIONS violations and the calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were and are unfounded and unjustified based on the community-accepted meanings of those policies. I can accept that you believe that different definitions should be applied so long as you will abide by the definitions that are applied.

In most cases at ANI, I would let your comments slide and take your intention to forgive as a token gesture in the right direction. However, with this heading to a close with no action based on your undertaking to try to avoid future problems – and with one of those undertakings related to accepting policy as it is broadly interpreted – I would like to see a better response. I have tried to be fair to everyone at ELEM, offering apologies where I have made mistakes, and objecting to comments that I see as unfair from whoever they have come. I feel your behaviour towards me with regards to ASPERSIONS and BOOMERANGS has been unfair. I believe that describing Double sharp's comment as "accompanied by zero evidence" but adding a caveat that Levivich was of the view that there was evidence "either inline or elsewhere in the same thread" is unfair – it is reminiscent of comparing a group of editors to supporters of President Trump and then adding a parenthetical declaring no offense was intended. You have commented elsewhere about your own lack of incivility and I do not recall your using excessively harsh words or profanity of the like. I believe that the civility pillar extends further, however, and that it is possible to be superficially civil whilst also being offensive or rude. Describing an argument as unscientific, for example, when speaking with a scientist is making a criticism that reflects on the core identity of that person and may be taken as offensive in some circumstances. Similarly, if I was to say to you that "I am far too polite to call you an ***" where *** stands for some offensive term that I don't directly state, the implication would be that (a) I am saying you are a *** (whatever that might be), though in a way that gives me an out, and that (b) I am implying that I am superior to you in regards to politeness... and you would be justified in feeling offended.

In short, I believe that I deserved better, though I cannot force you to say or do anything that you choose not to say or do. I ask that you make a statement that acknowledges and agrees to adopt Levivich's explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward. I ask that you provide a clear statement that you allegations of ASPERSIONS were and are unsupported by policy and that your calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were unjustified. I can accept if you want to preface these statements with a personal view that ASPERSIONS should have a different meaning so long as you also undertake to accept the meaning that it does have for the Wikipedia community. I believe that editors of good will and with sufficient knowledge of science and of Wikipedia, such as exists at ELEM, can work together to produce excellent encyclopaedic content so long as they can work together. My "laser-like focus on better relationships" is very much meant to aid in the development of the encyclopaedia that we all value. I don't want to see you removed from that process, Sandbh, but I also know that the project is more important than any one editor. I hope that you can contribute your knowledge as part of a community of editors at ELEM. EdChem (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

---

EdChem, thank you for bringing your remaining concerns to my attention. Responses follow.

A. Aspersions: My reference to taking a simple view of WP:ASPERSIONS is based on my reading of it as being simply put, e.g.:

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."

If there is something I'm missing here, could you please let me know what it is?

In ANI 1 (Sandbh v DePiep), I listed and described what behaviours concerned me and included a timeline of events, and precise times, cross-referenced with w/links to the locations that these things happened. My report was closed as I did not provide diffs, thus:

"No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. Sandbh is reminded that a. he does not get to control who responds to an ANI thread, b. he is supposed to provide diffs, when he accuses another editor of disruption, c. when reporting another user, a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility. Salvio 12:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)"

I didn't provide "diffs" as that was my first ANI report. Subsequently I experienced physical and metal health issues arising from the stress associated with what was happening at ANI. In this light I asked for an extension of time to provide the diffs. My request was ignored. Subsequently ANI 2 was filed (R8R v DePeip).

Note that I was reminded that a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility.

That closure made quite an impression on me. I took it as the standard of evidence applied at WP:ANI i.e. the diffs.

Relevant here is the exaltation at WP:BOOMERANG for responders to "investigate fully." It seems unreasonable to expect a responder to investigate fully sans diffs (as I learnt at ANI #1, to my chagrin).

B. The analysis by Levivich: I read and appreciated Levivich's analysis as an attempt to calm things down. I note Levivich earlier supported a topic ban against me. In that context, I had some concerns about his status as an uninvolved editor. But I thought I'd let that go, (let it slide, as you put it) in light of what appeared to be his overall intent.

C. A token gesture: I feel your comment, "I would…take your intention to forgive as a token gesture in the right direction" is hurtful and unhelpful. A token gesture is, "an action or a decision that is so small or inconsequential as to be only symbolic". You know nothing about what the notion of forgiveness means to me. I referred to forgiveness IGF rather than as a token gesture.

D. Aspersion by DS
I regret the need to revisit this.

In the context I set out above following the Aspersions lead-in, and as noted, I regarded this allegation by DS…

"I have already stated objections following User:Smokefoot's old ones (that, as I see them, still apply) to your approach of article writing in general" [italics added be me]

…as an aspersion, since it was accompanied by nil evidence, let alone diffs.

E. POTUS: Re, "it is reminiscent of comparing a group of editors to supporters of President Trump and then adding a parenthetical declaring no offense was intended."

Here's what I said:

"I am calling out these behaviours since nothing else seems to work. I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. Essentially, I can only appeal to the middle ground, and hope there are enough "votes" to swing the balance. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)"

I compared the behaviours concerned (rather than the editors) to the scientific phenomenon of perceptual filtering, e.g. that of rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). The "no offence intended" caveat meant rusted-on Trump supporters are entitled to their views, just as the rusted-on supporters of any other political party are. I did not mean that the phenomenon of rusted on supporters was peculiar to supporters of President Trump. Here's an academic reference[169] to "rusted on" voters.

Of course, this was a less than civil comment by me since it referred to conduct rather than content.

F. Unscientific: Re, "Describing an argument as unscientific, for example, when speaking with a scientist is making a criticism that reflects on the core identity of that person and may be taken as offensive in some circumstances."

I understand the example; I don't understand its relevance to me. AFAICR I have never described an argument as unscientific when speaking with a scientist.

G. Profanities: I have no issue with the occasional use of a profanity. These days, I expect most people would't either. For example, in ANI 2, DePiep's statement, "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R" was dismissed as nothing. Indeed, this study[170] found that' "inserting a mild profanity like "damn" into a speech increases the persuasivenss of the speech and listener's perception of the speaker's intensity." That said, I regard DePiep's comment as an obscenity rather than a mild profanity and, since nothing came if, an indication that the incivility bandwidth at WP:ANI is very wide.

H. My aspersion allegations re you: Here they are, much as I regret having to resurrect them. Note these are all quotations reproduced from earlier in this thread.

1. EdChem: "I share concerns that Sandbh views policy as a potential impediment to article content being what he thinks it should be"

Sandbh: "EdChem has provided no evidence. He is in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. The diff he provided, in which I allegedly refer to "insider" information" is a talk page discussion. Per my Principle 2 above, "WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I’d be pleased to hear from EdChem as to his unfounded basis for referring to what I posted as "insider" information. I'm not an "insider" of anything. Outside of WP I do talk to a lot of chemists, and coauthor articles with them, however."

4. EdChem: "…there are two behavioural issues here, dealing with sourcing and civility (including keeping content and behavioural issues separate). The former is the more serious as it impacts the quality of article content, though I still see it as a behavioural issue"

Sandbh: "Per my Principle 2 above, and WP:NOR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not cite OR in the article space. No evidence has been provided to this end, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS."

4c. EdChem: "…and it is my impression that Sandbh struggles with what is appropriate content for an encyclopaedia as opposed to what can be published in the literature."

Sandbh: "Where is your evidence? Where are the diffs? Once again you are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS."

5. EdChem: "Even OR produced in good faith and with good intentions is a problem. I don't doubt Sandbh's passion for and dedication towards issues around the periodic table, but I am unsure about his judgement in distinguishing between what has scientific consensus in the literature and what he thinks is correct science."

Sandbh: "No evidence has been provided for these implied observations about my conduct, in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I have noted repeatedly, per WP:OR, the policy of no OR does not apply to talk pages."

Sandbh: "I didn't start this WP:ANI report. Where is your specific, factual evidence countering my allegations of you breaching WP:ASPERSIONS, three time? You cannot get away with blithely saying, "My comments did make reference to issues raised in this thread or evidence available on the WT:ELEM page." Where are the diffs?"

As per Wikipedia:ANI advice, "Do gather all of the appropriate diffs".

J. Undertakings:

1. "I ask that you make a statement that acknowledges and agrees to adopt Levivich's explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward.

2. "I ask that you provide a clear statement that you allegations of ASPERSIONS were and are unsupported by policy and that your calls for BOOMERANG sanctions were unjustified.

3. "I can accept if you want to preface these statements with a personal view that ASPERSIONS should have a different meaning so long as you also undertake to accept the meaning that it does have for the Wikipedia community."

1. Given (a) Levivich's status as an involved editor; and (b) what WP:ASPERIONS actually and simply says, I have no intention, at this time, of agreeing to his explanation of what constitutes ASPERSIONS going forward.

2. In light of what WP:ASPERSIONS actually and simply says I have no intention, at this time, of doing so.

3. I undertake to accept the meaning that WP:ASPERSIONS has for the Wikipedia community (which I presume is what is set out quite simply and concisely at WP:ASPERSIONS).

The above said, I appreciate Levivich's effort towards a happy outcome. I did not want to open another can of worms by analysing Levivich's analysis, in the context of what WP:ASPERSIONS plainly says, which is that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." As per the practice repeatedly applied at WP:ANI, and which was applied to me in ANI 1, evidence = diffs.

I hope you can appreciate the preceding context and the simple and plain nature of WP:ASPERSIONS. I've attempted to be polite; to stick to the facts; and to leave out the tone (historical quotations aside).
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, let me be crystal clear. I do not want to be "forgiven" by you having as I have not done anything wrong. No one but you thinks your interpretation holds water. EdChem (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, +1 to User:EdChem. And I am also disappointed by seeing another wall of text pop up here. Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If you agree that the comparison to Trump supporters was not a civil comment, then would you perhaps mind not quoting it over and over again even with that caveat? Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Yes, of course, unless another editor mentions it without providing the context. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp:: I too was unhappy to see another wall of text to pop up here, to which I responded. Sandbh (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Upon reflection, I apologise to you for my incivility. My intention is to forget my allegations of breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. As I said, "I had some concerns about his [Levich's] status as an uninvolved editor. But I thought I'd let that go, (let it slide, as you put it) in light of what appeared to be his overall intent." Would you be comfortable with now moving on from this topic? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC).

Sandbh, I am certainly comfortable to move on. I have called for this thread to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved administrator and hope that that will occur soon. EdChem (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished sources

@Double sharp: Good-oh. Thanks for that.

Yes, I made that comment, in response to your assessment of my opinion on the group 3 issue:

"Therefore I am not convinced by Sandbh's points. In general, I feel that they overestimate the significance of La-supporting sources and underestimate that of Lu-supporting sources, and I feel that in particular Scerri is being read selectively, and a definition of "unscientific" that is far broader than what scientists seem to use is being adopted, in order to do that. In fact, the way only parts of Scerri's articles are referred to, containing his argument that Jensen was being too selective and his admission that La is more common, but the other parts of the same articles where Scerri (and in one case Scerri with Parsons) supports Jensen's Lu stand for his own reasons are ignored, troubles me greatly. Because that means putting only part of Scerri's view under a paragraph headed "Scerri's view", and ignoring the part that is strongly in favour of Sc-Y-Lu that Sandbh is opposing. And hopefully I have kept this statement of disagreement content-based and not personal; if not, I can do some rewording. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)"

In response, I said:

"You only know what has been publicity released (≤20%). You know nothing about organisational politics (the 80% under the water, like an iceberg). I know more than I can disclose since, if I did so disclose, my sources would dry up.Even with what you know about what was has been publicly released you are reading things into this that have no demonstrable basis in anything, aside from wishful thinking. I'll see what I can add to my quick comments, a bit later on.

We each expressed personal opinions. Mine were informed by a combination of what the literature says plus my correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists, plus my decades of working in large bureaucratic organisations akin to IUPAC. I've never worked at the IUPAC but I've read enough to form a view of what that must be like, including Scerri's published "heroic" criticism of the IUPAC;[171] the establish history of chemists ignoring IUPAC recommendations; the confusion over the status of the "IUPAC" table (Scerri talks about this in the video); and Jensen's classic rant:

"As scientists we should base our conclusions on a critical examination of the chemical and physical evidence and not on an appeal to authority or the arbitrary whims of committees and popularity polls. Above all, such demands should be tempered by the sobering recollection that IUPAC is the organization that brought us density in units of kg/m3, 4πF0 in the denominator of Coulomb’s law, and the finger-count labels 1–18 in the periodic table."[172]

Re Scerri and Parsons, Eric has since said that their argument did not work (Eric Scerri, pers. comm., 14 Feb 2020), as cited by me in my article in Foundations of Chemistry, as edited by Scerri.[173]

I didn't know what you're referring to with Scerri being supportive of Jensen's claims. Could you be more specific? As you know, Scerri has discounted Jensen's claims as being too selective.

Yes, Scerri supports Lu personally. If you've watched the YouTube video via the link I posted to WP:ELEM, you'll hear Scerri say there's a lot of disagreement within the IUPAC project. Please let's not forget the distinction between a personal view, and a view/role as a chair of an IUPAC project. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Except that the first part of what I say there still seems to not be addressed (see my Q1). You have watched the YouTube video – so you will also have heard Scerri say "I certainly will be arguing to IUPAC that they should adopt number two [Sc-Y-Lu]" there, and "the one I'm suggesting and other people on this committee have suggested is lutetium and lawrencium should be the official version". In other words, his personal support also carries over to his activities as chair of that IUPAC project. And you have also seen those two sources you mentioned (this is one, the other is Scerri's book The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance), so you will also have noticed that Scerri never formally mentioned any distinction between what his personal view was and what his view/role as the project chair was, which seems exactly consistent with what I just noticed he said. Neither did he specifically say that his view supporting Lu was personal and that his comment that he thought physical/chemical arguments couldn't decide it wasn't, yet you only mentioned the latter but not the former. And as I recall regarding Scerri and Parsons, you only mentioned that Scerri agreed that his second Madelung argument doesn't work, not his first "don't split the d block" argument; and indeed in that YouTube video he explicitly uses the "don't split the d block" argument again. (Incidentally, when I say Scerri supports Jensen's claims, I mean that he supports Jensen's conclusion that Sc-Y-Lu is to be preferred. Not that he supports everything about how Jensen gets to that conclusion.)

Therefore my worry remains that when you have a strong opinion on something, which is especially important here considering that you've just gotten a La-supporting article published, your use of sources may not be quite neutral. As shown in the above example I have concerns if your reading of the sources is focusing on what they actually say instead of "reading between the lines". And that, to me, is a problem because many of these sources are difficult for other users to access and if they are not used properly by those with access to them, a discussion may be skewed away from the more policy-compliant outcome. (Yes, I still agree with what you quote me as saying.) Moreover, I still don't see recognition from you that your correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists is not really an appropriate source to bring in when discussing content: it's simply not verifiable because it's not published, so there's no point in bringing it up on the talk page because it can't be used in the article anyway by policy.

I'll just note that I have made a strong attempt to be strictly source-based in my cases here, as can be seen in the discussion at WT:ELEM#The actual formal group 3 proposal where I am not referring to my personal opinion of the scientific correctness of the La form. (FWIW, that is very negative, but if I have done this right you should not be able to tell that I feel that from what I wrote there, because I stuck to the source-based case.) There are a number of PT issues where I think something is scientifically correct, but where I do not push it; and in one case I am even arguing for something I personally think is scientifically not ideal (blocks alone as categories without even showing which elements are metals and which are not), because I believe that that's where the source-based case goes. If I understand policy correctly, that is how behaviour in content discussion on WP should work. I may not always be living up to it 100%, but I'm trying. Double sharp (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Tx Double sharp. As I noted, Scerri wears two hats. One as a member of the Group 3 project, with his personal view; the other as the chair of the project. Presumably, there are many things he could choose to say or not say in a video, bearing in mind his discussion of the group 3 question was a "bonus", not the main topic. Yes, no doubt at least Jensen has suggested Lu. But what of Lavelle, and Restrepo who are on the committee, and have both published in support of La? And what about the former editor of Nature, Philip Ball, who has expressed a preference for a compromise solution, whatever that means? As I noted, Eric refers to considerable disagreement within the project

Yes, on the split d-block argument, I’ve addressed this in my open access article in FoC. On the Scerri-Parsons argument I addressed this in the same article in FoC.

On the use of my sources not being quite neutral, my article was peer reviewed three times, and accepted for publication by Scerri, after I accommodated the many peer review comments. As the editor of FoC, Eric read the article too.

On my correspondence with non-WP chemists, and scientists, should I conceal the basis for my opinions? I’m one editor with one opinion, no more no less. Even EdChem is interested in hearing from me if Scerri (a non-WP chemist) has an idea of when the group 3 project might deliver their report.

Re, "it's simply not verifiable because it's not published, so there's no point in bringing it up on the talk page because it can't be used in the article anyway by policy." I bring these things up on the talk page to illustrate, at least in part, the basis for my opinions, noting there is no prohibition on OR at a talk page. I decide on the point of bringing it to a talk page, noting it can’t be used in article by policy.

Re the discussion at WT:ELEM#The actual formal group 3 proposal, I set out the reasons for my opinion:

Oppose a change, at this time. 

Briefly:

1. the relevant IUPAC committee may or may not accept the report of the Group 3 project;
2. as such, there are no plans for the relevant IUPAC committee to draft a formal recommendation and seek input from the chemistry community;
3. Sc-Y-*-** is NOT due to be deprecated—that will be matter for discussion within IUPAC as a whole, since the periodic table appearing in The Red Book is simply that used within IUAPC rather being formal recommended by IUPAC for external use; and 4. IUPAC has never decided in favour of any form of table—I’ll expand on this later.

I note nobody else at WP:ELEM was influenced by my opinion. —- Sandbh (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Simple question: you say Scerri "wears two hats". I noted that in the two pieces by him you cited, Scerri never explicitly distinguishes between what he does as chair of the IUPAC project and what he is personally advocating. And I also noted that in that video Scerri explicitly says that on the IUPAC project he advocates his oft-expressed personal view in favour of Lu. So where exactly are you getting Scerri wearing two hats out of? Exactly how is this a valid use of sources? My concern that you do not stick to what the sources say when something of personal interest to you is at stake remains.

When you publish in the literature, you can very well write a paper promoting your own view. That is not at all the same as what we are supposed to do on WP, however. You mention the "basis" for your opinions – but in doing so you're perforce admitting that that your opinion is not based on published sources. That is all fine and well outside WP, but if you use that opinion to support or oppose a change on WP, then you are supporting that WP show something that is not based on published, reliable sources. And that is why I feel that if you go on like that, I have no choice but to reiterate support for topic-banning you because this kind of behaviour is not one of an editor that is helping to build Wikipedia in accordance with core policy, specifically WP:5P2. If you're willing to change that, then of course I will strike that support of mine. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you. Scerri mentioned his (surprising to me) two hats approach in another forum I'm a member of. I don't understand your question about valid use of sources since I haven't cited Scerri on this point, in the article space.

There are hundred of things I read, hear and think about, every day e.g. I understand our internal monologues run at about 1,300–1,500 words per minute. These things, the majority of which are unreliable, influence our opinions. I submit it's unreasonable to expect any editor, automaton-like, to base their opinions on a talk page purely on RS. No doubt that's why WP:OR says it doesn't apply to talk pages; free thinking is allowed. For example, as Scerri has opined, there is no categorical argument that can settle the group 3 question. That being so, some subjective discussion, weighing up, and judgement needs to be applied. My personal opinions in this matter carry no more weight than any other editor's opinions; indeed my personal opinions are frequently ignored. That's what happens in the "magnificent concept of [a] "contest of ideas," as WP:ELEM member R8R put it.

On WP:5P2, this says: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." I comply with this policy in the article space. I invite you to present evidence of my contributions in the article space that are in breach of WP:5P2.

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Simple. You are using that point in order to justify your !vote on a discussion that will determine article content. That's why I have a problem with it. Double sharp (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And now a word from Charles Dickens

This scarecrow of a thread has, over the course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two editors can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties to it without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with it. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when the thread should be closed, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of admins has come in and gone out.

EEng 04:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Call for Closure

I am saddened that this ANI thread has grown out of control. I have participated (likely with too many words) in the hope that a positive outcome might result. The most recent posts from Sandbh, including his outright rejection of the advice from Levivich and the clear suggestions from comments to Double sharp and elsewhere, suggest to me that he will continue to interpret policies and guidelines like OR, IAR, and ASPERSIONS in ways that he sees fit, and consequently I see little point in this thread continuing. I request an uninvolved administrator close this extended thread, imposing whatever restrictions and sanctions on any participant as are justified. I think it is desirable for this thread to end with as much time as possible before the heat death of the universe... on present trends, I fear this being only a matter of minutes. EdChem (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Close it? Someone needs to read it the Riot Act and disperse it. EEng 08:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:EdChem. Double sharp (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

On "outright rejection" I noted Levivich was an involved editor, and said I was willing to let that go, given Levivich's overall intent to seek a happy outcome. I intend to observe and uphold WP:OR, WP:IAR, and WP:ASPERSIONS, as they are written.

No evidence has been presented of any breach by me of WP:OR in the article space; of any breach by me of WP:IAR, or WP:ASPERSIONS.

I've lost track of the number of:

(a) apologies I've posted for my lapses of WP:CIVIL, which were minor compared to this post by User:DePiep, on Oct 10 [174], to a previous WP:ANI thread:

"You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R."

(b) commitments I've made to observe WP:CIVIL etc.

On 2 Nov I asked Double sharp[175], who filed this ANI on 24 Oct:

"Should we approach an uninvolved admin seeking their assessment and closure of this ANI?"

I rec'd no reply.

The thread subsequently continued for a further 12,700+ words (about 43% by me).

Sandbh (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: The problem is that how you read what they say is not at all how the general community understands them. As for OR, I have already expressed concerns with your use of sources (which to me seems bordering on OR and SYNTH) at Periodic table#Categories over at WT:ELEM#Regarding the latest additions to Periodic table, and significant parts of it still apply; I just don't post them here because that's a content issue first of all and only becomes a behavioural issue when you don't take instruction. And there is already skewing of a content discussion by using unreliable sources to support one's view, and so far there still seems to be a clear intent to observe policies not according to general understanding, but according to your own understanding. I have noted this clearly several times here, and suggested you change this, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Well – I've had enough of going in circles when it keeps going back to you posting walls of text, resurrecting issues that have supposedly been closed, and taking every opportunity to quote something of DePiep that has already been agreed by the community not to be actionable. (I don't ping him because I doubt he wants to hear more about it.) Unless you're willing to admit that you might be wrong about what policy means when the rest of the community disagrees, and back it up with action rather than falling into the same pattern again, I support an indefinite TBAN of you from either PT- or chemistry-related topics. As without that, I have absolutely no confidence that we won't end up needing to be back here again for round 4.

Now that I've clearly expressed it in one, short post: I'll leave it to the closing admin, who will as EdChem said impose whatever restrictions and sanctions are justified. Double sharp (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sutton12

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

---

• Sutton12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across Sutton12 at the Sutton-in-Ashfield article and saw he was making problematic edits. He has made 350+ edits to the article, but dozens of them were among the 149 deleted by User:Justlettersandnumbers as RD1:Violations of copyright policy.

Some of his uploads to Commons, (related to Sutton-in-Ashfield) have been challenged at Commons Deletion Requests, and in one recent glaring case he changed the file name of an image being considered for deletion to the file name of a completely different image. No reason given, per normal. Yeah I know, we're not Commons, but I mention it as an example of his editing.

He has twice recently removed a More Citations Needed tag from the article. Although he is adding new citations, the efficacy of many is largely unknowable because they are not accessible, do not give page numbers, or quotes, and it is difficult to determine how many of his edits to Wikipedia need rectification. Much of his refs formatting is poor to say the least.

He rarely gives an edit summary, will not indent talk page comments as requested, and does not sign his posts as requested. Some of his responses to editors are meaningless. He lacks writing ability and his misinterpretation of sources introduces errors to the project — example, a paragraph I deleted. I have rectified a few of his edits, which makes me involved, so that’s why I am here. Many of his contributions are truly disruptive, he largely ignores advice and seems to not want to make a collegial effort. I think he needs a block for a little while to think things over, with a warning that it can be indefinite if on return he continues his troublesome editing. Moriori (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There's an apparent WP:CIR issue here. I will give him a warning for disruptive editing and follow up on it. Deb (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Deb, that seems to be the right way forward. The whole article should probably now by overhauled/rewritten by editors with a better understanding of encyclopaedic style and content. It's been on my watchlist since I removed copyvio there. I've sporadically spot-checked some of his edits and found no further copyvio problems; if anyone sees or feels that I've missed anything, please ping me, there or here. Thank you for the ping, Moriori! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, another option would be to make all changes to the article subject to review. That might make checking the individual edits a bit easier. Deb (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Jonathan f1 disruptive editing

• White Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User, who has a history of receiving disruptive editing warnings and other warnings in their talk page, deleted with an edit comment “unsupported statement” a sentence about demography cited to a 1991 article in the journal Demography, a 1986 article in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (which explicitly supports the statement with an entire section "Inconsistencies") and two other sources, and deleted with an edit comment “total nonsense” content cited to a 2000 article in Yale Law Journal by a law professor about U.S. naturalization cases, with a subsequent claim in the talk page that the latter was 'scholars' operating in the tradition of "whiteness studies". This would seem to add to an overall pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all I don't have a "history of disruptive editing". This happened on one other occasion (probably a year ago) which involved me deleting a talk page section (not content in an article) which I started. I was simply unaware of a certain policy regarding talk page deletions. After I was explained the rules it never happened again.

Secondly, I explained all of my edits on the talk page. They were all simple deletions of content that was either not explicitly supported by the sources or supported by dated sources that have very little credibility in contemporary, mainstream scholarship.

Let's take each issue at a time.

First cite the specific passages in the references you're using to support this statement as it appears in the article:

"However, the English and British Americans' demography is considered a serious under-count as the stock tend to self-report and identify as simply "Americans" (7%), due to the length of time they have inhabited the United States, particularly if their family arrived prior to the American Revolution."

Where does it say this? The first reference is page 57 of Dominic Pulera's Sharing the American Dream. Perhaps you haven't read past page 57. That wouldn't surprise me. On page 58 Pulera writes,

"The number of American Americans surged dramatically between 1990 and 2000, suggesting that white Americans, particularly members of such groups as German Americans, Irish Americans, and English Americans, increasingly identify solely as American."

This is significant because both hyphenated Irish and German Americans outnumber hyphenated English Americans on recent censuses and ancestry surveys. You simply cherry-picked English/British Americans out of the source without paying attention to the context in which Pulera was writing. That is, Pulera started the discussion on English/British Americans (as the one of the oldest ancestry groups in the US) as a premise for his conclusion that "white Americans" (specifically English, German, Irish Americans) are under-counted on these surveys (not only English Americans).

Lieberson doesn't lend any explicit support for this statement either. And, as I mentioned on the talk, the majority of your sources are more than 20, 30 years old. Several censuses and surveys were conducted since the 80s, so you need to update your sources. The most recent source you're using is Pulera, and he doesn't support the content.

As far as this "whiteness" business goes -- you are simply unfamiliar with the literature regarding the academic debates that have taken place since the 90s. "Whiteness studies" was popular in the Academy 20 or 30 years ago, not just in history but also in sociology and even legal scholarship. Around the turn of the century, several prominent social historians such as Barbara J. Fields called a moratorium on historians' use of "whiteness" as an analytical tool in Euro-American ethnic studies, and historians have since abandoned this approach. So again you're using out of date sources (from the early 90s) to support controversial (and, I would say, pseudo-historical) content.

And finally I don't appreciate you sending me multiple hysterical messages and accusing me of disruptive editing. I made 3 edits, opened up talk page discussions on all three, and did not edit war, vandalize, or anything else that would constitute a disruption. Obviously, you are emotionally involved in this subject. I would suggest other editors get involved here and wrangle this bull before he pulverizes the whole china shop.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having reviewed this editor's small number of mainspace edits, it is clear that the majority are tendentious. In a spirit of WP:AGF, and given their relative inexperience, I have enacted a partial block from mainspace, so that they can explore the changes they want to make through the consensus process on Talk. Jonathan f1, this is mainly designed to protect our articles from well-intentioned but poor edits; I have no doubt that with a little patience you'll get the hang of it and the partial block can be lifted. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Those violations were the result of an unfamiliarity with the rules, as I just explained. However, the edits I made to the article in question were completely warranted, as I also explained.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think that is a bit much given the edits in question. I can see why the edits would be reversed but based on the evidence above a block from editing any name space article indefinitely looks punitive rather than preventative. Additionally, I don't see anything to help the editor understand what they did wrong and how to do better in the future. The edits in question here were reverted with no edit warring and a trip to the talk page. Anyway, this seems like a case for constructive criticism accompanied by perhaps an informal warning. Springee (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: No I didn't edit war. I made a couple of deletions, opened talk page sections to discuss the issues, and then OP went into a craze.

Yes, explain to me what I did wrong because from my perspective I merely deleted material that wasn't adequately sourced. He is now claiming that the first statement in question is "explicitly supported with an entire section" in one of the references. Perhaps he can quote some of that because I apparently missed it.

In addition, he's citing a source from 1986 to support a statement regarding the opinion of contemporary demographers. The most recent reference he has supporting this statement doesn't actually support the statement.

As far as the Yale Law Review goes -- a law professor is not a social historian. We wouldn't expect a law professor to know how to do social history any more than we'd expect a social historian to know how to be a lawyer. Historians stopped using "race" as an analytical tool in white ethnic studies shortly after this lawyer published his paper. So again we have a case where this editor is using out of date material, only this time he's supporting a rather controversial statement.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to mentioning tendentious editing, our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline has a subsection WP:NOTGETTINGIT, which says among other things

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Instead of, for example, at all acknowledging that there's no rational way to construe a sentence about the varying status of different European nationalities in early America, cited to the Yale Law Journal, as “total nonsense”, you continue to make what appear to me to be completely specious arguments justifying your edit; having responded to the first editor who challenged you on the talk page by saying they were Trawling through research in a controversial field such as "whiteness studies" (Or possibly you were talking about a past editor of the article? It's hard to tell, even now, looking at it.) and characterizing my refusal to accept said arguments as “hysterical” and a “craze”. That's an extreme obstacle to be operating with, to be unable to tell the difference between “total nonsense” and a topical sentence cited to a law journal or discuss the issue without expressing bilious generalized contempt for a fellow editor who does not think it's nonsense.

I'd actually be worried that expecting such an issue to be resolved in a only a years' worth of infrequent collaborative talk-page edit requests would not be long enough, but I've seen in the past that Guy has more experience than I in witnessing clemency lead to a turn-around in editing behavior. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 13:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis (again)

User:Deacon Vorbis seems to have been angered by my recent edits to Square root, which were attempting to implement the results of a recent RFC. I include below the back-and-forth on my talk page for a bit of context leading up to the extremely vulgar message at the end of the exchange. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Moved from User talk:Beland#Radicals (see history to verify diffs)

Please stop changing this. Just please. It doesn't need to be done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Improving_rendering_of_radical_symbol, where consensus of the RFC was judged to be in favor of adopting the MOS:RADICAL text which says <math>...</math> style markup is to be used instead of {{radic}} style markup "whenever technically possible to do so", which currently excludes image captions. I have updated the MOS, and it is now time to implement that style preference in articles. I've started doing that on square root and intend to do so on all other affected articles. I'm sorry that the markup style you favored did not attain consensus, but it is important to the operation of the encyclopedia project that all editors respect consensus, whether or not we agree with the outcome. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making these changes and leave them for someone who has a better handle on math layout issues. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please just stop. This doesn't need to be done at all. Find something actually productive. Please. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Your preferences were taken into account in the above-referenced discussion, and consensus was to change markup to the opposite preference. Simply repeating the preference that did not carry the day is not an argument to stop implementing the proposal that was adopted by consensus. This repeated begging is starting to become harassment. I'm happy to let you or another volunteer implement the proposal if you wish; I have plenty of things I'd rather be spending my time on. I'll be doing the implementation work myself until I see someone else start in on it. -- Beland (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Beland#... (see history to verify diffs)

You know what, do whatever the fuck you want, you fucking asshole. I fucking quit, and it's because of fucking assholes like you. I'm fucking tired of this shit. You don't know what the fuck you're doing, so you can take your goddamn bureaucratic MOS bullshit and shove it up your fucking ass. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Some of the reverts are discussed in open threads on Talk:Square root, but most of my changes have been accepted after fixed some style issues identified by Deacon Vorbis. It would have been more civil and productive, in my opinion, for them to simply fix those issues, but instead they seem to have been using those other problems as an excuse to revert my changes wholesale, sometimes reverting changes they didn't dispute. As noted in the long discussion of a previous complaint, Deacon Vorbis has a history of aggressive tactics, and has previously been blocked for a vulgar personal attack for which they refused to apologize.

Given this history, I feel Deacon Vorbis needs to improve their emotional maturity to the point where they can respect a group decision they disagree with, and interact in a productive and civil fashion with editors with whom they initially disagree. If they are willing to engage in some self-reflection, perhaps some sort of mentorship would be helpful. Failing that, something needs to be done to prevent this user from perpetuating a hostile editing environment and scaring away other volunteers from the project. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Deacon Vorbis has changed their user pages to declare that they have retired from Wikipedia. Perhaps that problem solved itself, assuming that decision sticks. -- Beland (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah maybe you should have noticed that before you opened this? Christ. --JBL (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Good work! You have forced some silly math markup into an article and driven off a productive editor. MOS:RADICAL explicitly says "...the {{radic}} method should be used in image captions" and the advice you were given (to leave math markup to others) was good. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly a much more civil and productive response. But the advice to leave math markup to others makes me a bit uncomfortable. We can't expect to recruit new editors to work on that sort of thing if we expect everyone who does so to have a perfect command of all of Wikipedia's quirks. Even math professors and people who are masters of LaTeX will have a learning curve and need some friendly corrections and pointers. If all the math editors are prickly at the slightest violation of some arcane standard, it seems likely the population will dwindle and quality will suffer. The community actually believes in this principle strongly enough that it's a behavior guideline — Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Deacon started editing Wikipedia twelve years after you. He did not "bite the newcomer". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm apparently considered enough of a newcomer to math markup on Wikipedia that I've been discouraged by both Deacon Vorbis and Johnuniq from using it or even trying to learn more about it. Which is a bit sad, given that unlike most editors I've been reading LaTeX-marked-up computer science and math documents for decades. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So ... you agree that your previous whine about "biting a newcomer" was complete bullshit, then, and you retract it and apologize for wasting time with this crap? --JBL (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a newcomer to Wikipedia; that would be silly when everyone can see that I'm not. I am worried that when actual newcomers to the site encounter behavior like Deacon Vorbis occasionally exhibited over the years they were here, the new folks will give up editing right away. I do think we need to use the same principles (to the degree they apply) with veteran editors, particularly when they move into an area of editing that is new to them. And I certainly felt like I was being treated as a newbie to math markup specifically (whether justified or not) while I was having my head bitten off. As a community, I think we actually need to spend a lot more time on efforts to improve civility and welcomingness, as our retention numbers are on the decline and our geographic, ethnicity, and gender demographics are heavily skewed, and that's why I have started raising behavior like this rather than just ignoring it. As for this particular complaint, the powers-that-be can feel free to close this thread; trying to avoid spending time on an already-resolved issue is why I posted that this problem seems to be solved as soon as I noticed that Deacon Vorbis had retired, though as I seldom participate in these discussions I was not sure if it was standard WP:AN/I practice to enforce that retirement for some period or issue an admonishment in such circumstances. When I read his message on my talk page, I thought he was quitting the radical markup dispute; it never occurred to me that a veteran editor who is so headstrong and stubborn would quit the whole project over such a trivial matter. Finally, JBL, In the future, if you would like serious answers to your questions, I ask that you please refrain from vulgarities and personal insults as you have used above and below. I welcome disagreement and personal criticism here, but that sort of incivility simply contributes to the toxic atmosphere we're trying to remedy. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in "serious answers to my questions", I am interested in you engaging in some self-reflection and (ideally) fixing the problems with your behavior. This dispute has driven exactly one productive editor away from WP, and you're the one who has done the driving. --JBL (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

OK...well, I very much tried to be civil and reasonable, and follow the established dispute resolution process on the site, and avoided responding in kind to what I perceived as Deacon Vorbis' attempts to bully me into doing what he wanted even though I (and later, a consensus of editors) disagreed that it was the right thing to do. I don't think future editors who have similar ideas for improvement should face the same hostility, even if I personally disagree with them. If someone else responds to the implementation of an RFC they opposed by having a temper tantrum and storming off, I kinda have to feel like that's on them. It violates the social norms expected of editors here, namely to remain civil, to respect consensus, and to work with people who have different perspectives to build on each others' contributions. As quoted above, after the RFC closed I tried to explain that to Deacon Vorbis in the politest way that I could, even throwing in an "I'm sorry" in the hopes it might heal hurt feelings. We can't abrogate the results of RFCs just because one editor is annoyed at the outcome; that would destroy the project's ability to make decisions and seriously reduce productivity. And I disagree that the work of only one editor was in the balance here. How many productive editors did Deacon Vorbis drive away from STEM articles or Wikipedia in general in their time here, and how many more would they have driven away had they not retired? -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that Deacon also dropped an f-bomb while removing Beland's ANI notice (see Deacon's talk page history). Will that result in any action even if he's retired or...? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Using the f-word is fucking allowed on this fucking site, and does not justify fucking sanctions. Though gratuitous usage is discouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The F-bomb should be reserved for necessary emphasis (from Punch). Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I don't think this should have been brought here. And I'll be very unhappy if we end up losing a good editor because of it. And in the grand scheme of things why should anyone really care about a few "fucks"? Paul August ☎ 17:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And your "problem solved" indicates clearly to me that you value "winning" over the good of the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fucks are fine but this isn't. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The "problem" I want to "solve" is editors creating a toxic atmosphere that makes it difficult to recruit and retain new volunteers. If I "lose" an RFC or a deletion discussion or whatever, I respect the outcome and I don't go around begging other editors not to implement the group's decision. It would have been a much better "win" for Wikipedia if Deacon Vorbis had been able to emotionally cope with being on the "losing" side of the RFC, had learned how to work more productively with other editors rather than telling them to fuck off, and had stuck around to continue making useful contributions, even if that means we are sometimes on opposite sides of questions like this one. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not a newcomer, you are a longstanding editor and also, apparently, an officious git. It would have been a better "win" for you to drop the stick instead of repeatedly pushing. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: Yes, we all want to solve the problem of "editors creating a toxic atmosphere that makes it difficult to recruit and retain new volunteers". But goading DV into a rage and causing him to leave does not solve that problem, or even begin to. The only problem that your "problem solved" could be referring to as being solved—apparently to your satisfaction—is the "problem" of the continued presence of DV here, and thereby your "winning" this ANI. Paul August ☎ 14:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, do you have any evidence to back up your accusation of goading? Admins should choose their words carefully, especially when commenting on a noticeboard discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, why didn't you simply listen when you were told "This doesn't need to be done at all.", even adding a "Please."?? - I'd tell you the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Because we had just gone through an RFC, and consensus was that this markup should be changed. One editor doesn't get to veto a consensus style decision after everyone has already listened to their concerns and didn't agree with them. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I have no time to dig into math mark-up, but see a difference between "should be changed" and "needs to be changed". - We just had a discussion to delete a certain template. Does it need to be changed? No. - A user threatened to leave Wikipedia if it's removed. So I don't remove it - in articles they created. I cherish editor retention, more than mark-up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

      Yes, this, 1000 times. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

      • Sorry, but no. We have all had to swallow a consensus here that goes against us. To suggest that we should ignore it because one editor threatens to leave is a terrible idea and goes against the whole consensus approach. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate to have lost a productive editor in DV. At the same time, Beland was not unjustified in their markup edits (the RfC was closed as there is consensus that using <math>...</math> tags to render expressions containing radicals is superior to the old {{radic}} option by L235) and the labeling of another editor as a fucking asshole is never appropriate. An unpleasant situation and net loss all around. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  +1, my thoughts exactly. FWIW I'm on Windows using Chrome, which is the most popular configuration out there, and I don't see a gap between the lines when radic is used, and I think the math markup is much uglier, more difficult to read, and not searchable. Nevertheless, there was an RFC about this, which had a result, and while I personally think it was the wrong result, I think Beland was properly implementing that result (and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that unless I missed it?).

  I also think DV was taking this math dispute much too seriously. These are stressful times and there's a lot of that going around. DV's retirement is a loss to the project, and I hope it's temporary, and that they don't take these markup disputes so seriously when they return. The "fucking assholes like you" comment was out of line, and neither Beland nor any other editor should have to put up with being on the receiving end of a message like that (particularly not for properly implementing an RFC result, assuming that is not in dispute). At the same time, the "fuck-off-I-quit goodbye message" is so common, for understandable reasons (we're all human), and so we always let that kind of venting slide, and we should let is slide here, too.

  I don't fault Beland for failing to notice DV's retirement template before posting this, as the two events happened only an hour apart. I do wonder, though, whether there's any point to this thread remaining open at this time. Lev!vich 03:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  I also think DV was taking this math dispute much too seriously. This is also true. --JBL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MarkH21 and Levivich: there was a consensus for the change, Beland was justified in making the changes, calling someone a “fucking asshole” is never appropriate, and DV was obviously taking this dispute too seriously. *But* that doesn’t mean that Beland shouldn’t have handled the dispute very differently. He didn’t have to insist so vigoursly. He could have temporized, he could have even just paused. He certainly didn’t need to bring this dispute—over what amounts to, in the grand scheme of things, a trivial math formatting issue and an the overreaction of a clearly stressed and extremely productive editor—to ANI. Paul August ☎ 15:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So where do you go if someone calls you a fucking arsehole if not ANI? AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere. ANI is for chronic and urgent problems. Is it a "chronic" or "urgent" problem that someone called someone a fucking asshole, once, right before retiring? I have a hard time thinking of problems less urgent (granted, "math markup using wrong symbols" makes the list). While it's a transgression, not every transgression requires a response. I don't think "fuck off drama quits" require a response, generally speaking. Lev!vich 22:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Does there always have to be a place to go? Paul August ☎ 22:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have taken this here if I had known it was I-quit-Wikipedia drama, and this certainly wasn't a one-time offense. What about cases where the editor in question is not leaving the site? Is there a better forum for raising problems of civility? -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest a diary or perhaps a feelings journal? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: You are correct, this was not a one time offense. But I wouldn't characterize it as chronic either, and ANI should be something of a last resort. If you think the incivility is so bad that it can't be ignored (sticks and stones? turn the other cheek?), and needs to be addressed, then the first resort ought to be with the editor in question: nonconfrontationally, without animus, and with goodwill, patience and understanding. This will mean setting aside personal slights, eliminating any desire to "get back", and considering only what's best for the encyclopedia. Granted this may not always be easy but—if done sincerely and well—it can often work. Paul August ☎ 12:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If I had an editor hurling obscenities at me, my first step would not be to address it with them one-on-one. I might simply choose to ignore the situation, but I am absolutely not going to try to talk things out with someone who clearly isn't willing to have a civil conversation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Well, while ignoring will often be the best thing, an outburst like this does not necessarily mean that the editor won't be willing (perhaps when they cooled down) to discuss things more civilly. Especially if they are approached in the right way. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's really not up to the person on the receiving end of fuck you to approach the person giving the fuck you "in the right way". To put the burden on the recipient to handle it correctly is a form of victim-blaming. I disagree that people who are being verbally abused should first try to work things out on the abuser's talk page. We should never require, or even encourage, that. I think "ignore" would have been a better choice than "ANI" in this particular case, but "ANI" is still a justified choice. "Discuss on their talk page first" is a good choice for many situations, but it's not a justifiable expectation for responding to personal attacks. Lev!vich 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well said. The responses of several editors in this thread have been nothing but bizarre. We have at least one admin levelling accusations of 'civil trouble-making' on the OP's part without providing any evidence of misconduct. And we have the spurious, evidence-free assertion that Beland is somehow responsible for DV's retirement. No, if Deacon Vorbis cannot cope with the results of the RfC and chooses to leave, that's a Deacon Vorbis problem. Blaming the OP is laughable and ridiculous. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You're a fucking arsehole is not borderline incivility but a blatant personal attack. And it is not an isolated incident. Sure it could be ignored, maybe should have due to the retirement (although I have been around long enough to take a retired banner with a grain of salt), but there is certainly a case for bringing it here. It doesn't deserve the response it received from some editors that should know better and the patronising comment from Dumuzid is most definitely out of line. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate habit at ANI of focusing on bad words and ignoring the underlying cause. In this case, Beland was single-handedly (no support that I can see) trying to introduce truly ghastly markup into Square root based on a misreading of MOS:RADICAL. Like many civil trouble-makers, Beland pushed the issue and DV blew up. Now we are asked to piously assess the appropriate punishment for the bad words without any concern about the issue. It sucks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You realize Beland linked to the RfC that was held about this? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Improving_rendering_of_radical_symbol. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying that Beland's actions are not supported by the recent RfC linked at the beginning of this thread? I'm a little confused by the details, but I trust that you aren't accusing Beland of being a trouble-maker simply for carrying out the results of an RfC. What am I missing here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am rather confused and concerned by this comment as well. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:*ss continued deletion of Korean military coordinates

User:*ss is deleting coordinates of South Korean military sites, claiming national security e.g. [[176]], warnings given here: User talk:*ss#Stop deleting coordinates Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For e.g. Command Post Tango, what was the source for the coordinates? If they aren't freely available, we probably shouldn't provide them either. Fram (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Google Earth, you can take a look yourself.Mztourist (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Google Earth is not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There's the issue that Google's coordinates often appear to have come from WP. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Having made a complaint at AIV where the edits were declared to be "not vandalism". The same complaint is now brought here hoping to get the desired result. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not forum shopping IP user. I regard it as vandalism, it was decided it wasn't, so I came here as I see no reason for deletion of these coordinates, certainly not on the grounds claimed by *ss of South Korean national security concerns. Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Off tangent slightly, but I've fixed many a co-ordinate for park or playing field that was off by hundreds of metres before with Google Maps - which I assume has the same data as Google Earth - and always matches other sources, such ad OpenMap, etc. I've never seen any co-ordinates referenced to something. Are you suggesting User:Fram that we should start deleting all the co-ordinates in Wikipedia that are unreferenced? I've never seen controversy - or even a counter-edit, before. I don't see Google Earth/Maps listed as unreliable somewhere - perhaps I'm not looking in the right place? Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting User:Fram that we should start deleting all the co-ordinates in Wikipedia that are unreferenced?" No, just like I don't claim that all information in general which is unsourced should be deleted. But when information is challenged by an editor, it should be reliably sourced. If there is a reliable source for this information, then it can stay. Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I can only think of one experience. An editor pointed out to me that the coordinates I'd taken when translating from Dutch WP were wrong, by a couple of hundred metres (and the other side of a canal). They were right - dank u wel.

If clicking on a coords link doesn't land you on a map at or very near the right place, what use is it? Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(further non admin comment) Google Maps etc. can be seriously dodgy as to saying where borders are, in some parts of the world - the answer you get may depend on where you claim to be from. Nevertheless, as an innocent, I do not know of any case where they have fiddled the coordinates of a named place. Narky Blert (talk)

Borders perhaps ... it's normally pretty clear between North and South Korea! Looking at an diff of one of these changes, User:*ss deleted the co-ordinates of the Busan naval base because it's "not published". Yet you can clearly see lots of large naval vessels in Google Maps here. This example though seems just a content dispute ... changed, and then changed back. And I don't see a lot of edits. What User:Mztourist can't be dealt with on the Talk page? The only one I see recently is Command Post Tango ... and it's 3 edits - one in August, one in October, and one in November? Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz the issue is that *ss is persistently deleting the coordinates despite the Talk Page warning on the basis of their view that coordinates shouldn't be given to comply with South Korean national security laws. Would you prefer that we edit war in the expectation that someone will trip 3RR? Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "the issue is that *ss is persistently deleting the coordinates despite the Talk Page warning" is not an ANI issue at all, it's a content dispute. There is no reason for them to follow your "warning" any more than the reverse would be true if they had warned you. Ask for a 3rd opinion, go to the reliable sources noticeboard, if necessary start an RfC: but don't treat it like anything but a content dispute. Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The location information of military bases is where civilians are not allowed to enter, so it is not accurate if you go to check it yourself with permission. Because what is displayed on Google Maps(or Earth) may not be the correct information. In Wikipedia, it is not a policy or obligation to indicate the detailed location or coordinates of a military base, and it is sufficient to indicate the approximate location. That doesn't mean that erase all coordinates. And the display of such sensitive information can be a target of spies or North Korean Army. South Korea is very sensitive militarily because of North Korea. *ss (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute. That being said, I highly doubt that North Korean spies are using Wikipedia to get information on military targets that are publically and freely available. If you think they don't know the exact location of every single military installation on the peninsula, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. But at the end of the day we only publish what can be reliably sourced. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As is clear from *ss's comments above "the display of such sensitive information can be a target of spies or North Korean Army" and my original complaint, this is not a content dispute or a WP:V issue. *ss is deleting valid information based on his/her perception of the applicability of South Korean security laws to Wikipedia. What is the position on this? Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think *ss's reason for deletion is wrong, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not a valid reason for removal. However the removal itself is technically correct, for different reasons, namely the lack of a reliable source for those co-ordinates. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA edits and possible WP:CIR

• Barış Arduç (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Viksa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last one and a half month, the editor in question has repeatedly changed the infobox entry about the actor's spouse, usually also removing the given source for the marriage. They have also made similar edits to the article about the sourced spouse Gupse Özay. They do not use edit summaries to explain their edits. Also, they have mostly not reacted to the long list of warnings in their talk page, but the two times they have made talk page entries, they have written in what Google translate regognises as Bulgarian, so there may be a language problem. Many of their edit attempts have also broken the format of the infobox so that the box has collapsed, and even if this has been explained to them both in edit summaries and in their talk page, they have continued to do so, so there may be a WP:CIR issue as well.

As a side remark, there has also been another conflict in this page about the actor's Albanian heritage, but the SPA has not been active in that, which now seems to have been resolved. --T*U (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Just after I reported this, Neiltonks reverted the disruption, possibly as a result of this report. However, today Viksa999 has again made the same edit, also this time without an edit summary, also this time breaking the format and collapsing the infobox. --T*U (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I've created a SPI page here since there seems to be at least 2 accounts making these disruptive edits. If it's not been moved yet it might be in the talk page since I can't create SPI pages as an IP. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive reverting edits by Alexandermcnabb

It all started when I want to make minor changes, slight minor edits that may not require sourcing, but it means the same thing, just rephrasing the sentence. According to Abu Dhabi, on the climate section, I tried modifying the sentence changing it from The months of June through September are generally extremely hot and humid with maximum temperatures averaging above 41 °C (106 °F) to The summer months, June to September are generally extremely hot and humid with maximum temperatures averaging above 40 °C (104 °F). This user, Alexandermcnabb; just keeps reverting my edits and keeps disagreeing and thinks that "I am adding incorrect information" which I am not. He is telling me that I am adding wrong information by me which is not true, since I was just changing Over 41 °C to Over 40 °C, and he made it a huge deal. He ended up arguing with me the whole time telling me that all of my information is wrong, and I just ONLY changed and rephrased the sentence a little bit. Then I added a reference sources, and still he keeps reverting my edits, Again thinking that I am providing false information. If I changed for exampleOver 41 °C to Over 38 °C, then he is right, but he is literally arguing on just 1 °C. He drove me mentally sick, I got frustrated at him as I was planning to block him. Or at least warn him. I know Wikipedia rules. I am not disrupting it in any way, and besides, I was born and raised in Abu Dhabi. I don't know about [User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]], but I have been living in the UAE for 24 years (25 in June 2021). Ramy5077 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ramy5077 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"I am not disrupting it in any way" is, quite simply, untrue. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: this was a pretty serious overreaction. There were already two admins trying to work through this problem with the user on their talk page, and while they have a legitimate complaint about the other user's behaviour we were working towards resolution. They probably shouldn't have posted here, but your knee-jerk block certainly hasn't helped as they've now ragequit. I'm going to take a look at the content they were trying to work on and the other users' conduct, but please try to understand situations before you rush to block well-meaning contributors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

They were trying to repeatedly spam this site repeatedly as an account and an IP. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thanks. The block was not in response to the ANI report, the block was in response to threats reported at WP:AIV (Special:Permalink/987065418). I saw the ANI report having being created, but it just proved the point instead of making me hesitate. I'm also skeptical about the sudden change of mind to have allegedly happened within minutes after the block, but do not object to you (or anyone else) unblocking the user if you consider that to be beneficial to the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"and while they have a legitimate complaint about the other user's behaviour" - how so Ivanvector? Constant, silly and incorrect changes made by an IP to an article were reverted, with edit summaries. That user became not only bellicose (I remained civil, BTW) but eventually threatening. I edit under my own name and the guy apparently lives just over an hour down the road from me. I am deeply grateful to Praxidicae and ~ ToBeFree for their action. And if you take a minute to glance at the [177] edit summaries on the article, the language used by the IP was actually part of a worrying pattern. I'd be concerned, BTW, at a fast unblock. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer Clearly not getting an answer to the above, so there's no reason not to close this, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Link corrections by User:0blcsp

0blcsp (talk · contribs) has been making edits recently that include what he calls in the edit summary "link corrections". What he means is replacing [[target|something else that redirects to that target]] by [[something else that redirects to that target]], like the example I posted on their talkpage: [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] to [[Russian SFSR]]. Am I correct that this should not be done? Debresser (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that they're simplifying code via the source editor? It seems like they're reducing the article's byte size from edits generated by the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Without looking into those edits in detail, the relevant guideline is WP:NOTBROKEN. As a DABfixer, I see many links which could be "improved". I mostly ignore them, both because (a) if it works, don't fix it, and (b) life's too short. I try only to change otherwise-good links if the replacement would be more intuitive and therefore more helpful to readers. I would never alter something like [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]] or [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|RSFSR]] - the mouseover might save a click for any reader who knows the longer name. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert This is more than WP:NOTBROKE, the complete target is actually useful, as you write too. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: That is well possible. Do you mean to say that Wikipedia:VisualEditor is doing this on its own? That seems like something that should not happen. I'll alert them to this post. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, VisualEditor, from what I heard, adds some extraneous data to elements like tables; it's not perfectly optimised (and technically is still a "beta" feature). What could have happened is that an editor may have used the VisualEditor to create a link (e.g., Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) before changing the link text to "Russian SFSR". To my knowledge, that would generate [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]]. Unless the redirect Russian SFSR doesn't target the original link, I find it to be a harmless change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

0blcsp continues with these disruptive edits.[178] He is unresponsive on his talkpape. I propose a block till such time as he acknowledges that he should not make such edits. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User ignoring requests to source their edits

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

Despite several warnings and a personal plea, EvanTheMusicMan continues to add unsourced information to articles as can be seen in these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. It should be noted that the examples I've listed were all made after my personal request and final warning. They also refuse to communicate on their talk page with concerned editors such as myself when raising these issues. I understand the user is new but perhaps they are in need of some administrative reinforcement of certain policies such as WP:V and the importance of communication on this project because warnings and pleading is not working. Robvanvee 15:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of this could be construed to be implicitly cited to primary sources, like liner notes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@ NinjaRobotPirate, some of it? How does one tell if it is or is not and at what point does this start to violate V? The editor is familiar with adding citations from liner notes and websites so why not in these cases? Just a hover over their contributions shows tens if not hundreds of unsourced edits that could or could not be attributed to liner notes but this editor neither sources their edits (in most cases), uses edit summaries, responds to concerns on their talk page and they appear to be doing exactly what you described below as "Editor seems to be ignoring this complaint". Could you explain how this is different? Robvanvee 12:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Complete disregard for warnings

Aj Matillano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This problematic editor has received at least 7 warnings as well as 2 previous blocks for this very issue: the repeated addition of unsourced genres. Since Materialscientist's last warning and block they continue with these disruptive edits as can be seen in these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On top of that, they have yet to make any attempt to discuss these issues with concerned editors on their talk page. Please could an admin take a look at this as it seems the 2 blocks have not had the desired effect. Robvanvee 16:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor seems to be ignoring this complaint. Blocked indefinitely with a note that all Aj really has to do is make an unblock request that promises to cite sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help NinjaRobotPirate. Robvanvee 11:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent sourcing issues with Weareme234

Weareme234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Weareme234 is a good-faith new contributor focused on Indian geographical articles. However, they have severe issues regarding sourcing of their contributions. Despite multiple warnings and draft-ifications of unsourced articles, they continue creating new articles without proper sourcing; Cooperative Colony only having a Google Maps link to a bank in the area, and Sector 12 (Bokaro) having an article about an airport that doesn't support the claim that the airport is in that sector. I don't know how to engage the editor further, a block until they acknowledge the sourcing issues may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - they are still continuing to make large, unsourced, additions, despite a final warning - a report to WP:AIV was ignored - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Interaction Ban violation

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

---

It looks me like @Mathsci: and @Francis Schonken: are mutually violating their interaction ban, which was set here [179], with the additional aggravating factor that Mathsci appears to be repeatedly posting on FS's talk page [180] and when FS deletes it without comment, Mathsci persistently reverts it [181]. Isn't this the kind of thing Mathsci was banned for previously? ♟♙ (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, you're using present tense, but past tense is more appropriate. Suboptimal behavior, but this ended 2.5 days ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if this is tl;dr. I think the problems started 3 weeks ago on the talk page of BWV 543. There was a report on ANI by User:Headbomb, with a complaint about FS, where I was not involved. Subsequently there was a report on WP:ORN#Musical score by FS on 2 November 2020.

I have made a large number of edits to Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, previously a stub. Those edits are ongoing, mostly concerning "Bach reception" and parts of the section on "Musical structure," involving period manuscripts and some musical quotations.

FS initiated a report on WP:ORN#Musical scores; as a consequence, because I had already written musical quotations for the Prelude in A minor, BWV 543/1, I found that I was involuntarily involved in identifying and checking sources for BWV 543 concerning "In popular culture" (Le Clan des Siciliens and themes of Morricone inspired by Bach). As a result, I discovered Bach-Morricone content related to BWV 565. As explained on WP:ORN#Follow up on BWV 543 and BWV 565, for the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 and the Dollars trilogy, I added completely new content and 3 new sources related to Bach-Morricone. Today I also added 3 new sources re Bach-Stokowski-Disney and Fantasia, adding completely new content and an educational image accordingly.

Headbomb's recent report on ANI concerning FS & Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 and the report on WP:ORN#Musical score are not anything that I have precipitated. On the lighter side, it has been a relief to listen to Morricone a little on YouTube or Spotify. I am quite surprised how many instantly recognizable hits he had, without knowing he wrote them. Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Just today Mathsci pinged Francis Schonken in an edit summary. Isn't that a clear-cut violation? 2605:8D80:621:519:613F:A45A:A4E1:164F (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please register an account on wikipedia to comment on this noticeboard. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not restricted to registered editors. Grandpallama (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• As FB says, the problems happened 2.5 days ago as a result of edits on WP:ORN#Musical score. It started with FS editing with no signature. I added his username, because it was directly above my previous edits and so completely confusing.[182] Then he added his signature but changed my punctuation.[183] He then looked at the edit history to record the time.[184] I requested that FS correct his errors without moving my material.[185] He then moved his content so that it completely changed where I had placed it.[186] I restored the place intended.[187] He then worked out how to solve the errors he had made without interferring with my edits.[188] Finally he removed the "dummy" buffer passage on WP:ORN, previously used to move my edits.[189] Moving things around in that way was disruptive. but resolved fairly easily. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You have an interaction ban. You may explicitly not edit their comments, revert them, or harass them by edit warring on their user talk page. You are an extremely experienced editor who knows how interaction bans work, and that you had one with FS which prohibits you interacting with him in any way. The wall of bullshit above does not change the fact you did something you know perfectly well you have been forbidden to do. What does it take to get you to stop fucking with people? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am struggling to understand the issue here. With incidences continuing today and looking at the talk page fiasco this looks fairly clear cut. Even if 2.5 days ago, whatever that has to do with anything. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • When you write "fiasco," I'm not sure which talk page you're referring to. There's WP:ORN#Musical score, where Binksternet and Austronesier have both commented once. Then Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 where I have made 14 edits, 6 of them minor. Headbomb has made 21 edits, all marked major; and FS has made 20 edits with 4 marked minor. There Headbomb and FS have had unresolved discussions about film music (see Headbomb's previous ANI report). On Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, I have made 9 edits, 4 marked minor: these were related to additions of 4 new sources and new material; plus minor problems concerning two sentences in the lead. It appears that editing on BWV 565 is resuming in the middle of the night as I write. (Outstanding issues with the 2016 GAR are being addressed.) Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    I mean the user talk page of Francis Schonken where you were in an edit war with them.[190] PackMecEng (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly as Floquenbeam wrote, that happened 3 days ago and the diffs have been described step-by-step above (23:27, 5 November 2020). Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

How many days is not relevant. It means nothing at all to this discussion or interaction bans in general. I do not know why it was brought up in the first place, since again, it is meaningless. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of an interaction ban if it suddenly doesn't matter two days later? Heck, we can just can ArbCom since 99% of the cases involve things that happened two days before they deliberate. We're talking about repeated offenses from an individual with a long history both with the other person involved and with 16 blocks on their record and has had multiple interaction bans. Forget about Bach, how many entries would there be at this point in the Mathsci- Verstoß-Verzeichnis? Chopin would have long been clipped by this number. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Well there is a recent WP:AN3 report here[191] and a recent report WP:ANI here[192]. I was not involved, but the ANI report by Headbomb concerned arguments on Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 about film scores. Sourced content was supplied; however, when I added a score for the "Musical structure" in the article that precipitated a report on WP:ORN#Musical score connected to the score. That was vaguely related to the film music but had very little connection with the current article. As for blocks, FS has been blocked 6 weeks in 2018 and then for a year slightly afterwards. The only substantial block that I had was an WP:ARBR&I ban in October 2013, subject to review after 6 months (most arbs preferred one year). Only in April 2016 did I request a review. Otherwise your analysis of blocks doesn't seem accurate. There was a 1 hour block in 2008 + a 1 day block in 2008 (Elonka related?); a 1 day block in 2010 (Pmanderson related?); then a 2 hour block in 2013; then the long arbcom ban related to WP:ARBR&I; some changes in the ban settings in 2014; then a 5 day block for the 2016 Nice truck attack; and then a 1 week block in February 2018 (post-stroke in a cardiology ward). As for edits, you've made about 350 in your WP career, so less than my recent edits to Planar Riemann surface, Riemann mapping theorem, etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• These are quite obviously violations of the sanction, regardless of how much time has passed. Yet the two sanctioned editors appear to have resolved the situation amicably, and neither seems to be agitating for enforcement here; this is a third-party report and I don't see any evidence that these interactions have been disruptive to anyone else. Shouldn't we just move on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• To respond to a couple of questions above, it does matter if it is reported 2.5 days after it stops, because the purpose of an i-ban is not to punish or get vengeance on one's enemies, but to prevent disruption. If there had been a limited-time violation of the i-ban by both people, but it had resolved, then bringing it here would have been unnecessary. Since there appears to be ongoing interaction, then bringing it here is justified. From a brief review, it looks to me like there's been low-grade violations on both sides. I'll leave that to other people to review in more detail; my instinct is a firm reminder to both not to move each others' comments, not to fix each others' signatures, not to revert each other, etc. might be sufficient, but it will take more time than I have to see if someone is much more to blame than the other. But MathSci's behavior on FS's talk page is kind of obviously over-the-top unacceptable. While discussion is ongoing on the other stuff, I've indefinitely partially blocked MathSci from FS's talk page as a preliminary measure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• The partial block of MathSci from FS's talk page looks like a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable, yeah. I don't think it matters at all that it was two days in the past, the users are either banned from interacting or they are not. That said, we don't impose sanctions just for the sake of punishment, and if this interaction was resolved without incident and the only thing worth complaint about it is that it technically violated a restriction, then at best a reminder is all we should do here. But it seems to me more like the incident is ongoing, and so the block is appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam I understand why you have imposed this ban. Given my record on that user talk page,[193] I would prefer a voluntary ban. In any case, I will not edit that user talk page. Since 2012, I have carefully observed all IBANs from WP:ARBR&I (User:Mikemikev excluded). With a permanent red bar on my edit contributions, however, it is quite likely that I would stop editing wikipedia. Floquenbeam or other administrators can advise me on removing the red bar (i.e. undoing the partial block subject to stringent assurances agreed with an administrator).

The edits to Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 and WP:ORN#Musical score by the other editor do not seem to have been written to benefit wikipedia. See Headbomb's previous report.[194] In December 2017, that applied similarly for BWV 142, a cantata not by Bach. On WP:RSN, the other editor argued that standard reliable sources could not be used.[195] The discussion there later involved an administrator, who suggested various tbans or ibans (my edits ended abruptly there, because of stroke). The whole scenario, with improper use of primary sources and failure to use reliable secondary sources, has been a persistent problem. Like BWV 142, the article Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben below, mostly created by the other editor, has the same sourcing problems: primary sources from the 18th and mid-19th century, including direct use of raw data from the Bach Archive, etc; relevant recent content from journals such as Early Music has been ignored. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathsci:, I'm not looking to chase anyone off Wikipedia by being a stickler for rules, and I'd normally be happy to replace an actual partial block with your promise not to post there. But... you already have an interaction ban, and you broke that agreement. In fact, it sure feels like you are currently breaking it right above, complaining about FS's editing. You can't do that when there's an interaction ban. I like the partial block because it prevents you from forgetting in the heat of the moment. But if you really still want me to, I'll replace the partial block with a warning that if you do post to their talk page again, you'll actually be blocked site-wide. Is that what you want? If so, let me know. And please stop complaining about FS's editing, or someone is going to block you site-wide with or without my unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Gerda already mentioned me on your user talk page. Yes, I realise that I should approach things with a measured cool head, never in the heat of the moment. Instead of an indefinite partial block, I would prefer your suggestion of a severe warning that, if I post to the user talk page, I will automatically be blocked site-wide. If that is possible to arrange, that would be kind. Thanks for helping me with your advice. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Be careful, and don't forget please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So the first thing after reaffirming the interaction ban is to go to an article Francis Schonken recently created and start major revisions?[196] PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems they are still going at it on the Daniel Vetter article. The mass revert with no edit summary was a good touch as well.[197] PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • So much for Plan A? Someone should propose a Plan B. Lev!vich 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Normally I would think a block or some such. Though looking at this no one seems to care. PackMecEng (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks NRP. Lev!vich 00:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

    I wish I thought a week would change something. Arkon (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Liebster Gott

I wrote the first version of the "Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben" article between 27 June and 2 July – from that point on nearly any modification of the article content, apart from a clear-cut addition, has a high risk of undoing something I added to the page in an earlier stage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• BWV 8, cantata no. 8 of Johann Sebastian Bach, composed in 1724, is stable content. New sources have been added, from William G. Whittaker's book on Bach cantatas and from Arnold Schering's Eulenberg study score, containing a lengthy preface. On WP. there is a series of articles on Lutheran hymns linked to cantatas and chorale preludes. The article above is about a Lutheran hymn written by Caspar Neumann with music by Daniel Vetter, based on a chorale written in 1713. For the cantata, there is general agreement amongst editors on how the article should be written. (Gerda Arendt has said, that for the article above, it is the Lutheran hymn that is important, not the cantata.) No commentators doubt that the closing chorale of Vetter was borrowed with some modifications for Bach's setting 11 years later. No recent substantial academic discussion challenging that can be found. However, FS has decided that the whole article on the Lutheran hymn should investigate the authenticity of Vetter's chorale as used by Bach. 12 musical images and several primary texts from the 18th and mid-19th century are provided as "proof" that the chorale is spurious. Thus, instead of writing an article on a Lutheran hymn, a large part of the article has been used to write an alternative view of Cantata No. 8, Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8, with content which seemingly contradicts the article on the cantata. The Bach Archive links directly to the stable wikipedia article on BWV 8. That is a good thing.

Similarly the editor above has tried to "prove" statements about Ennio Morricone which probably can never be decided. As far as I can understand, there has been an attempt to claim that a musical score is equivalent to an English text. I have not been able to follow the argument. I have discovered that, according to Morricone, it took 20 days for him to figure out how to write the theme for Le Clan des Siciliens. He has not given complete details about that, but hinted that he combined BWV 543/1 and a hidden B-A-C-H theme. So again, things that cannot be proved. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Competence issues and canvassing on Patricia Billings

Netherzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making steady use of execrable sources -listicle glurge, essentially - on this article, and now appears to be canvassing. Some outside eyeballs would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I've not been canvassed. I was already involved during the AfD and in post-AfD editing of the article. It's still on my watchlist. I'm working on the article and so is Netherzone. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like an article content dispute.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A content dispute between two people who agree on one of their talk pages. Kewl.

The interested reader may want to observe their contributions on the article talk page Qwirkle (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Do you have some kind of complaint to make, with diffs? See the top of this page, where it says "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". That does not seem to be the case.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We are permitted not only to talk but to agree on our user talk pages. That happening on mine is not problematic. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors amicably discussing article content on a talk page? That's outrageous. Blackmane (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor adding "inside information"

• Toadforthe7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Toadforthe7 keeps changing the date of birth/birth place of Paddy McNally (which is sourced) using edit summaries like "Reverted to original edit, based on inside knowledge." and "Have you even heard the man speak?". There are several warnings on their TP about making changes without providing WP:RS but the editor will not engage in discussion. MB 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of their 86 edits but so far I have not found a single one where the information they added was supported by any kind of citation. They've been warned enough; blocked for 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential legal threats from COI editor.

• Milkyway677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_J._Smith. Should summarize it. Likely trolling, but rules are rules. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not threatening you or anyone else. Just as you have said, read the articles for deletion page and it should summarize it. I was convinced that it was you all that were trying to troll me, and you repeatedly disrespected me throughout the entire exchange of conversation. I have no intention of pursuing any litigation against you, because it's just not that serious. Lets brush it off and call it a day. Despite everything, Thank you anyway. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't get brushed off when you continually cast aspersions and make ridiculous claims of editors being racist because you couldn't be bothered to read several links given to you about Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I recommend you step away from that discussion immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill trolling, nothing else. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you guys throughout the exchange of conversation were actually acting in good faith, then I apologize if i escalated the conversation more than I should have. So sorry about that. I made no ridiculous claims however, the comments of the editors that replied to me were hostile and derogatory. I said potentially racist, because I could not even fathom the way in which the editors responded, and figure out the cause behind why they spoke to me in the way that they did. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Milkyway677, The cause is a simple "you started it". You are the one who insulted editors immediately in response to a deletion discussion. You're talking to people who have seen this exact same behavior hundreds of times over, and are very used to recognizing SEO, spam, and promotional material. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Milkyway, remember WP:NPA and WP:LEGAL. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Herpetogenesis, Do remember that personal attacks are not allowed. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf Being civil here now. Everything's been toned down. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you guys. Sorry about everything. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• That AfD discussion is a train wreck. Congratulations to all on creating a drama-filled AfD that admins will be reluctant to read through. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've opted to block for legal threats + pretty obvious UPE/undisclosed COI editing. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Impersonation

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

---

Ph awesome has insulted a nationality and impersonated another user's signature in a dispute [198] - Bri.public (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The remark itself is uncivil, but insulting a nationality is more in bad taste than an intrinsically blockable offense. However, the impersonation of another user is unacceptable, and the user should be sanctioned based on that alone, as it's definitely disruptive behaviour. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a warning to their talk page. It was offensive and you're right, it is unacceptable to misrepresent yourself on a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Liz, while you were commenting, I was blocking, didn't mean to step on your toes. I cannot imagine this person becoming a productive editor, but if they do, it's going to be the result of a convincing unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Floquenbeam, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

RE:" insulting a nationality". I disagree. RAcist comments of that nature are intolerable Surprised and saddened that that sat, unchallenged, for four days. Revdel'd. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I didn't mean to say that it wasn't serious and couldn't be sanctionable, or deserving of a rev'del. I was just saying it's not usually something that calls for a block on sight. The user's generally disruptiveness, and impersonating another user, is. Their childish bashing of a nationality is more straw on that proverbial camel's back. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

And absolutely endorse indefinite block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Door. Ass. Don't let it hit them on the way out. Absolutely no place for that here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Stephen Yagman

Stephen Yagman article has been the subject of relentless hagiographic re-editing and abusive endless circular reverts over a long period of time. Either Yagman or one or more of his groupies or admirers has/have been relentless in their sanitization and encomia. Article editing should be limited to established users. I reverted back to last edit by User:Donner60 and tweaked. I tagged notices to the most recent IP addresses which have been active in the above misbehavior but I cannot tag them all. 2604:2000:1540:54F9:1C45:EF18:1232:E22E (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead a bit to be a little less hagiographic, but that aside, looking at the article history, it does seem that the article could benefit from some page protection. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an infrequently edited article and I don't think protection would have much effect. Prior to your edits today, the article had only been edited 9 times in 2020. Protection is more suitable if there was vandalism occurring or an edit war or if it was being actively edited. I think if you and others add it to your Watchlist, you could keep tabs on it. 21:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted, and will do. I just generally think page protection is an effective remedy for short-term disruption, and should be applied more often than it is, I suppose. Honestly, while the subject is notable, there's very little biographical material to expand the article, so it's difficult to say what should be included in the biography. I even questioned my re-write, as I don't think the last sentence(s) was/were particularly due. Also, there's something up with your signature. It seems to be missing, aside from the time/date stamp. Just FYI. I'm not really sure who I'm replying to. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have used 3 or 5 tildes instead of 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Shane Frederick reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Account is only used for disruptive editing. [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] This is despite several warnings on his talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, shouldn't this be placed on WP:AIV? I see no reason why it can't be there. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I did go over there, but they said it wasn't vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I see the point the admin is making. We can deal with it here. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 05:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• any admin going to raise? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• This user continues to make disruptive edits despite being warned. No response on their talk page. User mainly goes down articles and changes the text on wiki links resulting in sentences that don't make any sense or are incorrect. Limmidy (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Opening

Opening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.153 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

103.23.133.153, do you have an incident that needs to be addressed by an administrator? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Overtly racist comment by IP 98.228.253.244

I'd like to report an overtly racist comment by IP 98.228.253.244 at Talk:The_Culture_of_Critique_series. I took it upon myself to remove the comment. Here's the diff: [[204]] Thanks y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, hello, thank you for reporting this. However, this case does not need administrator action, just place a warning using {{uw-npa1}}. If you would like to request oversight, you can. However, I doubt that it will as I do not think it meets the policy for suppression. Thanks! (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex.nezz

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

---

• Alex.nezz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was brought to my attention via an edit-war happening on Caracalla. Initially, I was going to request intervention at AN/EW but having looked through the user's edits, the problem is wider than just the one article. The problem with this user's conduct can be illustrated in one sentence: It is either the arab wanting to bring their dirty arabizing program here or racist ignorant people. They've also been engaging in edit-warring at History of Algeria, in what appears to me to be blatant POV pushing. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what's gone wrong, but my notice to Alex.nezz has not shown up on their talk page. It's there in the source code, but not on their page. Any help appreciated. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

When someone subst'd a template on their page, the code included the <!-- --> markup. A subsequent edit removed the closing --> thereby hiding everything after the <!--, which included your ANI notice. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

They removed everything from their talk page. Them and their friends think we can't view edit history. One of them claimed to write an edit including sources that was removed and is now "scared" to edit but we could see they never edited the page in the first place. This user in question is editing like no one can see the history of any page. It's alarming. They come from a group on facebook that encourages this sort of thing and they also have an alarming misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and how it works. They are currently petitioning to send a representative to Jimmy Wales in order to push their views. I'm going on a tangent but the point is this person doesn't understand what wikipedia is and doesn't want to learn. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Literally all of Alex.nezz's edits are attempts to remove Arabs from the history of North Africa = NOT HERE. Also malicious attempts to vandalize ANI itself. My own warnings also did not display. GPinkerton (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Commons admin needed

It looks like we had a serial election maps hoaxer active earlier this year, User:The Empire of History. See this revision of their talk page for some of what got caught earlier. Basically, their M.O. is to create hoax maps of election articles, showing incorrect results (note, the site they seem to be making these on, US Election Atlas, does use nonstandard red/blue alignment for the US major political parties, so it's not just a color inversion thing). Rather, these results are fabricated. For instance, compare File:Georgia 2016, U.S. Election Atlas.png to the correct File:Georgia Presidential Election Results 2016.svg. I've been prodding these as I've found them, but some, including the Georgia one mentioned above, have apparently found their way onto Commons. Obviously, these need deleted ASAP as hoaxes, but it's fairly late where I am, and I don't have the alertness to go through the whole Commons deletion request bit for the Commons one, as I'm not particularly familiar with the Common setup. It's possible some of these are correct, so they'll all need checking, but every single one of the ones I've looked at so far is so error-ridden that it's either a hoax, made up by the user, or just poorly done. I can't stay up all night cleaning this up, so hopefully someone else can take a look, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The place to report this is Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I have batch nominated the images on commons (almost 450!) for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_The_Empire_of_History (scroll down to the second nomination). I did not conduct an exhaustive search, but given my experience with this particular editor (creating fictional/alt-history election maps), I have little faith that any are worth keeping. I have also blocked The Empire of History as NOTHERE since they've apparently continued playing their history games in their sandbox since I last deleted it...you can't tell from xtools, but they have made 3600 edits, and over half of those are in the deleted sandbox history. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that appears to have caught most of them. I've been hunting down the last few survivors. They were quite ... prolific ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed on the talk page of the trade war article

• China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In relation to thhe exchanges here and here, I am filing this request to ask for administrative intervention in relation to the relevant debates on the talk page of the China-United States trade war article (subsections 17, 19-22) which unfortunately has yet to happen. An involved editor has opened an RFC and I have raised the objection (on multiple occassions) that that should happen (if at all) only after an administrator has went through and made remarks on the aforementioned debates so that the RFC issue can be resolved in a manner that satisfies all the involved parties. Flaughtin (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. After being warned previously about battleground behavior, User:Flaughtin is now trying to derail an RFC originally started by User:Chess and then by me, first by removing the section [205][206] and then by asking other editors not to comment[207]. For context, see two previous ANI discussions: 1 2. In both discussions, sanctions on Flaughtin were proposed, but the discussions were archived before anything was done.

I would really appreciate help resolving this dispute. It feels like every attempt to find resolution gets derailed by Flaughtin's disruptive behavior. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that I'm trying to derail an RFC is nonsensical. I never said I'm against having an RFC. What I am against is your RFCs which I removed because they were fundamentally malformed. (it should be pointed out that I have let your latest malformed RFC stand in the interest of desisting from any further edit warring) What I am saying is that if we are going to have an RFC then it has to be done correctly. You just don't like what I am doing because you just want to cut the corners. I mean I really hate to be uncivil but for fuck's sake the guy asked you what your RFC would be about and you just went ahead and initiated it without his prior input; the least you could have done is waited for him to respond before starting your RFC. It's a pretty simple request I'm making and one that already has external support: given the complexity of the issues, an administrator should look at what's going on, and if there is consensus over how how the RFC issues should be dealt with, then that will be the basis of further action. Nothing extreme about it unless of course you are in a rush to ram through material that a plurality of editors on the talk page have already extensively objected to. Flaughtin (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Those discussions look to be a mess. I think the chances of getting an editor to wade through them all and determine if there is consensus is probably slim. It would likely be better to use an RfC to get wider input to try and seek consensus without such a messy discussion. Of course it would be better if all of you could at least come to some consensus on a reasonable RfC before hand. If you already have 6 options and evidently need more that doesn't seem particularly reasonable. Is it really that hard for you all to compromise and discuss things so you can agree on something that doesn't require more than 6 options? Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• You keep asking for an admin to intervene to settle a content dispute. But that's not what admins are for. That's what RFCs are for. If other editors are attempting to settle the issue and you keep deleting the RFC, undermining it, and attacking other editors, then the only likely admin action is going to be removing you from the topic so that the editors who are actually interested in discussing the issue can settle it without your disruption. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that admin intervention is needed here. It will probably end with you being topic-banned from this area. You cannot have several different options in an RfC. The guidance for RfCs at WP:RFCBRIEF explicitly gives as an example an RfC question with six different options. The RfC with your additional options added has six different versions. At a certain point you need to coalesce the issues here into a succint set of questions. That is what I tried to do and that's what Mx. Granger is also currently trying to do. It is true that the options won't be able to encompass all the possible viewpoints and some possibilities won't be included. But that's what needs to happen in order to achieve consensus. We need to compromise in order to get stuff done here and that involves making difficult decisions and cutting down the number of options to make an effective RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest an admin reviews Flaughtin's's behavior which in my view possibly has had the effect of disrupting attempts to gain consensus, especially after winning an edit war. Behavior includes use of excessive bludgeoning of discussions. Very serious is removal of others contributions from talk pages and unilateral ending of two good faith RFCs which resulted in disruption of good faith attempts to resolve the dispute, the second one of which [208] I choose to re-instate [209]. Flaughtin's additions of three additional versions to the RFC has been commented above as excessive and unhelplful; though a "None of above" may have merit. There seems possibilities Flaughtin will continue to disrupt moves to consensus and possibly goad another editor into getting blocked. It is surely necessary to show such behaviors will be challenged by admins, and perhaps a case for asking Arbom committee candidates about their views on how to handle. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ProcrastinatingReader

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

---

Earlier today, ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) put two infoboxes into AnomieBOT's TemplateSubster queue, despite there being ongoing discussion (and no consensus) for the first one and very little discussion for the second. In the ongoing discussion, mostly at Template talk:Infobox station#UK stations merge but also elsewhere, ProcrastinatingReader was informed several times of outstanding problems. There were also a number of questions put by myself which have either not been answered satisfactorily, or not been answered at all. ProcrastinatingReader was informed by several people that whilst converting Template:Infobox GB station into a wrapper might, ultimately, be acceptable, carrying out a subst: would not be. At 00:58, 22 October 2020, Thryduulf (talk · contribs) warned ProcrastinatingReader that they should wait for consensus that there are no remaining issues before proceeding with rolling out anything. ... If you continue to insist on arbitrary deadlines then you will very likely find yourself enjoying a trip to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader has now carried out their threat, so here we are. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is an egregious misrepresentation of the issue. Perhaps one is not meant to list their own faults at ANI but still, this is a shocking summary. I'll type up an actual response at some point today, but it's too cold currently and I somewhat lack the energy for this mess. It is a shame it has to come here, but since the dispute is wholly conduct issues (and not content) - ones I would argue are not really my own (at least not mostly) - it was probably destined to end up here at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  As I say, I don't think the above summary is a fair summary of what has happened here.

  1. This begins back in July with this TfD. It found a consensus to merge, including input from highly experienced template editors. The infoboxes were pretty much duplicates. Similar has been done with many templates before, eg Template:Infobox Japan station & Template:Infobox China station. So I began to work on implementing the TfD outcome, and started a discussion to hash remaining details out with editors here.
  2. Immediately after the TfD is closed as merge, Thryduulf and Redrose64 engage in Special:Diff/970866879/970964966. They reject that the consensus is valid because it wasn't full of UK WikiProject participants. To save myself possibly wasting time, I ask both in User_talk:Redrose64/unclassified_27#DRV if they indeed plan to go to DRV, as threatened. No response or DRV to date.
  3. But these 'invalid consensus' claims, and attempts to relitigate the TfD, continued persistently for 4 months. Not just to me, but others too. Pretty much WP:BADGER to tire editors out. eg Special:Diff/972339764/972398735 (line 116 part), Special:Diff/976525263, Special:Diff/980679426. Attempts to overturn the consensus, cancel the merge altogether, or turn it into a wrapper (rejected in the discussion) were constantly made. But no new points raised (other than attempts to relitigate the same points in the TfD) as to why that should be done.
  4. Once we hashed the points, I asked on 21 September if any concerns were remaining/unaddressed. No response for a week, so on 28 September I synced the wrapper. Redrose finally replies: Special:Diff/980783351.
  5. All editors in the TfD were pinged to give their thoughts. On top of Redrose and Tyruduulf there were 3 other opposers. Here are their responses, when asked if the completed wrapper addresses their issues and if it's ready to be merged:
     1. Special:Diff/981317412: in essence, I cannot see the major difference between the two, so no objections. I do thank you for your efforts and taking everyone's opinions and thoughts with policy into account can't be easy.
     2. Special:Diff/981076378/981093355: I see that you've done a good job with the three test cases. There seem to be more similarities across country borders than I expected.
     3. Special:Diff/981214226 & Special:Diff/981680471/982256670. This regards Module:Adjacent stations (as answered by Jonesey) (Special:Diff/982226496), which is a fair concern but is not related to the merge. They had no objections to the merge itself.
  6. So, a review: We have a large consensus of respected editors at TfD to merge, with a specification on how to merge. After a discussion, all the oppose voters, except the two who already made up their mind of an "invalid consensus", decided the merge was good when shown the finished product. Redrose and Thryduulf; good editors, experienced, perhaps they have a point somewhere?
     1. Thryduulf, after Special:Diff/984775936, began to raise his concerns in a constructive manner; conduct was rectified, and so discussion became more productive with him.
     2. Redrose, well, nobody knows what her concerns are. Several editors (at a skim, @Cards84664, @Pi.1415926535, @Jonesey95*) have failed to get them out of her. eg diffs Special:Diff/984372740, Special:Diff/984522585, Special:Diff/984325686. I dunno the "unanswered questions" she refers to (refuses to clarify), but based on context eg Special:Diff/985247241, perhaps: Special:Diff/981373011, Special:Diff/981680471 and Special:Diff/969960200. These are a continuation of IDHT, and the legitimacy of these questions was rejected, explicitly by @Izno and @Mackensen in the TfD, and by @Pigsonthewing in the 2012 TfD: The question, while no doubt asked with good faith, is contrary to key Wikipedia policies, and to how TfD works, and is unhelpful.
  7. Incivility: Then comes: Special:Diff/985247241. After pressed to find an issue, she responds with Special:Diff/987093220. The TLDR, if anyone needs one, may as well be this diff. I mean, The infobox worked just fine until you stuck your claws in. Now take them out, put things right back to the way they were, and everybody will be happy (except yourself). And I don't see why your happiness should matter at all, because (a) you clearly care nothing for my happiness, and (b) you still have not told me when you have actually used Template:Infobox GB station. I don't think that you have. Ever.. The replies to this: Special:Diff/987108079 (key: though I think at last we are all speaking plainly to one another), and mine: Special:Diff/987115547/987129798. By her own admittance, There, I've written it now, and am angry again; so block me for NPA.
  8. 4 months of extensive post-TfD discussion later, the merge is complete, tested and editors seem overall in agreement, with no outstanding points (by my judgement). I believe we have consensus and approval, and even RR has raised no unresolved, specific complaints. The substitutions from Anomie show all the data being carried over: Special:Diff/987452456.

  Sure, I get that having something you've worked on for ~10 years merged may be difficult. I tried my best to show restraint for these reasons. But it's an improvement for the encyclopaedia – for editors and readers – and we do it all the time in templates. That's why I nominated it, and why there was a consensus to merge. I think it's a boon to station articles, and it seems most others feel the same way. That's why I (and others) spent a lot of time on it.

  I'd appreciate input from an uninvolved admin on this rather unfortunate situation. I'd like to know how I could've handled it better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse the comments by Redrose64. The discussion about this issue is ongoing, and despite repeated requests to slow down, to listen to others and to actually answer questions, ProcrastinatingReader has done none of those things. Even if you take the TfD as representing consensus for a wrapper (this is borderline given that many of the assumptions of simplicity and similarity used to justify it have been shown to be as incorrect as those in opposition, notably including nearly everyone who actually uses the templates, argued), it cannot be used to say there is consensus that all the necessary work required before a merge has been completed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• It pains me to say this, but I don't think there's any level of cooperation that Thryduulf and Redrose64 would consider sufficient on this issue. I do not think they accept the original TfD as legitimate, inasmuch as that TfD requires meaningful changes. It's a well-recognized principle that infobox consolidation is a good thing, and should be encouraged where reasonable. Redrose64 says her questions are never answered. Well, mine never was either: why did Great Britain need a half-dozen different station infoboxes when the rest of the world managed with two? The answer, as can be seen above, boils down "because we have them, and who are you to suggest that we change?" Respectfully, that's a poor attitude for a collaborative project and not one I'd expect to see from senior participants. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's a well-recognized principle that infobox consolidation is a good thing, and should be encouraged where reasonable. this is the crux of the dispute - it might be well recognised among TfD participants, but there is a long history of those who use the infoboxes under consideration disagreeing, and especially disagreeing with what is reasonable. Consolidation is not a reasonable goal in and of itself, the onlt goal that matters is improving the encyclopaedia for readers. Despite months of work, we are not yet at the stage where the merged infobox is of the same quality as the old one, let alone an improvement. Whether other countries get by with fewer infoboxes than the UK is irrelevant, but one reason is that the structural organisation of rail transport in the UK currently and historically is qualitatively different and in many respects more complicated than it is in the rest of the world. The difference in approach between those of us who are approaching this from the point of view of people who edit articles about rail transport in the UK and those who are approaching it as an abstract template coding project is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  You're taking the position that decisions about content, structure, and style are reserved to specific groups of editors and that the views of "outsiders", whomever they might be, are unwelcome. That's not the way this project should work. You know this, and I'm surprised to see you advancing such worn-out arguments, especially when there are editors who do edit UK rail articles who have supported consolidation. Perhaps they just don't edit them enough, I don't know. Is there a list one can consult of those people who are permitted to have an opinion on this question?

  As to the idea that British rail history is sufficiently different and complex as to require different station infoboxes, I find it unconvincing and so have many others. You're not the only country to experience nationalization and re-privatization. Your ownership complexities are no worse than those found in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, or South Korea. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nice strawmen. Nowhere here or elsewhere have I argued that only those who use the infoboxes should be allowed to express an opinion. I have said though that when those people do have objections they should not be handwaved away, as is happening in this very discussion, by those who do not. When you have one opinion held by the majority of those commenting who use the template, and a different opinion held nearly exclusively by those who do not, it needs to be looked into whether that truly represents consensus (for or against) regardless of the numbers. I didn't say that the history and ownership complexities justify a separate infobox, I said they are one of the reasons why the UK infoboxes that are doing things differently - the reality they are reflecting is qualitatively different to the complexities in other countries. Not necessarily more or less complicated, but different and so any infobox needs to handle that difference rather than, as keeps being attempted, force square pegs into existing round holes. It is the complexity required to handle the differences from every different nation (and note that it has to date proven to hard to get right, despite months of effort) that is why the argument that consolodation = simplicity for editors and maintainers just does not hold water. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  But that's not really true though, is it? The source. Or Testcase #3. It's an A -> B parameter map. The ownership params have the same names and labels before and after the merge. It's passed right through untouched. This argument didn't hold water in the TfD either because it's not true. As can be seen more clearly in any of the Anomie diffs too (like Special:Diff/987452456). If it didn't truly represent consensus, why does a DRV still not exist? We did get it right, everyone else seems to think so too. The alternate explanation for this opposition is across all the diffs above and on display at the TfDs; a view that {{Infobox station}} is somehow {{Infobox USA station}}. If you say something, shouldn't I take you at your word? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Also... if that isn't what you're arguing, then what else is this? Every editor can say "yes, this is an improvement" at the centralised venue for these discussions, the opposers can even change their mind, but we still cannot proceed until you two "sign off on it" (a quote, diffed above)? Respectfully, you don't see any problems with this reasoning? It's effectively blockading a consensus-backed merge. Compare this to the first two paragraphs of WP:IDHT, esp: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader in their response, especially regarding the blatant obstruction and rampant WP:OWN being carried by Redrose64 over the last few months. The issues of incivility as pointed out in #6 and #7, in my opinion are enough for a Boomerang. I sincerely hope that Redrose64 can respect the broad consensus as it currently stands. Cards84664 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fully agreed with Mackensen, PR, and Cards here. This is nothing but an attempt to punish PR for properly implementing the consensus of a TfD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reading through Template talk:Infobox station, I see a group of editors working towards implementing a TfD result, and two editors working towards proving that it was the wrong result, e.g.:
  • Thryduulf
    • 3 Aug: More parameters leading to inappropriate use, misuse and added confusion was exactly why many of us argued against this merge.
    • 29 Sep: I'm still not seeing any consensus among those who actually have a stake in the template (i.e. the users of the template - article writers and maintainers) that the merge is a benefit (let alone a net benefit).
    • 2 Oct: It is telling that after months of development we still have something that is inferior to the existing template and has not demonstrated any of the advantages claimed a merge would bring - indeed the "simplicity" and "ease of maintenance" claims could have been written on the side of a bus for all they relate to the real world.
    • 19 Oct: Wikipedia is not a democracy, what the majority do or do not think is not relevant when there is clearly no consensus among editors actively engaged with the issue. This was also the problem with the TfD close - it completely failed to distinguish between the arguments made by those with active experience of using the template and the arguments made by those looking at it as an abstract concept, even though almost all the latter arguments are now demonstrably incorrect.
    • 20 Oct: Expending a lot of effort over 3+ months to make things harder for editors and producing an inferior output for readers is exactly why those involved with these templates recommended not merging.
    • 22 Oct: You should wait for consensus that there are no remaining issues before proceeding with rolling out anything. Indeed if, when I get time to do a review, I find there are still major issues then I will likely be reverting to the pre-wrapper template (i.e. the one that has consensus). If you continue to insist on arbitrary deadlines then you will very likely find yourself enjoying a trip to ANI.
  • Redrose64
    • 1 Oct: I cannot agree to any "full merge" outcome, it would be far too disruptive. If the process cannot be aborted, a wrapper is the only feasible way of allowing a smooth transition.
    • 18 Oct: No. It's still not been signed off by the people who actually use {{Infobox GB station}}
    • 4 Nov: So, clearly my views count for nothing, even though I am (or, if you have your way, was) one of the most active users of Template:Infobox GB station. The way it behaved before was absolutely not a "bug", it was designed that way, and nobody at WT:UKRAIL ever complained about any modification that I made. The infobox worked just fine until you stuck your claws in. Now take them out, put things right back to the way they were, and everybody will be happy (except yourself). And I don't see why your happiness should matter at all, because (a) you clearly care nothing for my happiness, and (b) you still have not told me when you have actually used Template:Infobox GB station. I don't think that you have. Ever. So who counts here - the people who actually use the infobox, or the people who don't. I would say the former. Can you deny that?

I think there are only three valid options: (1) help implement the TfD result, (2) appeal the TfD result, or (3) walk away. Lev!vich 05:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Targeting Kamarupa and Varman dynasty; possible WP:BE by dynamic IP editor - requesting semi-protection

Both the articles Kamarupa and Varman dynasty has been targeted by a dynamic IP editor. Kamarupa: [210], [211]; Varman dynasty: [212], [213]. The aim seems to be to "brand" these articles. The single purpose focus, behavior, mannerism and editing style are similar to those of a series of socks that were identified and blocked: PerfectingNEI (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) etc. Since this user is now using dynamic IP as username, I am requesting semi-protection for these two article for a period of time. Chaipau (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This is false accusation. Addition of reliable content isn't a target of any page. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit and add reliable content. I added a genuine points from two highly reliable references Kamarupa#cite_note-16 and Kamarupa#cite_note-17 accepted by majority scholars with correct conjectures but This person was trying to WP:OWN the page and he was edit warring with very problematic tag of WP:UNDUE. After seeing history of this editor, I came to know that edit warring is very common to the editor Special:Contributions/Chaipau. I searched meaning of WP:UNDUE and i found that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." but this person is against some point of views even from highly reliable sources like Peer-reviewed EPW journal and publisher Walter de Gruyter . According to wikipedia definition of WP:NPOV, This person's edits are actually not neutral. 2409:4065:D91:6E63:48A1:B249:F3FC:FFE8 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not reporting a content dispute but reporting a persistently WP:DE behavior that includes WP:BE.

• After the socks mentioned above were banned, the disruptive editing via IP address began ([214], [215], [216] etc.) A range block was discussed and MelanieN discovered protection was the best solution [217].
• This user then thought he discovered my identity and created a user account to mimic my username Amitakhya Phukan Chaipau (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and attempted to leave salacious edit summaries in different pages. The account was blocked and the edit summaries removed by JzG (Special:Contributions/Amitakhya_Phukan_Chaipau)

Given that this user utilizes a range of dynamic IPs, persistently edits disruptively and evades blocks, the only productive remedy seems to be disengagement on content and protection of the page.

Chaipau (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Since i'm not regular editor and Wikipedia allows IP editors to add reliable content, So, I didn't create an account. This editor is trying to dictate wikipedia principles. Protection is required if IP editors vandalise the page but When IP editors improve the page then IP editors are invited to create an account and contribute more. This editor seems to be unaware of goals of wikipedia.

This editor himself/herself involves in edit warring and disruptive editing. This editor seems to have behavioural problem with all editors in Bengali–Assamese_script , Chutia_Kingdom etc.

And also this editor seems to have natural habit of accusing all editors and victimising himself/herself to gain sympathy to hide his/her edit warring and disruptive behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D91:6E63:807D:8F65:ECE1:E088 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2409:4065:D91:6E63:807D:8F65:ECE1:E088 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed on the Somalia War (2006–2009)

The AmirahBreen editor insists on removing information referenced in the introduction of the article to insert the term "invasion" that is not in the sources provided. [218] [219] [220]

I explained on the talk page which is the article scope, but he insists on ignore an attempt to debate and trying to promote edit warring. I will not revert this inappropriate edition again at the risk of violating the three-revert rule. --Fontaine347 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please notify the user of the existence of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually the term 'invasion' is in the sources provided and I had already taken into account the comments on the talk page and edited the text to read 'invasion and occupation' before this complaint was made. Amirah Breen 15:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you removing without justification the terms "Ethiopian occupation of Somalia" and "Ethiopian intervention in Somali Civil War" that are cited in two sources The Guardian and The Christian Science Monitor to replace with the unreferenced term "invasion"? --Fontaine347 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered this above. The term 'invasion' is referenced in the Guardian article. Before you continue with your accusations against me you should read the article properly. I have included the term 'occupation' and yet you are saying that I haven't. [[User:AmirahBreen|Amirah Breen]] ([[User talk:AmirahBreen|talk]]) (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Bangalore A Division

This is a seriously bad close, it was only started three days again and wasn't open the full seven days. Can someone have a word with User:TheAafi. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no way the article can exist given that it's sourced only to a blog, so even though the full seven days weren't used, I think draftifying it would be where it would end up anyway. Having said that, @TheAafi:, non-admins should not be closing AfDs out of process. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

TheAafi already had to revert one previous close he did, seems to me lessons are not being learned. As for the article, I really don't see a point of it ending up in draft space, it will probably just die there! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've reverted the close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Bayezid I

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

---

@Johnbod:, This user claims that "Bazajet" is a commonname in English for Bayezid I, which is clearly not true. If you look at Google books, you see that only few books using this term and all of these are old books. No contemporary book uses that word. It is also the wrong interpretation of Bazajet, which is clearly more used. This name is not a commonname in English sources (like others, Amurath for Murad, Mahomet for Mehmed, etc.), and he is saying it is still common enough in English and this is extremely common in English-language sources, no it is not. As you can see only few sources do use that, and it's mostly French, like others, this is also French pronunciation. And This WP is not for Turkish-speakers, "Bayezid I" is not Turkish but "I. Bayezid" is. I do not want to engage into an edit war. That user is not civil and using BOLD, to let us think that he's right about that. Beshogur (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason this isn't at Talk:Bayezid I? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This honestly sounds more like a content dispute than a behavioural one. What exactly is Johnbod doing that is uncivil? Diffs would be helpful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I thought an administration comment/opinion would be important, because this might not get solves on talk page since the user is definite about his claims. Perhaps it was the wrong place to ask, sorry for that. @Tenryuu: diff1, diff2. Also to add, I am not against archaic names, since there are on Osman I and Orhan, but "Bazajet" is clearly wrong interpretation of westerners, and as you can see, it is almost not used in English sources, mostly French. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Mirhasanov

Dear Admins. It appears to me that Mirhasanov who is very active on the talkpage Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, commenting virtually under every topic, is not here to help to build the encyclopedia, but to create an alternative view of the history of the subject and to advance the official views of Azerbaijani government. He tries to create illusion that no changes to article could me made without (his) consensus. He claims his aim is to make the article "less biased" and "clean it from pro-Armenian propaganda", although it feels the contrary. He constantly bothers an involved administrator asking for solidarity. Unsurprisingly, he denies the Armenian Genocide in the same talkpage, saying The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed. - a standard denial trick. Here is a list of his contributions, I can see there were issues with behaviour before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mirhasanov&offset=&limit=500&target=Mirhasanov

Even your complain content is your own opinion and you can't back up with facts about me disturbing or doing any revert war. Silence is an answer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Solavirum%27s_edits_-_removing_Putin%27s_reference_to_Sumgait - Where my purposal also accepted by admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#IAGS_open_letter - Where I refer IAGS official letter that I have but you refer to Armenian site to include the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Genocide_Watch - Were I insist the site is not reliable. Site already proved what I said, by deleting all relevant content from the site published previously. genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh - the content was deleted.

I am doing research here and try to reach consensus first to avoid any one sided content to be published. An all my activities are clear demonstration of it. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are just some of the Mirhasanov's edits that are worth of administrative attention, but as I said earlier, the whole behaviour and skewing the sentences rather than separate edits are suggestive of agenda / POV-advancing.

• Here and here he tries hard to a modify Putin’s statement about Sumgait pogrom against Armenians starting this war into a revisionist conclusion that Sumgait pogroms were preceded by “ethnic crimes” by Armenians, and then “pogroms against each other” happened, then refuses to bring any sources apart from his own POV, accusing me of serving the “propaganda machine”.
• Here and here, he makes every effort to put Genocide Watch organisation under a dark light only because their statement contained accusation of Azerbaijan of genocide The chair is known for his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statements (stating that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians is a pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish statement in the editor’s understanding). He expresses his POV denying each of “10 stages of genocide” without sources, going as far as denying Armenian Genocide himself.
• Here he claims he had “an email from IAGS” that rejects the ownership of their letter” and wants his words to serve as evidence.
• Here he offers getting in touch outside Wikipedia with two user both of which were recently blocked / banned from editing the article. I suspect those out-of-wikipedia online meetings are advancing of Azerbaijani POV as a group.
• Here, an involved admin confesses that he is getting tired of the user constantly pinging him to every little issue on this page, particularly ones where it's not clear what is he expected to do.Armatura (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Image Editor making mass undiscussed changes to bio infobox images/edit warring

The Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been making unilateral changes to infobox images (usually of people) without discussion for months. They usually leave edit summaries claiming their preferred images are "better" or "more recent". They have a habit of removing paintings in favor of photographs, and replacing black-and-white photos with color ones. They also have a tendency to edit-war when reverted. They have been warned many times—by GoodDay, myself, and Sundayclose—and have agreed to seek consensus before making these changes. They've been reverted by many other editors. While they have opened some talk page discussions after being told to do so, they've also continued making unilateral changes, which are highly disruptive. By my count, they've received ten warnings after their agreement to wait for consensus before making these changes. They've also routinely uploaded blatant copyright violations, such as a screenshot of the first 2020 presidential debate that they tried to use as the infobox photo for Chris Wallace. Most recently, they changed the portraits at Template:Joe Biden series and Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series: [221], [222]. They have ignored most of these warnings, but responded to my most recent warning, arguing that their changes are supported by their "interpretation of the guidelines of Wikipedia", and that their continued undiscussed changes are acceptable because they discuss "most" of their changes now. I and others have assumed good faith and given them the benefit of the doubt many times, which they have chosen to abuse. A block is now needed to stem future disruption.

Diffs of undiscussed image changes

[223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341], [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354], [355], [356], [357], [358], [359], [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366], [367], [368], [369], [370], [371], [372], [373], [374], [375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390], [391], [392], [393], [394], [395], [396], [397],[398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405], [406], [407], [408], [409], [410], [411], [412], [413], [414], [415], [416], [417], [418], [419], [420], [421], [422], [423], [424], [425], [426], [427], [428], [429], [430], [431], [432], [433], [434], [435], [436], [437], [438], [439], [440], [441], [442], [443], [444], [445], [446], [447], [448], [449], [450], [451], [452], [453], [454], [455], [456]

Diffs of warnings given: [457], [458], [459], [460], [461], [462], [463], [464], [465], [466], [467], [468], [469]

― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support a ban after briefly looking over his history. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support, if that's what it will take to get the message across. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support some sort of sanction along with a warning that continued changing of images without discussion will result in a more severe sanction. This editor seems to have appointed themselves as the Wikipedia authority on both image quality and copyright. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Some time ago I got the impression that the community supported the notion that attitudes could edit text without prior permission (with some rare exceptions), but the replacement of images with a different image (as opposed to adding a new image) was frowned upon without getting consensus. With rare exceptions, if I plan to replace an image with a different image I first post my intention on the talk page and wait to hear to see if there's any dissent. I want to support editors who have image editing skills, as there are many examples of images that could be improved either by editing the image itself, or tracking down a superior image. However, while someone with such skills might feel confident that a color photograph is better than a black-and-white, a photograph is better than the painting, and a cropped photo is better than an un-cropped photo, this doesn't necessarily follow. The communities' judgments might differ from the particular editors judgment. For that reason, I think editors should be generally encouraged to open a discussion on the talk page before making any such changes, and mandate that option if they have made such changes in the past and had them challenged. It's my understanding that this editor agreed to open discussions prior to making changes, and I support enforcing that. I'd hate to block someone if they simply misunderstand the communities view but given the number of warnings on the page it's hard to accept that as a possibility, so I reluctantly support a short block and hope the editor will agree to seek consensus before making any more changes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support I looked at 7 or so of the example diffs, & only 2 were imo improvements - Chadwick Boseman, though that should be cropped at the bottom, & the Evan McMullin. Albert Einstein uses a colourized image, which we don't like. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of editor and Wikipedia political bias

Jroehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Keeps on making accusations of bad faith over at Talk:Parler, I have asked them to stop, and they just moved the last comment [[470]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I have warned him of WP:AGF, the user also seems to have a past problem with copyright issues. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, he did not listen to me, maybe he will to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, he has made several accusations, one to an admin (GorillaWarfare) no-less, and seems to be very passionate about this page. There might be a problem with edit-warring as well. Heart ^(talk) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He has had an "official" warning now, so lets leave it until (and if) it continues.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And now WP:IDHT, about this warning..Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Could this be the same user? WP:TEAHOUSE#Parler Social Media Article/Page. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about this tells me it is, even it it is its not against the rules to edit as an IP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if it is the same person: I believe it does violate Wikipedia's policies on editing while logged out. If I am incorrect, then that is totally my fault. Heart ^(talk) 16:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that it seems unlikely to be the same person. There has been a fairly significant spike in attention to the Parler page (see pageviews), I think due to rumblings of a "conservative exodus" from Twitter to Parler, and so I suspect it is simply one of the many people who have had eyes on the page rather than a logged-out sock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, yes, i do recognize my errors and are improving on correctly identifying sockpuppetry. Heart ^(talk) 04:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator could look, I think at a minimum the user should be blocked from the Parler page, possibly blocked from American Politics connected topics in general per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. The conduct has included:

1. accusing GorillaWarfare of being a paid employee of Twitter [471]
2. doing so again [472]
3. making a very weird aspersion based on her having made 38 edits to the talk page over a long period of time [473]
4. making the same aspersion yet again, mixing it with once again accusing GorillaWarfare of being an employee of Twitter [474]
5. weird mental gymnastics trying to change the meaning of the concept of anti-semitism [475]
6. Some commentary that's very much in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory [476]
7. calling for a "vote", clearly not understanding wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Competence is required issue) [477]
8. Accusing Auxilarius as well, saying "Now you are part of the team? I thought that GorillaWarfare would get several fellow travelers and vote NO. That tells me your side is weaker than I thought." [478]
9. Another casting-aspersions post, this time in the RFC section [479]
10. Specifically adding their casting-aspersions post to a !Vote on the RFC section [480]

They also seem to be getting egged on by others, which isn't helping the situation. Bus Stop

1. conspiracy theory stuff about "social media oligarchs", post by Bus Stop [481]
2. deliberately missing the point, again by Bus Stop (link to GorillaWarfare's reply for context). [482]
3. a long sequence of Bus Stop demanding that their original-research claim that Parler has no higher level of anti-semitic content than Twitter be the basis for content removal despite reporting in reliable sources, ending here: [483]
4. a similar original-research demand, on the RFC section [484]
5. a combination of Whataboutism and right-wing conspiracy theory stuff about supposed social media bias against conservatives [485]
6. second round of Whataboutism and right-wing conspiracy theory stuff about supposed social media bias against conservatives [486]
7. accusing others of "abusing the ledes of articles to advertise our opinions" [487]

Ultranothing

1. misrepresentation of sources and Whataboutism by user Ultranothing [488] who has almost no history and whose last post was a month prior casting aspersions at Talk:Chris Pirillo [489]

Gregnator

1. attack section created by user Gregnator (noting: I removed this section afterwards per WP:NOTFORUM) [490]
   1. user responded by posting "Block me, idc. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of ideological battles. Shame on you." in a reply to GorillaWarfare [491]

RampagingRembrandt

1. vandalized the Parler page while the RFC was in process [492]
2. posted a large WP:NOTFORUM screed about how "Just the summary of this page reeks with left-wing bias" echoing Bus Stop's WP:OR and Whataboutism in their text. [493]

2603:8081:6403:6c00:fd53:88ae:35dd:44b3

1. Long edit-request that appears to be a WP:NOTFORUM violation including "I will never again contribute to or recognize Wikipedia as a reliable source if I continue to see this type of bias on the site. " [494]

There does seem to be bad behavior going on. Others more experienced than I am may be able to make more sense out of the timing and other aspects. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that Jroehl doesn't seem to be toning it down much. They are continuing to attack those who support option 1 of the Parler RfC, now calling us "Parler slanderers": [495]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that this edit crosses a line too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&diff=prev&oldid=987711708 IHateAccounts (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does nobody here talk about the hate speech, in the first paragraph, of the Parler.com Wikipedia article? You can't defend that. So you are attacking me. When you contribute to Wikipedia, you should put your personal political proclivities aside. Please explain to everyone why you are spending so much time and effort to cast a microblogging and social networking service as "right wing", "anti-semitic" and "conspiratorial". When EVERBODY knows that ANY site, of it's type could be described this way. I would like somebody here to download and scan every post at Parler.com (millions) and identify every "anti-semitic" post. Then give us a percentage of those posts compared to all other non-anti-semitic posts. Do the same with Twitter.com. If the amount of "anti-semitic" posts at Parler.com is, say 10%, I might agree with you. I believe it would be less than 3%. So my question is, how many posts, on Twitter.com OR Parler.com do you think are "anti-semitic"? Over the last 1 day, 1 week or 1 year? If you can't answer this, then there is no reason for the slanderous language to be included in the first paragraph of the Parler.com Wikipedia article. Everybody knows this. It is self evident. But you persist. Jroehl (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You ask why no one talks about what you're calling "hate speech"—did you miss the multiple discussions and the formal RfC I created on the article talk page, despite your opening the discussion in what I believe to be bad faith, in which I have solicited more editors' opinions to help assuage your concerns?

"Please explain to everyone why you are spending so much time and effort to..." I have made more than 80,000 edits over fourteen years, of which the conversations I've had at Talk:Parler make up a whopping 0.18%. What you're casting as an outsized amount of time that is apparently clear proof of my engaging in UPE on behalf of Twitter is actually not even a drop in the bucket compared to my overall editing. More importantly, the amount of time I devote to this page is not at all relevant to the content dispute that is happening. You are once again attacking contributors rather than civilly discussing the content of the page.

As for your question about Parler vs. Twitter, 1) it's better-suited to Talk:Parler and Talk:Twitter, but 2) please read WP:OR—we go by what reliable sources say, we don't do our own analysis of Parler or Twitter's content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: you still do not appear to have read Wikipedia's policies, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research. Your comment saying "Could you please access Parler.com and post, here, on this thread, 3 Parler.com posts..." [496] is definitially a request for something the kind of "Original Research" not allowed on Wikipedia. Content on wikipedia primarily is built from Secondary Sources (see: [[497]]) and the words you are complaining about are VERY strongly cited to multiple reliable secondary sources, despite your unsubstantiated attempts to misrepresent them as "hate speech". At this point it appears that the policy Wikipedia:Competence is required is going to need to be mentioned because you have failed, despite multiple editors trying to point you to the policies, to read or understand them. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted in my brief reply to Jroehl on that talk page, the call for editors to conduct original research is inappropriate. And demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, which I think is also demonstrated in many of the other comments the user has made on the Parler talk page. I've tried to be civil and patient with this editor, as I usually try to be with new or inactive editors that wade into areas they have little experience editing, and tried to explain how policy dictates what is included in an article, and how consensus works. Interested editors can see our interaction on the talk page. Instead of taking a new tack with how to approach this, the editor has continued to make unfounded accusations, demonstrated that they don't fully understand the article prose or the material being discussed, and accused editors of a COI (including myself). I found the latter more worthy of a chuckle than taking offense, but there is clear disruption here. The disruption has extended to the RfC and the same issues proliferate. It's also become a mess to read, due to the impassioned comments that Jroehl is making in response to nearly every comment on the RfC, without properly formatting their replies, and a clear inability to hear what other editors are saying. There are very clear and apparent competency issues with this editor. I'd propose either a partial block on Parler or, should other editors agree, a CIR block until such time as the editor shows that they have read (and understand) the policies continually being linked to them, that they show they understand what constitutes appropriate editing on Wikipedia, and agrees to stop making personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The real questions is, again, why would an encyclopedia imply, very prominently, in the first paragraph of its description, that a website, with 3 million users, is antithetical to any racial/ethnic group. And then cite 3 sources from from 3 obscure websites opinion pieces to back that up? Did the 3 cited sources conduct any research to conclude that Parler.com is anti Jewish? Well, there is really no research at all. You accuse me of advocating "original research", yet your so called sources have conducted no research at all. Your "sources" are just that writer's opinion(s). So I could create a website and call it the "World News Picayune Jornal Express" for around $12.95 a month and write an op-ed piece were I claim that Parler.com is very pro Israel, very antiestablishmentarianist and everything thing posted there is non-conspiratorial. Then I could cite that website when I delete your slanderous sentence and cite my website as a source. Should I try that? Jroehl (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are really driving home Symmachus Auxiliarus' point about WP:IDHT by again repeating questions that you've already received answers to at Talk:Parler (most recently by Grayfell, on the off chance you missed it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot. And you (GorillaWarfare) and and your fellow travelers (I am just poking fun at you guys by calling you that) have been worthy opponents. Even though we can disagree on this, I would love to meet all of you this Christmas and share an adult beverage with you at some point. I just love Wikipedia so much. It is and hopefully will continue to be a world treasure. I wish you all the best. Jroehl (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to stop addressing GW and other editors as opponents or fellow travelers - you can do Wikipedia a service by amending your approach to your fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disappointing with IP user

Please see my talk page that range of IP address, from same IP user, come up to attack and leave abusive message. --Aleenf1 15:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Aleenf1, I must admit, viewing these comments are hilarious, but these are not tolerated. I have warned the use for the second to last time as he has not been properly warned. I have issued this warning as it is clear that he will not stop attacking this user. I have also added the talkback notice that the reporting use had forgotten to add. I look forward to reading more of his comments. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I also believe that 151.45.159.101 and 37.163.41.239 are sockpuppets. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

They're dynamic IP addresses. I've added three days semi-protection, since it's clear the IP is just repeating itself at this stage. I believe it will be more productive if all editors focus on any substantive issues in an appropriate place, and follow the dispute resolution process if they're unable to reach a resolution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The comments are hilarious, but the problem is real. Now, I can be accused of being repetitive and annoying but what the guy did/keeps doing is all but cooperating with other users. I don't expect you to give me reason but before judging look carefully at the "great job" he did: if you have the courage, read everything and say he's right...in a place where there's a minimum of common sense, no one could say it imo. And since I didn't decide to contribute on Wikipedia to get mocked by such a ridicolous person, that's what I can do to defend myself, since the guy doesn't seem so smart to understand a single thing of what I'm trying to discuss and given that in every thread like this he is always the one doing the right thing and the unregistered IP is the bad guy. Maybe, I guess it's too easy to judge a person only listening to one side of the story...unfortunately, there're a couple of edits showing how Aleenf1 works. --37.160.75.250 (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be surprised at my lack of judgment. I have carefully read your comments here, and if you haven't done the same with mine please do so. To clarify, this here is not a dispute resolution noticeboard. If you have a content dispute, go sort it out somewhere else in a civilised manner, get a third opinion or something. Here's a link: WP:DR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(←) Sorry, I was answering Heart who finds my comments so funny. And to be clear (since I don't want to say a bunch of lies like our beloved freak Aleenf1 did at some point in our discussion) those IPs are mine, a thing which I already explained since I'm not always at home (btw, it's so comic that I've to show my whereabouts because of Aleenf1)...instead, what I found funny is that I still didn't read on any guideline that certain things should be done in a certain way on that article and what's funnier is that when I asked it to Aleenf1 we got here. --37.160.75.250 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive POV edits from Belteshazzar on Bates Method and related articles suggest block or topic ban

Belteshazzar caused controversy on the Bates method article in March and May 2020, he still continues to edit this article and the talk-page. Many of his edits are pointy or violate NPOV and are usually reverted. If you check his block log or talk-page he was blocked in May for 31 hours and for 2 weeks in June for disruptive and POV edits on the Bates method article. The same user was also reported to this admin board [498] in July.

On 6 June 2020, I complained about Belteshazzar's disruptive edits [499] which were being made on a basis of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Basically this user started to edit the Bates Method article to remove criticisms or challenge the "ineffective" statement in the lead. His purpose on Wikipedia was to dispute the claim of the Bates Method being ineffective. After he lost, to make a point he went onto articles related to the Bates method and did the complete opposite, you can see some of those edits in the diff I list above. After being blocked, now he has gone back to challenging the ineffective statement again.

Belteshazzar does not appear to have a good understanding of what the scientific method is. Now there is nothing wrong with this but at least four different users have explained to Belteshazzar why anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, but he continues to ignore this. Instead he relies on anecdotal evidence for the claim that the Bates method is not ineffective. His flawed reasoning behind this is that if the Bates Method is ineffective then it couldn't have improved Aldous Huxley's eyesight. There has been a debate about that on the talk-page recently "ineffective", and I explained to him not to confuse anecdotal evidence with scientific studies with controls. If you check the talk-page itself, all we see is Belteshazzar, Belteshazzar and Belteshazzar. He's basically disrupted the article and talk-page for months. You can check the archives. He's been there since March 2020 creating countless sections [500] on the talk-page which pretty much all equate to the same agenda trying to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead. This same user has caused problems on other articles related to the Bates method including Margaret Darst Corbett, The Art of Seeing etc.

As of 8 November 2020, Belteshazzar, is still editing the Bates Method and has recently said he wants to challenge the "ineffective" statement on Wikipedia regarding the Bates method [501]. We have been here many times before with this user. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. This user has been given many warnings and received blocks etc but never changes his behavior. A comment on his last block by an admin was "Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour". I believe this user has violated this. As others have requested before I believe this user should be topic banned from editing the Bates method or anything related to Ophthalmology. This user is lucky because he has received so many warnings and advice from many different editors, yet he ignores everyone. I personally think an outright block might be appropriate, the user in question is not acting in good faith. We need to ask ourselves what is going on here. It's disruption plain and simple, the user is not here to build or improve the project. His editing is agenda based to remove "ineffective" from the lead on the Bates method article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my explanation for my post on my talk page. I don't intend to propose this myself, and I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented anyway, barring a surprising development. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summary by PG, editer is an immense timesink, now just disruptive. Support outright block as proposed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In my refined argument (which Psychologist Guy tried to link to here), I didn't bring up Huxley or any anecdotes. Psychologist Guy returned to what I previously said about that, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, I've not commented on Talk:Bates method in the last 18 days, and for a while now my edits to the article have not concerned this aspect of the subject. The current situation was triggered by a comment I made on my own talk page, intended for future reference. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The July ANI report was made after I did something perfectly legitimate, as I explained here. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987

Kenji1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In February, I raised some issues with this user's editing here. (To briefly summarize: with the exception of a small amount of pointy argumentation, their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a handful of problematic academic publishers. Talk-page contributions consist of endless piles of civil POV-pushing.) These issues were endorsed by everyone who weighed in, but the thread eventually drifted away without any action being taken. Kenji subsequently has taken two long breaks from editing, punctuated by more of the same tendentiousness (see all of Talk:MDPI/Archive_3) and this addition to their talk-page, which accuses a bunch of "biased" and "corrupt" editors of "hijack[ing]" the article MDPI. I raise this now because Kenji has once again returned to editing, taking exactly the same tendentious, POV-pushing approach as before [502], and directing more attacks at other users from their userpage [503]. I request that this user be topic-banned from the area of scientific journals and publishing. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time, I said I wasn't not sure if "WP:NOTHERE" applies, but that there there's certainly was problem with WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE, an a general obsession with the questionable publishers. I wasn't sure if a topic ban around academic publishing was be warranted last time around. But WP:POINTY like this has me over the line. WP:NOTHERE applies. There's a weird WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality going on, that if Wikipedia doesn't swoon over the open access MDPI, then Wikipedia must drag other (for profit) publishers in the mud... or something. I don't know what's going on, but WP:NOTHERE applies. A topic ban around academic publishing is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot

Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by multiple editors about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries.

Editors who want to edit in contentious areas should expect pushback. They should expect to have to defend every edit, to have other editors push back, to have to talk and talk and talk before making even small edits. PDC makes sweeping edits to an extremely contentious area – Tibetan Buddhism and China – and if another editor disagrees with their edits, they immediately go to accusations of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, and hounding, both in posts and in edit summaries. I’ll note that I have only a general understanding of the subject, so I have no idea whether PDC’s edits are helpful or not. My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations.

PDC now has nearly 2500 edits. They are no longer a newbie. They are ignoring our policies on assuming good faith, and they’re doing it flagrantly and unrepentantly and repeatedly. I hate to suggest they be topic banned from their clear area of highest interest, but I am at a loss, here. Personally all I want is to see them forbidden from making any accusation of bad faith of any kind against any other editor (broadly construed; that is, no referring to "bad faith edits") either on talk pages or in edit summaries.

Many editors have tried to help PDC understand this. These are just some of the more recent:

• Usedtobecool tried to explain Sept 21

• PDC continues to accuse others of bad faith editing September 30:1 2 3

• Message on PDC's talk from Cullen328, who on October 1 asks for an explanation. 4 PDC replies, including further accusations of bad faith in the reply and subsequent replies: 5

• Warning from me October 2, which included a plea for PDC to stop accusing any other editor of bad faith, noted as seen: 6

• Continuing to accuse others of bad faith edits, misrepresentation, and hounding October 19: 7 8 9 Warning about it seen and removed: 10 Warning given by Girth Summit October 21: 11

• November 7: 11 Warning at article talk seen: 12

• November 8: warning seen and removed with an edit summary accusing the editor leaving the warning of acting in bad faith: 13

—valereee (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale removals of reliable information from political article with 1RR restrictions

User:Mhhossein is turning the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page into some kind of WP:ATTACK page, often through a WP:PLAYPOLICY modus operandi. I have been trying to work it out with him on the talk page to no avail.

For a long time Mhhossein has been packing the article with repeated allegations that the MEK (the biggest political opposition to Iran's Islamic Republic) is a “cult”, citing that "WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" while at the same time removing opposing viewpoints [504] [505] [506] [507] with reports indicating that the Tehran government has gone to great lengths to demonise the MEK. Here are some examples of Mhhossein's removals :

1 "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK.”

2 “On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

3 "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."

4 "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5 "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

6 "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."

7 "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”

8 "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."

9 "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

10 "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

11 "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

12 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

13 "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

14 "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran".

15 "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

16 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division"

Myself and other editors have asked Mhhossein to explain these latest removals on the article’s talk page [508] [509] [510], but his answers often address only certain parts of the text and not others, or are self contradicting, or don't make much sense (at least to me).

Mhhossein has received many warnings in the past and was blocked in April for tendentious behavior and original research under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics. Idealigic (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

History of promotional edits to south Florida subjects

JclarkeFLA (talk · contribs), mostly adding non notable news stories. Warnings for promotional intent go back over a year. No sign of acknowledgment or stopping. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits to Colorado entry

Hi. A user named "Moxy" reverted my edits to the Colorado entry today, before I could finish them by adding footnotes that indicate sources. I do not understand why one person can make such a unilateral decision or why I am not permitted to finish my editing work. I would like to do so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COScienceWriter07 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @COScienceWriter07: Per policy at the top of this page and in an edit notice when editing, you must notify the user in question on their talk page about bringing them to the ANI. I have done so for you this time. I see you left a message on Moxy's talk page—is there a reason to escalate to the ANI now rather than wait for their response? It appears Moxy has also left you a reply. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

IP user constantly adding unsourced and promo content to page

Hi. An IP user 113.59.201.230 has been reverting my edits to Seelaratna Senarath (from this to this) for the last week or so. They've edited it back to a version full of incorrect grammar, fillery promo content (there is no need to list someone's children's name on their wikipage per WP:INHERITED) and a lot of unsourced information that they claim is "the local context". They've deferred to referring to me as the "non Sri Lankan", which is bizarre as my nationality bears no relevance to this situation. The editor in question has refused to listen to what I've said, refused to even add sources to the claims they're trying to make or follow WikiPolicies and are generally being disruptive. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ser!: Jab aside from not being a certain ethnicity, is there a reason why a discussion about the content wasn't raised on the article's talk page? I see nothing in its history that attempts to talk about the addition and removal of the content in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Point taken yeah. This is my first time at the rodeo re dealing with a dispute like this so I'm not too well versed on what exactly to do - I did discuss it in the comments in the edit summaries and got only snarky responses and the aforementioned jab back. ser! (let's discuss it). 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we're here now. Some steps were skipped before bringing this to the ANI, but I'll leave it to the admins to determine if such a comment from the IP is actionable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)