Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:47, 24 October 2020

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [1] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good news!^{[citation needed]} SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
(from WP:NSEASONS)
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news!

Oh wait, there are more.

Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

This is from the PAST MONTH:

... and there were more before that.

These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!

Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
Additional canvassing (diff)

This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 5 7 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. Giant Snowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [2]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [3] and June 2019 [4]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Le v!v ich 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. Giant Snowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.

Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.

Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from ~~Millwall~~ London City Lionesses.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Le v!v ich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban When will Wikipedia leadership start looking at the referenced deletion discussions and the patterns of many of the editors here who are proposing a topic ban aka targeting the same editor and women's football articles in general? I'm not sure what the obsession is about - it's rather comical, really -- but indeed an old and quickly decaying pattern on an equally aging platform. Surely, there are more productive things to do in life and on Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia's systemic bias against coverage of women's subjects is no better exemplified nor more infamous than in our grossly out-of-balance guidelines on "PrOfEsSiOnAl" football leagues, which as others have said in both more and less colourful terms, are bullshit. Here we have another very small group of editors claiming this bullshit guideline as a justification for erasing every bit of information anyone has ever written here on football teams/leagues/players who are not men, and whining to administrators when anybody notices. Daz's pointed commentaries on this phenomenon are fair comment; you're supposed to be offended when this crap happens. Counter-proposal: the proposers of this topic ban are themselves banned from the subject of women's football. That would both stop the disruption and improve the encyclopedia. And can we please trash that garbage guideline once and for all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and further, WP:FPL is an essay with years of evidence of "ownership" behaviors exhibited by some of these same editors here attempting to silence BBDS again (just look at the edit history). See also WP:BULLY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose boomerang

This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I propose a topic ban. This was done by Number 57. And given how massively disruptive you have been at the AfDs on which you have been commenting, I think it merits attention. And reubtting points made against myself is perfectly legitimate argumentation. Literally the point of AfD is to make arguments on whether or not an article should be kept. Comparing my actions to yours is completely absurd. Your slinging of ad hominems and hostile tone, while frequently contributing nothing to discussion, is not comparable to my rebutting points made in an AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wanted to look through the diffs, you will notice that I did not initially attach this complaint to this discussion; it was added as such later by an uninvolved individual. Claiming that I am trying to "silence [you] and open up a new front in the above content dispute" is completely absurd and continued showing of bad faith. Jay eyem (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff showing my initial post on ANI. Here and here is the uninvolved user incorporating it into this argument. The diffs are clear, that wasn't my doing. And yes, your abusive language and bad faith arguments had gotten to the point where I felt it was necessary to bring it up at ANI, and it appears my concerns are shared. As Number 57 noted, this is not your first time dealing with issues like this. Responding to questions with reasoning is not bludgeoning. Linking individual users to a discussion is the clear definition of vote-stacking, which is covered under WP:CANVASS. You have, and continue to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive editing, and this "boomerang proposal" is another pretty clear example of that. No idea what you are proposing here. If an uninvolved admin would let me know, that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a ~~permanent~~ (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working ~~on my draft and future articles~~ (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just now I see that Eggishorn is not an administrator. I was scared by the comment and misread the small print, as is obvious. Eissink (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ice

sink

Time

sink

Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [5], and this [6], and this [7]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. E Eng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests

Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.

I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.

There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?

Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My advice to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening didn't penetrate, I guess. E Eng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Le v!v ich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Le v!v ich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. E Eng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too impressed. I was pretty sure he'd blow himself up with his suicide vest so I'd get all the Gunga Din credit without the headache of having to actually deal with him in the future, and my crystal ball did not fail me [8]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. E Eng 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Boomerang site ban

It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked. Good god, I'll never get back the time I spent slogging through the above. What a life. It's obvious that Eissink has not lived up to the promises that were the basis for their unblock in May 2019, where they for instance said "I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal."[9] The unblocking admin, Huon, warned them at the time: "Should the previous behaviour recur, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again, and getting unblocked again would be far more difficult". Yup. I have indeffed again, based on Eissink's personalising of disputes, as can be seen in this very ANI discussion as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, which Eissink, according to his own statement above, took part in purely in revenge against The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bish, you beat me to the punch. This was a timesink of the highest kind, and we don't need an editor like this here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban. Thanks to Bish for stopping the immediate disruption. This is now Eissink's second indef on enwiki, plus they're indef'd on nlwiki; seems to meet the criteria for a site ban, and if disruption occurs again on some other project, a cban here will probably make a global lock easier. Le v!v ich 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Update: Eissink has used his talkpage access to abuse his opponent, so I've revoked it. He'll have to use UTRS if he wishes to appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed (but of course I always agree with Bish). Is this still necessary? Indef-blocked with TPA revoked is essentially site-banned, is it not? Does a formal site ban serve any distinction at this point other than officially making him persona non grata? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Le v!v ich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [10]. We've seen this pattern from him over and over and over. It's the way he is. He's harassed and abused people at multiple projects, and meta. No more ~~second~~ ~~third~~ ~~fourth~~ chances. Done. E Eng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I don't think it counts unless you say it in bold. Le v!v ich 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it E Eng 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Support siteban though this editor is now blocked with TPA revoked, I think a siteban is still appropriate. The personal attack they made on their talk page after being blocked and the modification of another users comment as a "joke", when it modified the meaning of said sentence to imply the said user thinks their writing is unintelligible, on top of the other issues / personal attacks they have made, pushes me to support a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Eissink managed to get out of an indef block once before, so let's make it official this time. This comment, which is clueless on multiple levels, was enough to send me over the edge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:
An editor: I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around.

Eissink: Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia.

E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? E Eng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that finger is in a dike please don't have them remove it. We don't want to be responsible for any national catastrophes. E Eng 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC) That's d-i-k-e. No tasteless jokes, please.[reply]

@Drmies and EEng: Someone needs me? Trijnstel_talk 14:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, genie. Can you tell us the background to Eissink's block/ban at nlwp? E Eng 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Nope. That comment shows this isn't someone we want editing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban Just in case it wasn't clear. E Eng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban to prevent another admin from unilaterally overturning the block, as unlikely as that may be. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support siteban This user had their second chance and blew it spectacularly. Going out with a parting insult just proves they are WP:NOTHERE and should not be a part of this community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11

What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[11][12].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.

The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to date

My it's gone quiet. TL;DR perhaps. In summary, then: Three highly experienced core members of a significant WikiProject (WikiProject Aircraft) have come here to complain about a new editor. "His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings.", "this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION.", "The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words." -- none of them my words.

Two admins have responded. Tide rolls has criticised my wording here but not followed up their shallow-skimming opinion on the issue itself. Swarm also failed to do their homework and chose to believe the disruptive editor, for reasons which they remain silent on despite clear in-your-face evidence to the contrary. "I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue" - not my words again, but I share the sentiment wholeheartedly. When I say to you both that Your personal obsessions are devoid of factual nature, you should stop your obstreperous obfuscation, the guy should be let off to avoid offending the profound dignity of the almighty Wiki Gods Tide Rolls and Swarm, whatever their actual names, it seems that fiction is acceptable and fact is not to said Wiki Gods, and [assuming you now censure me for all that] Tide Rolls and Swarm you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself, you will of course be quite happy about that and not regard it as any way insulting, injurious, or contrary to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- because you are not sloppy hypocrites, are you, you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there, and stand by the ~~utter crap~~ words of profound wisdom you wrote straight afterwards. Right?

Hey, can a real admin do something about this, please? Ban me for whatever takes your fancy if it helps you sleep at night, but do something about the guy who came up with all those insults in the first place, that's all I an asking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a good impression of the editor about which you complained. Tiderolls 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a comment I made at the aircraft project I was attacked by Mark Lincoln for not agreeing with him, these have been linked above and I was accused of lying, making things up and being obstreperous whatever that is. I was then called a wiki god for bringing up the word consensus which went against his years of being an expert on the subject. He seems to have a dislike for people not using real names and has made a few digs like "Enjoy writing fiction if you wish to appease MilborneOne what ever his actual name." I was also attacked on the R101 page although I had not edited it since August. I returned from a break from a bereavement as an escape only to harshly attacked for not agreeing with Mark Lincoln. He is clearly not a team player, doesnt understood the consensual way wikipedia works and attacks everybody that disagrees with him. I would suggest he is blocked until he shows signs of being able to contribute in a team environment and show respect to others. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that User:MilborneOne is the very tolerant admin whom I mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was that thing that was repeatedly said about the reported user? Something about beating a dead horse? You've successfully driven the editor off the project, which is unfortunate, and yet you continue to provoke and antagonize them endlessly, then you use their responses to further justify why they should be blocked. It's really not a good look. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with Lincoln's comments, just that if he's quitting the project, move on with your lives and let him leave. There's no preventative angle at that point, thus the complaint is inactionable. Continuing to beat this dead horse, which Lincoln was ironically accused of doing multiple times, and then reporting his provoked responses as more evidence of wrongdoing is patently ridiculous. Go find an article to improve and leave the dude alone. He's clearly not some troll who's only here to antagonize you, he's just an editor who got frustrated with a content dispute and is now so fed up that all he wants to do is quit the project. Continuing to antagonize him is bordering on harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Who is the "you" in your rant? The aggrieved admin MilborneOne, me Steelpillow whom he asked to report the incident here, the others who have contributed here Ahunt, Nimbus227, one or two others who contributed at the time but have stayed away from this discussion, or some combination of all those highly experienced editors? And where is your evidence that I/we/"you"-unspecified "drove him off" ... "the project?" Unlike me, you have neither referred to nor posted a single diff or link. No, you are factually wrong yet again; when half a dozen editors politely explained that his edits were unacceptable, and why, he became abusive before responding to warnings by flouncing off in a huff. Here's] one of the diffs again, posted on an uninvolved editor's talk page claiming he has left Wikipedia entirely - just one example of his coming back over and over to repeat the claim that he is not coming back. He very explicitly states that this is because Wikipedia does not respect WP:THETRUTH as he sees it - in other words he is verifiably WP:NOTHERE, a fact pointed out by one of the many involved editors whom you choose to ignore.

Now for the sting. Was he really insulting? That is key to our argument, so I set up a little experiment. I am confident the other involved editors will confirm that insults are not my style; go back and you can see clearly that I deliberately prodded you and Tide rolls with Mark Lincoln's insults and wild accusations that you claim are not insults, to see how you would react. You did so beautifully. You both felt sufficiently insulted to be suckered into trading like for like. Tide rolls, bless them, even pointed out how well I had spun the impression. Thus your claims, that they are not insulting, are exposed by your own actions for the hypocrisy they are. Your comments here are now very visibly not evidence-based arguments intended to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but mere trading of opinion-based insults and wild accusations, and a desire to shoot the messenger (that's me, remember?). I just wanted to draw that point out for everybody to see. And now, if you don't mind, I will return to my usual polite self.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:

Four editors, all highly experienced, have argued the case against Mark Lincoln.
One admin is in favour of sanctions, two are against.

There is patently no clear consensus yet. Hence I have appealed for more admin voices here.

Your argument is flawed in other ways. Of course Lincoln is gone - for now. He lurked on long enough to contribute to this discussion, before realising that acting the absent editor while it concludes is his best strategy. (Is he still lurking now? If he reappears once this is over, would you change your verdict? I have a feeling we will find out in due course.) You also fail to address several points which other involved editors, including a fellow admin, have all raised.

My actions were designed to draw out the hypocrisy, and hence falsehood, of "I don't find such words insulting" arguments, which your latest reply reinforces nicely, thank you. But yes, I do owe you both an apology for winding you up, I hope that you can appreciate it was in what the majority of contributors here regard as a good cause. I can assure you that no personal hostility is involved and I will not be doing so again.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: Thank you for coming here, at least somebody has responded to my request. But you are wrong about my behaviour, I was very careful not to mislead, I stated explicitly to Swarm & co. that "you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there"; they knew perfectly well I was throwing Lincoln's insults back at them to provoke their reactions. I will be very happy to back out once the corroborative comments of other involved editors are being taken seriously and not just being ignored or scoffed at. Perhaps you could do them the honour, now that you are here?

@MilborneOne: Sorry to call on you again, but do you feel that I have failed to represent your case in a useful way? Am I now untrustworthy here? Happy to bow out if my presence here is now doing more harm than good.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say your presence here is now doing more harm than good, honestly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP I just contacted the involved WikiProject members. Our consensus on what to do about the incident has changed; enough of us now feel this is going nowhere and is no longer worth pursuing. I am happy to oblige. My thanks to those who participated, even if we did not all see eye to eye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your report was declined from the very beginning, it wasn't actionable and it hasn't ever been going anywhere from the start. We've been doing nothing but repeatedly trying to explain this to you the whole time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[13]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[14][15] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [16][17]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [29] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [30] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [31]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [32], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [33][34][35]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [36] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [37], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:

"blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
"unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
"one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([38]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
"effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
"do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.

—seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:

• From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

• From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.

• From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.

• From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.

• From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

• From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.

I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. E Eng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.

Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.

Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You said content failed verification when you did not even read the citation sources. . -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.

Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Object404, I think we'd fix that if it happened, by extending the ban. See also WP:ROPE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the intent is to prevent further disruption by stopping you from expanding into other areas of Philippines politics. This is something that can also be done by means of an indefinite block. I can apply that if you wish, you've only got to say so. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I retain the position that more than the case of the three or so articles which have become the focus of discussion so far, subject's dismissive behavior towards other editors and towards sources which disagree with his view, and his insistence on his own interpretation of other editors's supposed intentions (his refusal to acknowledge the difference between supposed net worth vis a vis ill-gotten wealth, for example) - thus creating an environment where it is impossible to have discourse under WP:Assume Good Faith - are the broader and more-essential arguments in favor of Proposals 1 and 2. These violate WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, quite blatantly. I do not see that this broader behavior has been sufficiently addressed, thus my continued support for Proposal 2 and 1. - Chieharumachi (talk)

First, I apologize for taking the wrong approach. I have opened RFC Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire to begin to address a few issues in the lede that appear conflated: One if the subject is a billionaire now (aka if she has wealth in the billions) which was the lede around the time of this ANI's opening, two if she and her deceased husband were billionaires (their 'personal net worth') in 1986 when they fled (the lede currently reflects this), and three if the wealth is ill-gotten (aka stolen). Each of these are separate claims and to keep the RFC simple, I only included the first of these claims in the linked RFC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 (DS)

I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block

It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Firstly, let me point out that I am mainly uninvolved in the article. My only edits there are correcting her position (Manila -> Metro Manila) and removing an excess period. I agree with what Object404 has said. Typically, disruptive editors are given blocks. Also, I don't think I could still assume that the edits were made in good faith based on everything on this thread and on the article's talk page. ~~Having said that, I am at a tipping point. I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for Proposal 1 and support a heavier sanction.~~ I'd like to see how this will go and how other editors would comment. To the other editors, a lot of you are probably irritated already with how things are going here. ~~The user is unapologetic.~~ However, I would like to remind everyone to exercise caution with the proposals. Please support the proposal that you think is the most appropriate with regard to his behavior/actions. Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some progress now. The user has acknowledged the error. Even before that, I still think that an indefinite ban is an overkill (consistent with my previous comment). In the meantime, I'm staying with proposal 1. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this dispute I made the mistake of TE and RGW rather than running a RFC (or other DR process). In retrospect that would have been more logical in this type of highly politicized article. I apologize for that and accept whatever punishment is meted out even if it means the end of me editing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at last we seem to be getting somewhere. Jtbobwaysf has at last acknowledged they were in the wrong. If there is a chance that they will participate constructively in a DR process, then let's allow them to take that chance. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is too much. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos are unbalanced, and I believe Jtbobwaysf was trying to remove the clutter of undue weight on Imelda's article.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I periodically try to cleanup this article (havent made any attempt at the husband's as he is not a BLP and less priority I figured), and made the mistake of TE rather than doing an RFC. I have started Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire on the subject that related me my veering off course in my approach that ultimately resulted in this ANI. Feel free to comment. Apologies and thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

Thread retrieved from archive after a lull

Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. E Eng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.

Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [39]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [40] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [41] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [42], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [43] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [44], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [45] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [46], as was the third [47] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That 60% figure is only because someone just split the page and there's only one year left in it... 2020. So I'm responsible for adding 60% of the content for fatalities in 2020. Before the split, just two days ago, I was responsible for 42% of the content [48] (fatalities in 2010-2020), and before the first article-split (in early 2019), when ALL the fatalities were on one page and I had finished the bulk of my work adding dozens of fatalities, I had still only authored 8% of the page [49]. That list-article has been edited for over 11 years and 4,000 edits; having been started 9 years before I was even an editor here. I am NOT the predominant editor for the content (of four list-pages of fatalities). Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above: At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with "Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian"." because we were discussing an AfD for the three articles List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians and that was too much of a mouthful (or typing-ful). I never "compared" veggers to ordinary folks, either — that was your misinterpretation and you got pissed off, and regardless of how I tried to explain what I'd wrote you continued to push the button (as you did above) that somehow I "contrasted veggers to ordinary people". And perhaps you're contributing to this ANI because you're still pissed off about that, and that a week later I arrived in your wiki domain and opened some cans of worms (at Template:Discrimination) and some other editor has picked up that baton and is beating you in your own debates (at WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism) and you see that as a reason to pop one at me here. (BTW, I bowed out of those conversation because I couldn't keep up with the esoteric language and had no access to the sources being discussed, and that other editor was a master at all that and has been doing just fine without me.) Perhaps you should re-read WP:Casting aspersions which refers to accusing others "without reasonable cause". Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mentioned a few times here as someone who made Normal Op "pissed off". I don't have a dog in this hunt and simply advise that any interested party peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album). Compare my brief and rather bland comment to the vociferous fury that it unleashed in Normal Op, which has continued here and caused a lot of work for everyone. Good luck. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If you want to "get the facts straight", let's clear up a few errors in your last post. I have not said that no editor can be pissed off; quite the opposite. And I do not know why you think I am angry. I am not. And I did not say that you compared "veggers" to "ordinary folk". I said that you contrasted "veggers" with "ordinary people", which you did, here -- there are "veggers", including those people who are "veggers" who "ordinary people" wouldn't believe didn't eat meat. You can accuse me of misinterpretation until you're blue in the face, but it's right there for all to see. I don't really have anything to say about your "beating you in your own debates" nonsense, but I think it's striking that the accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who disagrees with you is such second nature that I'm not even the first person you've targetted in this subsection. I've already said more than I want to; I do not want to be pulled into some pointless back and forth. I will not be posting here again. If anyone wants to talk to me, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, if you weren't contrasting 'veggers' to 'ordinary people', you must acknowledge that the way you worded your points could have given that impression to a reasonable observer. When I first read "If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat...)", that's exactly what I thought you were doing. I appreciate that being discussed at ANI must be stressful, but your tone here is exceedingly combative; a more conciliatory approach might be more effective if your aim is to convince people that you can collaborate effectively when you disagree with people. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [50] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the majority of my interactions with other editors have been just fine, but I'm sure it's especially important to focus on the minority that haven't. Stress? Introspection? Sorry, but I'm scheduled for surgery tomorrow and introspection isn't going to happen this week. Signing off now and un-watchlisting this page. If anyone needs to reach me, they can try the email function. Normal Op (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef t-ban - he has slid back into the same behavior that caused his t-ban a little over a year ago. He had a successful appeal July 6th, and within 2 months he was back at it, and received a warning from JzG on Sept 1st. A few weeks later, he received another warning by Nosebagbear. I think he is much too impassioned against bulldog types and a few of the larger breeds to edit collegially in that topic area. His responses in this discussion also speak to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef tban - despite warnings, the behaviour seems to have rapidly reoccurred. I'm willing to give the tban a chance before resorting to full on blocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating/expanding tban - WP:ROPE was given... Le v!v ich 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstating the t-ban. Normal Op clearly can't hold back here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was hoping Normal OP would take a break from this area. I realize the stress of being at ANI so I do not hold the frustrated comments against them. Hard for me to argue with the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin recommendation - no Tban but a block for one week. WP:TBAN is used to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Only one editor in this section has claimed that the edits made were disruptive, without elaborating how. Other editors have stated that good work has been performed at times. The issue is one of behaviour and not of disruption. WP:CIVILITY allows blocking in cases of major incivility, therefore in this case a block is more appropriate. The editor would be well-advised to spend this blocked time reviewing the Wikipedia policies on CIVILITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and reference to RELIABLE SOURCES. Beyond this period, further incivility should result in a block for a longer period of time. William Harris (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broadened TBan, to cover animals in general (including animal products such as meat). Normal Op's combative attitude in this thread, and at the discussions listed above, and their unwillingness to accept that their own approach may be responsible for the heat in these discussions, in spite of two warnings issued since their TBan was lifted in July, convince me that there is a problem that requires action. I've considered William Harris's suggestion of a short block, but don't see that having the desired effect, whereas last time a TBan was applied, it seems that Normal Op was able to moderate their approach sufficiently to convince people to lift it. I don't know whether issues around animal welfare, vegetarianism and so on raise particularly strong feelings in them, but the civility issues on display in those areas at the threads above do constitute disruption in my view, and justify a reinstatement and expansion of their original TBan; the fact that the issues have spread to discussions about other animal-related matters suggest that it should be broadened. I wish them a speedy recovery from their surgery, and hope that they return to editing in some of the other areas where they have apparently contributed constructively. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban per Girth. This editor appears incapable of having a reasonable disagreement with other editors on the topic of animals or vegetarianism/veganism. The fact they felt the need to coin a new term for them versus "ordinary people" is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support broad T-Ban I have had private email exchanges with five other Wikipedia editors going back 4 months about NormalOp's aggressive editing on articles related to veganism or animal rights, some of these users are too scared to voice this in open space because of a potential future grudge against them from Normal OP but emails could be send to the foundation privately if need be. Many examples could be cited but this user has a history of bullying users who edit articles in relation to animal rights. You can get an example of this at the Regan Russell article. Normal Op submitted the article for deletion [51], the vote was keep and he was not happy about that so he reverted any edits to the article, this user definitely has a WP:OWN problem. Normal OP then went onto the talk-page writing screeds of text and making offensive comments such as Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner. [52] Her stepson has since complained on the talk-page about Normal Ops aggressive editing [53]. I have seen many other incidents like this from this user, he cannot be trusted to edit articles in this field. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia griefing my Talk page.

Nothing left to do here. Emir of Wikipedia has been asked not to edit TheMusicExperimental's talk page, which I am sure they will respect, Guy Macon has accepted TME's apology for raking through their history - let's all move on. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry to bother anyone about this but Emir of Wikipedia continues to edit my Talk page after I've requested that they no longer post at my Talk page. I believe this activity falls under the user space harassment. Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment

It's time-consuming and discouraging to encounter these messages and have to undo them upon logging in and I would like guidance or support in ending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of their edits seem tedious. Like you made a statement about not wanting these messages on your talk 1 and they ignored it to get one more bothersome template in. 2. They made bothersome edits instructing you to archive. 3 4. Also not really sure why Guy Macon needed to involve himself. 5 Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say why Guy Macon felt the need to involve himself, but I can say that a few hours before he placed the OW tag on my Talk page we had this interaction [54] on an Article Talk page we were editing collaboratively. He has also stated in the TfD on OW resulting from this ANI report that the OW tag is to be used against registered editors "who have something to hide." Good Faith requires me to let it slide and, notably, Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my Talk page after I asked him directly to stop. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least ping @Guy Macon: so they are aware. I do not feel too strongly about readding the OW tag, but I think we should remind TheMusicExperimental to assume good faith and not just accuse harassment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]
If someone had put that OW template on my user talk page, I would have been miffed. Not sure why we even have it, as adding to a user talk page is ALWAYS going to be seen in a negative light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: IMO you were harassing them. And you ignored their request to get another trolling edit in at the end. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please

mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was on about Guy Macon. I got them mixed up with JzG who signs their signature with Guy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. E Eng 05:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, they are fully allowed to remove notices from their page unless it's a declined unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add User:Guy Macon to this ANI because after he edited my page and I then asked him to not edit my page he stopped. In my opinion, he was a dink no big deal, I asked him to stop, he did. End of it. In the case of Emir of Wikipedia I asked to Emir of Wikipedia to stop posting to my page but Emir continued to return and post to the page, becoming a nuisance. Continuing to post to my userspace, after being given a direct request to stop is in fact harassment per the way harassment is defined on Wikipedia. This is why one but not the other is included in my ANI. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about pinging Guy was not directed at you, but at Lightburst. I will not restore that OW tag again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless @Emir of Wikipedia: or @Guy Macon: can explain what warning on the talk page fall under "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user" they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that adding that OW tag, absent a diff, is obnoxious.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless @AlmostFrancis: is talking about the OW template itself, (which at the time was listed as being something that cannot be removed by the user) they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that making up rules such as the nonexistent requirement that OW may only be used for deletions of nonremovable warnings is obnoxious. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Comment: I think the dispute arose from if {{ow}} was one of the few things that were not allowed to be removed from user talk pages. Joseph2302 removed the item today as they did not find any discussion about adding the item in the first place; it was first added by Ad Orientem roughly a month ago. This issue had been raised at WP:HD by Guy Macon (WP:HD#Minor infraction) and had seemingly been resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In this edit[55] I wrote "(Please read WP:BLANKING, which says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: [...] The "Old Warnings" {{ow}} template.)"

At the time[56] that was what was in the guideline.

TheMusicExperimental deliberately violated the guideline by removing the tag.[57]

I raised a question at the help desk:[58]

As a result, the prohibition was removed.[59]

If you don't like the existence of the {{ow}} template, then take Template:OW to WP:MfD. Until you get it deleted, please don't criticize other editors for using it as intended. I personally think it is entirely appropriate for any editor who deletes all warnings.

I question the legitimacy of a user who declares that anyone who posts a warning is a troll and forbids all user warnings. I also question the legitimacy of a user tells everyone who posts a warning to stay off their talk page. Wikipedia policy is that warnings can be removed, not that an editor can preemptively forbid any warnings.

That being said, if an editor specifically asks you to not post to their talk page, you should not post to their talk page. If the result of this is an ANI report that starts with "normally I would have warned this user but...", too bad. You brought it on yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section of WP:USER you're citing was added barely a month ago, with no discussion, and an edit summary of "+", tucked into a group of uncontroversial edits. It had no consensus behind it and obviously does not reflect current practice; beyond that, it was patiently absurd - obviously it wouldn't make sense that an editor in a dispute with another could slap a template warning on the other editor's page, then slap {{ow}} on it when it is removed and insist that the template cannot be removed by the user. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that it had been added a month before. And it seemed odd enough that I raised a question about it at the help desk, which resulted in it being removed. Nonetheless, we are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, asking that they be changed if we find them to be "patiently absurd" (patently absurd?) rather than deciding that they don't apply to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are defined by what has consensus, not by what's written on a page; we are required to follow consensus, not to do whatever the most recent edit to a policy page instructs us to do. Therefore, if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice, it's common-sense to glance at the page history to make sure that eg. the page hasn't been vandalized or had some ill-considered addition slapped onto it recently without discussion. Otherwise, what, if I were to add something to a policy page stating that it is against the rules to revert Aquillion's edits, would that have to stay because it is now policy and no one can remove it without contravening it? --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always, without fail, research the consensus discussion behind a policy, or do you, like most people, assume without specifically checking that most written policies reflect consensus? I did check the entire revision history at Template:OW Revision history and saw nothing amiss. I also took a quick look at Wikipedia:User pages: Revision history (I normally do this when citing any policy or guideline just in case it got vandalized a few minutes earlier) but didn't notice any changes in the previous week or so.

You say "if something on a policy page looks ridiculous and plainly doesn't reflect current practice" But it didn't look ridiculous to me and I was not aware of any current practice either way about removing an OW tag. It did look nonenforceable, and I raised a question about that here[60] but I don't see where I did anything wrong. I added a template once, and when it was reverted against policy started asking questions about the policy rather than adding it again. My behavior was completely correct. I did nothing wrong. Even TheMusicExperimental chose not to file a report over one edit to their talk page that was never repeated after they asked me to stop. So please, put the pitchforks down and find another monster to slay. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is Emir of Wikipedia lecturing anyone on archiving their talk page, when they themselves delete warnings without archiving [61]? They should at least add {{ow}} to their own talk page,no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the OW template to MFD. We really need to not be using that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the purpose of {{OW}}. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412 T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, there is a separate template for IPs, {{old IP warnings top}} & {{old IP warnings bottom}}. If they are using this on IP's talk pages, then they have missed the whole point and are using the wrong template, which is another reason to remove this template. I agree that it is useful for IPs, but not registered users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be clearly marked as being only for use on IP pages? The use case for that is obvious, but putting it on the account of a registered user is only ever going to piss them off. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my second choice, but either will work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: WP:TFD § Template:OW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that my requests to both User:Guy Macon and User:Emir of Wikipedia were initially direct to them on their own userspace. See Oct 9 for Emir of Wikipedia [62] and Oct 15 for Guy Macon [63]. I added the note to my Talk page once it was clear that, despite receiving a direct notice that I did not welcome posting from them on my userspace, Emir of Wikipedia continued to post. The message on my Talk page is for future trolls and griefers. Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my talk page and Emir has stated that he's now going to respect my request. Given that, so long as this conversation remains available for use for people in the future to refer to--especially as Emir [64] and Guy Macon[65] have a history of griefing others--my individual needs are satisfied though I remain concerned that Emir and Guy Macon will just move along to grief someone else and thus lower participation in Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance everyone and I'm glad to hear that there is some movement toward deprecating a template that is so often used by editors to attempt to "shame" others. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Emir and Guy Macon have a history of griefing others" is a clear violation on WP:NPA. Making accusations like that without providing evidence is toxic behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not providing any citation for statements to which you are taking offense. I have fixed that above. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I CATEGORICALLY DENY "GRIEFING" ANYONE.

I will repeat what I wrote then:

"In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Fæ with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: 'Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others'. "

"I really did make a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar (plural and singular have meanings) and I am still doing my best to do this in this comment, yet Fæ still decided to fire up the well-used flamethrower. And, it appears, there is a crowd gathering with pitchforks and torches. If you want to sanction a 12-year/45,000-edit veteran editor with a clean block record -- all without any prior warning -- for doing his level best not to offend, go ahead, but please start by quoting the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you believe I violated. This will save time when I go to Arbcom to have the sanction overturned."

TheMusicExperimental, I am not going to stand here and be your personal punching bag. Go find someone else to bully with your bullshit false accusations of "griefing". And yes, I am angry. Angry and deeply hurt. Angry at you for picking a fight with me for no reason when I did nothing wrong. Hurt that nobody here has chosen to address your personal attacks. I am seriously tempted to blank my user pages, scramble my password, and never edit Wikipedia again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment - banning anybody from posting on your talk page for whatever reason, which is what you seem to be doing by your talk page note is effectively just saying that you are not willing to edit collaboratively. This is unhelpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the timeline and reasoning behind why I felt that the statement on my Talk page is necessary. I'm not super committed to it though and seeing as the OW template is getting revisited that's fine. I could certainly revise to include reference to WP:HUSH -- "User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. "

I had encountered both of Emir of Wikipedia and Guy Macon on another article where there were disputes and lengthy confusing passages [66] in the Talk page. My statement specifically notes that conversations about collaborative editing belong on the Talk page of articles in question.

WP:HA begins with a quick definition of the term as it relates to Wikipedia: "Harassment, including . . . repeated annoying and unwanted contact." The opening lines of WP:HUSH are "A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them. . ."

Oct 9 Emir of Wikipedia added a variety of edits [67] [68] [69] to my Talk page, some of which were couched in terms that sound like trying to be helpful but taken altogether I do not believe were sincerely intended to be helpful.

Oct 9, deciding to assume good faith I removed Emir's edits and directly notified [70] Emir that I did not want them to be posting on my Talk page--a clear statement that their contact with me was unwanted.

Oct 15 Guy Macon also posted an unneeded template to my Talk page [71]. Note: aside from the "notice of discretionary sanctions" previously posted by Emir, I had had one other warning from an editor who, previously this year, was confused about copyright for an image and whether the caption was correct, said editor and I worked it out and you can see that in the edit summaries of my Talk page [72]

Oct 15th I notified [73] Guy Macon that contact was unwanted and subsequently Guy Macon has not posted to my Talk page and for that I am exceptionally grateful.

Oct 15th I also created my message to discourage griefers and trolls on my Talk page because, by this time I had two different editors encouraging me to read three different policies (none of which, it turned out, were relevant to my Talk page) and research two templates that had been applied in an attempt to understand what was trying to be communicated to me.

Oct 17, despite being asked directly to not edit my Talk page 8 days prior, Emir of Wikipedia returned to my Talk page to revert my edit with a non-descript edit summary [74].

Oct 17, since I had notified Emir of Wikipedia that their contributions to my userspace were unwelcome but they continued to edit my Talk page, I filed this ANI because the behavior outlined and documented above is counter to the policies regarding Harassment noted above.

Emir of Wikipedia has stated that they won't continue to revert the Old Warnings template and that satisfied my personal needs, but also note that it is less than my request of him which is to not post on my Talk page at all. But I do think the entirety of the situation--posting unnecessary warnings, asking an editor to read a variety of unnecessary policy documents, teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page, in response to this ANI Emir of Wikipedia claims that I should have "assume[d] good faith and not just accuse harassment" even though they had been directly asked to stop posting to my page, Emir above also suggests that they were obligated to edit my userspace--these are all problematic in my opinion and certainly discouraging to deal with as an editor. Dealing with and researching the issues above took time away from making more useful contributions to Wikipedia. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "teaming up with another editor who happens to have forcefully expressed differences with me from a different Talk page" (I haven't had a lot of interaction with Emir of Wikipedia), let's look at the record, shall we?

I posted the following[75][76] bog standard inquiry as to the scope of the White House COVID-19 outbreak outbreak. I commented "This has expanded from people who were in contact with Trump while he was infectious to people who were in contact with Trump after his doctor said he was no longer infectious to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump and caught the virus to people who had contact with people who were in contact with Trump but tested negative."

TheMusicExperimental, in their very first interaction with me, started with an insult.[77]

Now, in an ANI report about their fight with Emir, they accused me of "griefing" without producing any evidence. Later they added a link to a previous dispute with another editor entirely where I had made a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar, and when informed that this was not acceptable, immediately ceased all interaction with that individual so that their insistence on incorrect grammar no longer mattered.

I also had -- and still have -- a legitimate fear that, after the person who was attacking me had previously gone off-wiki and tried to get two individuals who opposed them fired, I would get the same treatment.

Regarding the false and scurrilous accusation that I am somehow "griefing" people over gender issues. I have a long history of supporting LGBTIQ rights. I put in hundreds of hours on the phone banks opposing the Briggs Initiative and 2008 California Proposition 8.

Following the advice of several admins, I have increased my use of the singular they even though I still believe that it is bad English. I am not alone in this view, and holding this view is not in any way "griefing" TheMusicExperimental or anyone else.

Others who share my opinion on the singular they:

"Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing" --Oxford English Dictionary
"And yet since singular they will still annoy many readers, many writers will want to write around the problem... Use singular they in relaxed prose, when you know you're in the company of those who get this right, or if you don't mind annoying a determined and vocal minority." -- The Economist
"The Singular 'They' Must Be Stopped. The misused word is everywhere, proliferating like fruit flies 'round a bowl of rotting bananas. We must stop it before it goes too far." --The Atlantic

There is room for good-faith disagreement regarding Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns -- and I use whatever form someone asks me to use even if I consider it to be incorrect English -- but falsely accusing me of "griefing" with zero evidence to back the accusation up is a personal attack and I am extremely disappointed that ANI has decided to let it slide. This is the sort of false accusation that can ruin a person's reputation and could even cause them to lose their job. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize the situation as a "fight" between Emir of Wikipedia and I. He's been polite throughout, including here in the ANI. However, the reason for this ANI is that I asked him directly and personally to stop posting to my userspace but instead he continued editing my userspace. This isn't a content dispute or some sort of "wikipedia as battleground" thing, it's about what the community standards are regarding harassment, whether it's acceptable for editors to ignore direct communications that indicate less contact is desired for irrelevant matters on an editor's own userspace. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griefing break

Lots of diffs to sort thru,but I think I got it. TheMusicExperimental was adding content to White House COVID-19 outbreak#People who tested positive for COVID-19. Guy Macon came along and criticized that section on the talkpage, possibly not knowing who was editing it. TheMusicExperimental was disappointed with the tone, things got off on the wrong foot, one thing led to another, and here we are. Doesn't everything else stem from the initial talkpage posting? Can we drop everything that happened after that & just focus on that interaction? Seems like both of you may have assumed the worst of the other before even interacting with each other. Or is there more to this that I am missing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I had paid no attention to who had edited what section. I just thought that listing people because they didn't catch coronavirus after contacting someone who had contacted Trump was a real stretch. I still do. --Guy Macon (talk)

For my part, I was responding because Guy Macon was indicating he was about to make changes to the page without gathering consensus due to impatience with not getting a response to his initial text. In my response I was trying, unsuccessfully, to encourage him to be less emotional in his approach and also to provide a specific proposal around which consensus could be built. I was hoping to stem some of the drama [78] which had been building within the talk section and was obviously unsuccessful. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's important to me, in regards this ANI, is that I asked Emir of Wikipedia to stop editing my userspace and then Emir of Wikipedia continued to edit my userspace. Guy Macon's tone etc doesn't bother me especially, though I find it tedious. I specifically did not include him in my ANI because, unlike Emir of Wikipedia, Macon honored my request to stop editing my userspace. It isn't about disagreements on an article talk page etc. It's about whether continuing annoying and unwanted contact on a userspace after being asked to stop is within the community standards. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to ask, then, why not simply talk about Emir not honoring a request to stop posting to your talk page? (Note to Emir: No. Don't do that.) Why go to the extra effort of posting about an unrelated content dispute with me? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of griefing? Why go to the extra effort of dragging up a year-old interaction I had with someone else who appears to have nothing to do with you and which was settled to the satisfaction of everyone concerned when it happened? Why go to the extra effort of accusing me of somehow colluding with Emir -- an editor who I have seen around but don't remember ever interacting with?

I would really like an explanation for your behavior. This should have been an open-and-shut case; you report unwanted posts to your talk page, a couple of admins say "don't do that", Emir apologizes and promises to never do it again, case closed. Why pick a fight with me starting with your very first "It's just difficult to engage with you Guy because you get so cranky whenever you post something. No one wants to hurt your feelings is all" interaction with me? Can you not see how insulting a demeaning that was? I think you owe me an apology. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you Guy Macon. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheMusicExperimental, thanks for doing that - I wish a lot more people would be willing to make an actual, up-front apology on this page. I'll leave it to Guy Macon to indicate whether he is satisfied with that, but can I ask you whether you're satisfied with the responses here or are you looking for any further action at this point? You've requested that Emir stay off your talk, I'm sure they will respect that (users are generally expected to respect requests like that, it would be frowned upon if they didn't). Is there anything else you want from this thread, or would you be satisfied with its closure? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to accept the above apology and unwatch this page, then I saw that, two hours after posting the above, TheMusicExperimental again posted a link to a previous conflict that had nothing to do with them and which resulted in no sanctions.[79] None of this has anything to do with any thing Emir did so why go to the extra effort of attacking me yet again? How do I get this behavior to stop?

Before this is closed, I request a repeat of the above apology combined with a commitment to stop talking about me and to stop digging through my edit history and posting links to unrelated accusations that resulted in no sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, ah - yes, that was a strange thing for them to have done. TheMusicExperiment, would you care to address Guy's point? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) sorry, botched ping TheMusicExperimental GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Girth Summit, after posting my apology to Guy Macon I noticed his undated response to Bison X in which Bison X asks for information about the nature of the interaction that occurred several hours before Guy Macon posted an OW on my userspace. In light of Guy Macon's response, I felt that Bison X was not asking hypothetically and that I should provide an answer. I provided additional context because in previous interactions Guy Macon has asked for things to be specifically noted or backed up. The drama that was occurring on that page was material to the reason I attempted to engage with Guy Macon in the first place. It's become very clear that I have no idea how to respond in a way that is satisfactory to Macon and I certainly won't seek out any further interaction with him. As to whether I'm satisfied with results so far, the truth would be I'm mostly exhausted by it. Emir of Wikipedia has agreed to refrain from reverting the OW tag on my page which seems the absolute smallest available gesture, not even honoring my request which was to refrain from posting on my Talk page. You note in parenthesis above that it is frowned upon to not honor such a request. It is the not honoring of that request which caused me to file an ANI. If this is the community standard on harassment then I have obtained what experience I can from this ANI and can move on to more productive things more the wiser. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like very much to exclude myself from the narrative that is now taking place again apparently back at the Talk page [80] in question. I would be very happy to see no notifications or interaction with Guy Macon, especially in Articles which I have already abandoned due to interactions with him. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Edited 18:41, 21 October 2020 [reply]

I accept the apology and support a speedy close. Please let it end here. I encourage TheMusicExperimental to only talk about article content without commenting on other editors. If I see any further disparaging comments about me from TheMusicExperimental I will file an ANI report for harassment and we can discuss the issue there. I advise TheMusicExperimental to drop the WP:STICK, stop replying, and wait for this to be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, thanks for that.

TheMusicExperimental, I'm sorry you feel exhausted by this process. All I can say is that the purpose of this board is to stop on-going disruption. Emir has not posted on your talk since this thread started, and they have been told by more than one person that it isn't on for them to do so, and I doubt that they will do so again - if they do, you can come back here, and they will need to explain why they have chosen to ignore that request, but I very much doubt that they will, and for now the disruption has stopped. I'm going to close this thread now, as I believe all the substantive matters have been dealt with; please do go back to doing something more enjoyable. Cheers all GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive

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

Note: User name changed after ANI opened

New userlinks: MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have asked the user again to explain their edits, but it seems they have ignored as rather than explaining they again claimed something without providing any source. It's now out of control and quite frustrating to deal with such editing behaviour, my request to any admin please take the necessary actions, it seems the user is highly incompetent. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite coordination of harassment against two audio engineer–producers

A wide variety of IPs and new users have been attacking the BLPs Kenny Beats and Alex Tumay, a record producer and an audio engineer. The harassment is likely from social media coordination. Both bios were protected for a couple of days, but that seems woefully insufficient to me. Can we permanently protect the two BLPs from new users? Below is a list of harassment IPs and new users. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KNNY808! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Pryor4x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Camige1210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Cruise11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
99.238.114.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2A01:4C8:C63:2760:397A:58D9:99E1:C141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
65.78.155.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
174.17.172.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2804:26EC:ABAB:29DC:61B3:88EA:8DA8:FFC2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2604:2000:1383:9C9:588B:4DD6:4FBC:2868 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2405:201:A404:D0CB:E8D1:4B6F:48BF:32E2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
68.149.122.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
45.72.243.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2600:1700:A6E0:6DB0:BCCC:3EDB:7DC6:A31A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2601:5CB:4000:90F0:2191:132E:B788:1A5A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
108.49.145.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
201.231.60.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Binksternet, protection is for 3 months, so no rush. You could ask Drmies to extend it? It feels a bit like wheel-warring for someone else to. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three months might – just maybe – make the trolls look somewhere else for their fun. I'll be back in January otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, it's remarkably lame. Let's hope they discover porn or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Eggzackly. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG - Why would that be wheel warring? :-) Wheel warring occurs when an an admin reverses or completely undoes the admin actions instated by another admin because they disagree with the action (or for a similar reason), then another (or the previous admin) re-instates the original admin action that was completely reversed because they disagree with the reversal. Example: I block User:Troll. Another admin removes the block, stating that it was "unnecessary". I'd be wheel warring if I (or another involved admin) were to go in and put that original block back saying "no it wasn't!" Extending a page protection, block, or making modification to an action after legitimate discussion or after evidence is presented later doesn't constitute a wheel war. Sure, when it doubt, always discuss things with the admin first just to be sure. Wheel warring is like edit warring; it's the repeated reversion of one's admin actions back-and-forth (in lieu of discussion) that makes it such. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, it just feels wrong to change a recently imposed protection when the protection itself has months to run - there's plenty of time for Drmies to do the needful. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG - Hey, fair enough. ;-) Like I said, I commend you for being cautious and for knocking on the admin's door before acting. Just don't be afraid to do what's right. :-) BTW, long time no chat. Hope you're doing well! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, normal for 2020 :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Draft:Blazercore be nuked? It's the term that these IPs keep trying to insert. The editors of that page are:

Kazoworld (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ImNotZake (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and they have not edited anywhere else. And

Nah'Sun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

also seems to be involved in that activity (Talk:Kenny Beats). DMacks (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Draft:Blazercore as an attack page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq - Good call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that the users Kazoworld and ImNotZake were created only within a few hours of one another.... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies had already blocked some of the accounts listed above as NOTHERE, and I just blocked the others. I haven't done anything with the IPs. Anyone noticing activity is welcome to post here or contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the audio engineer on my watch list. (Full disclosure: I am among other things an audio engineer myself, but the kind who designs the audio equipment at the factory, not the kind who uses it). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User TemplatePeterBaldwin

(non-admin closure) Blocked indefinitely. Dark knight 2149 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I noticed this user today making List of SubGenii (members of the Church of the SubGenius), which suggests that several notable people are members of the organization, without any sourcing. Those claims fail verification. Looking at their userpage, I see a wide array of warnings and other editing issues - copyright violations, inappropriate categories, inappropriately source BLP articles, removing AFD tags, etc. Their talk page edits have, well, been like this. I think that some form of block is necessary at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have reacted to this thread by making high-speed edits with "Replaced content with 'Fuck you!'". So they'll get blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account indefinitely. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the f-u edit summaries from the children's articles [81][82] be revdel'd? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Being a children's article should have nothing to do with it, but it appears they've already be revdeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I viewed it as Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project, but Marchjuly is correct that I have no policy-based rationale for allowing the nature of the articles to influence my decision. Any admin should feel free to undo my revdel if they feel I've overstepped. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good RD3 imo, purely disruptive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen edits by this user pop up on my watchlist from time-to-time, and they were often quite odd new categories, but didn't think much more of it at the time. But seeing their talkpage shows a bigger issue of WP:CIR, but they've gone down the suicide by cop route instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit Wars

(non-admin closure) 72 hour block by Kinu, per WP:BOOMERANG. Dark knight 2149 03:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Greyjoy has been fighting with me reverting the changes I've made without consulting anyone in the Free Rider Community (Free Rider HD Wiki). I have been reverting his changes in hopes he would take a hint. I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculus-dev (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a pretty obvious WP:BOOMERANG. I've issued a 72-hour block to User:Calculus-dev for edit warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is fairly obvious that Calculus-dev (talk · contribs) is a sock account that took part in the same edit war over the same issue in parallel with Kanvo2 (talk · contribs). 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why has the sock account only got a 72 hour block when the master is indeffed? This allows the master to evade his block tomorrow. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist:Should Calculus-dev be indeffed? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks (threats)

(non-admin closure) Rangeblocked sitewide for six months by Ivanvector for persistent abuse. Applicable revdels have been carried out. Dark knight 2149 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

On October 10 of this year, after I reverted vandal's edits on The Meaning of Love (album), I received a message from this anonymous users, then I found disruptive messages on my talk page. It became war following then first one. One of the messages that they did, said they will kill/hunt me. I placed some rules on my talk page before it happened. It has been reverted, and the revisions are removed from the public archives by Oshwah.

Also, they made some disruptive messages to the talk pages of Minorax and Nick Moyes, and the user, 86.187.172.249, vandalized the article Isko Moreno, claimed that I masturbated on him daily, but in real life, it did not happen because its illegal.---Rdp060707 (Talk/My fight against the devil/contributions) 12:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's IP range (86.187.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) is full of abuse, and is already parblocked from several articles. I've blocked sitewide for six months. As you mentioned, the offensive revisions have already been deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent disruption at WP:BLP Jacqueline Jossa

(non-admin closure) Blocked indefinitely for disruption. IPs also blocked. Dark knight 2149 03:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crystal3003 (talk · contribs) appears to have a long term issue with the subject's marriage, and removes sourced content because they don't like it; [83]; [84]; [85]; [86]; [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]; [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]. Account was temporarily blocked for this [98]. Sources for name change include [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]. For the record, I'm not terribly invested in the name change, but it was dutifully covered by the tabloids, and the determination to remove it looks disruptive. I'm also wondering if there's a connection to blocked account 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), whose edits are only accessible to administrators. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed Crystal3003 from editing that page. Was minded to add a 1 week block for edit warring but it seems that doing so will override that block. Need to sort this out at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mjroots. This is further block evasion. Please add 86.4.62.141 (talk · contribs) to the block list, check the connection to blocked IP 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), rev/delete WP:BLP violations and protect the article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Annoying Generation Z Page Edit War

After review of the situation, OP blocked for disruptive editing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agrso has continuously deleted "date rage" information on the Generation Z page for the last few days with the narrative that they want the generation's starting date to be 1995. They keep deleting information that was originally put on the page months ago, and has accused Me of adding it (history of the page shows this is untrue) and "starting an edit war" when in reality this person is the one who keeps vandalizing their page with biased views. They then keep saying a reputable source is "an American think tank and is unreliable" then continuously acts like the victim in this situation.--Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Zillennial: By policy and the notice that appears when editing here, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Have you gone to the edit warring noticeboard beforehand? (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 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ---- Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Zillennial, you need to supply "diffs" (that is, links to edits) to support your claim or it's unlikely to get much attention. Don't force other editors search for evidence to back up your argument because few will. Look at other cases on this page to see how things are done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policy link: WP:DIFF. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sematz

Blocked indef. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sematz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has made a number of disruptive edits ([103] [104] [105] [106] [107]) with regard to WP:NPOV and removed content without sufficient explanation. User has been warned numerous times by me and another user about this on his talk page [108] without response or change in behavior. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Distruptive editing of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and its talk page

I see that there a lot edit requests that unnecessary need in Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory because i see there are more a lot of repetitive arguments being posted, and edit warring over applications of WP:NOTFORUM. And also i see there are more edit warring at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory that is a evidence that 1RR needs to be imposed. Can admins have arguments of this, because there are becoming more edit warring in that main article and its talk page, therefore, the main article doesn't even have 1RR due to controversial issues. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've copy-pasted part of my rationale for semi-protecting the talk page at WP:RFPP. I think the main article is fine at the moment, and it certainly has enough eyes on it that we can up the protection or page restrictions if need be. ST47 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been active at that page and talk page over the past few days and I agree with ST47 that additional restrictions on the page itself don't seem necessary. It's already under ECP and that seems to be working a treat. I don't even know if there are any reverts since ECP was applied that would've been prevented by 1RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe it is not enough to suppress the distruptive behavior because this article is not under 1RR. I agree that ECP is needed but for me 1RR seems to be necessary to this article because how controversial that the content is, and I also invoking WP:ARBEE because I see the topic was related to an Eastern Europe country. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 1RR needed when there hasn't been an issue with reverts? Or are you saying 1RR should be applied to the article talk page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What disruptive behavior? Can you be more specific and/or present some diffs? Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under ECP and its talk page is semiprotected. Hunter Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under full protection and its talk page is semiprotected. All pages are subject to repeat requests that indicate failure to read the posted FAQs or any prior discussions, and there are filter hits and posts that indicate serious issues (e.g. one filter hit promoting the "fact" that an anonymous "parents' group" somehow validates Pizzagate and that this is now established fact, unlike the "Russia hoax"). It wouldn't hurt at all for more admins to watch those pages and potentially curate the talk pages to focus more tightly on the content questions rather than endless discussions of why mainstream reports are considered more credible than the New York Post. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, In my opinion, these protections needs to become indefinitely for main article, at least it becoming semi-protected for both because how controversial topic are this despite there not even under 1RR. But for me, invoking additional Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions for Biden-Ukraine article is more necessary for me because a topic about Biden is a conspiracy theory with a Eastern European country like Ukraine. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP problems...

Especially concerning pre-1999 PBS-related articles. They inexplicably change PBS to PBS Kids, Children's Television Workshop to Sesame Workshop, etc. Here are some examples of articles these IPs hit:

1968 in television

1969 in television

1983 in television

1992 in American television

1995 in American television

Joan Ganz Cooney

Sheryl Leach

Christmas Eve on Sesame Street

Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird

And the list goes on. All of these articles need to be protected for a long period of time against these IP vandals.

Oh, and here are some of the vandals in question:

98.186.217.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

98.186.219.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

DawgDeputy (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 98.186.219.166 for three days. The other IP has not been active recently. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will be enough, but DawgDeputy, if they turn up after their block expires, or they show up at yet another IP address, please file a new report reporting all known IP addresses so we can calculate a rangeblock. The current range is 98.186.216.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but if it needs to be larger any additional IP addresses you come across will allow us to determine that. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same abuse has come from at least three additional IPs, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f8f7:8227:f581:51e4, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f079:8bb9:6c0d:be1c, and 98.186.218.243, with only the last one possibly covered by the range block. Page protection would be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, in the hour since I posted that, 2600:8800:3100:d33:41d0:c16a:6cc5:b7cd has popped up to do the same stuff. I find the refusal at RPP to protect these pages unfathomable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a good candidate for the edit filter? -- Luk ^talk 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just protected the articles in the list above that have recently been edited in the same way in the last few days. Another admin has blocked 2600:8800:3100:d33::/64 until 22 November 2020 and the most recent IP in 98.186.216.0/22 was blocked by me until 25 October 2020. As I wrote here and at WP:PROT, let me know if there are further problems. There should be a brief explanation of the problem at Talk:Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird—something that would enable an onlooker with no knowledge of the topic to see that the IP edits are disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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[109] includes an F-bomb in the edit summary.

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

Oct 2019: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa – Tisquesusa blocked.for 72 hours by Cullen328
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[110]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Davey2010

Abusive language and personal attack. [111] AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which way did your comment help anyone ?, You pinged me and proceeded to poke me, Go do something useful that doesn't involve pissing me off. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know trains are a passionate subject, but maybe...chillax? Davey, dunno why you had to remove Algae's comment, it didn't meet any criteria or reason for removal in the WP:TPG. And you were unnecessarily acrid about it. I think Algae was responding in good faith, although Algae: you could have clarified your statement instead of making just a passive aggressive "you're wrong", you could have clarified "heres my interpretation". @Davey2010: Please stop removing AG's comment tho, if you keep it up I'll have to block you and that would not be fun for either of us. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained fully why I did, What a circus this project has become!, I'm here to improve articles for our readers - Not to be poked by some sad child with absolutely fuck all else better to do!, Oh well, I'm done here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Little late for this now as the claimee has participated, but AlgaeGraphix, in the future you must notify the user whom you are bringing to ANI on their talk page as dictated by policy and the editnotices that popped up when making a new thread here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu, when the person reported replies to the report a minute after the report was posted, the notification is moot. There is literally no reason to burden the servers with a notification edit if the person to be notified is already participating. Policy doesn't "dictate" notifications in such circumstances, nor does policy dictate anything, because of the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Le v!v ich 20:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I only let them know as I was under the impression that with the degree of action that can be enforced here, impropriety could potentially be seen as a technicality to dismiss. I'll take that under advisement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 48 hours. Any admin can unblock once they're assured of Davey2010's willingness to work collaboratively. – bradv🍁 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu and Levivich: I fully intended to notify Davey2010 and do a proper ANI complaint (especially as it appeared as if he was about to launch into a full-blown edit war), but real life interrupted. And FWIW, I've been editing train articles (albeit with more emphasis on diagrams) probably just as long as Davey2010. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout. AlgaeGraphix, no worries. It was just me jumping the gun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout here, too, re-reading my earlier message. Sorry, Tenryuu, in a twist of Muphry's Law, I was way too pedantic while complaining about pedantry. Le v!v ich 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, all good. I think everyone here was just trying to make sure the reporting process went well so that the case could be investigated without any technical hiccups. :) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Seriously, I am watching nasty trash talk on my watchlist go on and on. Can an admin intervene there and sort it out. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the above. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv has beat me to the block. I agree, time for a cool down, this is absurd. Continuing to spew personal attacks, at multiple editors, after being dragged to ANI. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, hopefully he will cool down. Go for a walk through the tree's in a nice peaceful environment. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear, the purpose of this block is to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, not to convince someone to go for a walk. Cool-down blocks are discouraged by policy. – bradv🍁 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And peace by with you Mr Bradv.

Govvy (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT defending Davey's reaction or personal attacks, and am NOT criticizing the block, and am NOT criticizing AG for coming here. But, just as food for thought, when Davey removed the comment the first time (and subsequent times), he'd obviously read it. Whatever benefit AG intended it to have, it obviously wasn't having the desired effect. Was it necessary for everyone to re-add it? To be honest, if I were in AG's shoes, I'd have probably re-added it too, as my reptilian brain would instinctively react to being insulted and reverted. But just a thought that, as an outside observer who was not the target of the unacceptable attacks, there is a tremendous benefit to the encyclopedia in people treating others more graciously than the others are treating them, even when not really deserved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I think about it, is was kind of an unhelpful message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: As a member of the group "everyone" if you have been nice to ping me of your concerns of my actions? Per WP:TPO should people's go around removing comments from talk page discussions, especially when having an opposing view. The standard practice when I do something incomprehensible is to leave a little comment questioning my thought pattern, not to remove the entire thing. To state the relatively obvious I was drawn by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains being on my talk page and noting the inappropriate action determined to intervene. You may consider my warning [112] was likely to result for a block for Davey2010 but my reading of Template:Uw-3RR indicated it was technically correct.02:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) [reply]
Intervening is not always the right choice though...you warned the guy after he'd already been dragged over here and acknowledged it, it shouldn't be hard to see how that might inflame the situation with someone who was clearly feeling prickly for whatever reason already. This is one of the times where following the letter of the law isn't necessarily the best way to de-escalate the situation. Just sort of something to keep in mind in the future I guess, obviously this one has ended poorly. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wicked Twisted Road: Not intervening to challenge the behaviour on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would not have been a correct thing to do? Yes I did that at 19:30, 3 mins after it was raised at ANI [113] (which I did not spot); but there is some concern Davey2010's purpose may have been to get AG blocked so I would not have wanted AG to have done a 3rd reversion. And removal of opposing comments from a talk discussion is a pretty serious matter ... let also the "Fuck off prick." comment in the summary on the original reversion by Davey. Davey reverting me at 19:35[114] with the comment "We can all have a friendly discussion without the childish poking, If AG has nothing of value to add then they can simply move on elsewhere." which was after Davey was aware of the ANI (which I was not) basically meant further action. At 19:42 Captain Eek reverted Trains&oldid=984901056 984899983 and in the same minute I issued a Template:Uw-3rr warning (I think I recall seeing Captain Eek's contribution just before mine but on balance determined Template:Uw-3rr reasonable at the time. (Re-reading Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors having read part one of "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a Template:Uw-3rr template message on their user talk page." without reading the follow on sentence ". Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." ). In retrospect therefore I apologise for my post at [115] which should not have been a template (a learn point for me there); this perhaps leading to Davey's reversion [116] with the comment "Fuck off troll" which likely contributed to the block. As it happens I was unaware at the time I had !voted at the RFC in question at WikiProject trains, subsequently re-reading the discussion somewhat later yesterday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early unblock?

Regardless of the incident I am most pleased to see Davey2010's considered response on their talk page and per Bradv's reasoning I think I would be supportive consideration of an early unblock as further disruption seems unlikely (touch wood). It looks like a little "flying off the handle" and perhaps reading a little more into something than was meant ... and I think I'm seeing a lot of goodwill wanting to wish Davey2010 back.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"flying off the handle" - c'mon, you could have at least said "going off the rails..." <groan> But on a serious note, Davey seems quite upbeat and sincere on his talkpage. This time tomorrow, the block will have gone no matter what. We all have our off days. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I flipped the frick right off my rocker just yesterday. Now I'm self-relegated to topics starting with vowels and numerals for two weeks. No lights, no music. Just ANGER! But since it's not forever, I'm already feeling better. Good luck, Davey! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who can believe you? Le v!v ich 23:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the admins are aware of this, but this is not the first, nor second time Davey2010 has been brought to ANI because of his swearing. AshMusique (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 is a longtime editor and I think most admins who would frequent this page are aware that he has been brought here before on complaints. This was a short block and I believe it was judged to have served its purpose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. Davey2010 is unblocked, and has committed to working collaboratively. As a final note to both him and AlgaeGraphix – you are both interested in working in the same area, and that collaboration will work infinitely better if you're able to communicate. You certainly don't need to agree – some of our best content is written by people who disagree – but you do need to be able to talk to each other. I hope you can both put this little spat behind you and get back on track. And with that final low-effort pun, this thread can probably be closed. – bradv🍁 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and battleground behavior from Wikieditor19920

I'm not asking for any serious action here, just for an uninvolved editor to give Wikieditor19920 a reminder about civility and not engaging in battleground behavior.

At this contentious article's talk page Wikieditor19920 has been seriously WP:bludgeoning the process at an RfC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_%22journalist%22

And their comments throughout the talkpage are uncivil. Accusations of edit warring where none has occurred, repeatedly accusing a number of editors of WP:STONEWALLING, frequently accusing other editors of bias, declaring editors votes at RfC as "irrelevant vote"'s a brief look over the page even just recent discussion will demonstrate their lack of civility, making collaboration very tense and difficult. They've been asked to tone it down repeatedly, to no avail. I'm hoping a word about civility form an uninvolved and experienced editor might help calm the incivility of this discourse down some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

As you can see at their talk page, they've been having issues with other editors at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920

Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a needless escalation of an editorial disagreement. I've been completely civil with @Bacondrum:, who has been itching to come to ANI[117][118][119] following a few content disputes. I think that certain content disagreements at this page have become heated on all sides. The page is about a political controversial figure, and BLP and WP:FORUM remarks (frankly, including from Bacondrum) have been a concern. Bacondrum suggests, among other things taken out of context, that I accused them of bias. Their first comment at the talk page was basically a diatribe calling the subject the very definition of a hack writer.

It's unfortunate that Bacondrum has sought to escalate these disagreements with ANI threats (and now an actual ANI thread) and taking select remarks out of context. I actually agreed with some of Bacon's recent proposals to the page, and was disappointed when they went further than what was suggested and introduced factual inaccuracies and language of questionable neutrality. These can be hashed out, but Bacondrum should consider responding to valid critiques at the talk page rather than taking it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors (including me and anyone else they disagree with) of bludgeoning [120][121][122][123][124] and suggested another editor was whinging at an unrelated page. No one, including me or anyone else, has made similar accusations against Bacondrum in response. Maybe a reminder to Bacondrum is in order as to why these kinds of accusations are not conducive to civil content discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into WP:FORUM-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his he is the very definition of a hack writer is a great example of what I'm referring to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point exactly was that large amounts of the arguing on the RfC could be removed with no loss of useful content. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920 has a bit more than 7,000 edits, and a quarter of them are to three topics: two Muslim women and an Islamophobic activist. His edits abnd comments on Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and talk are often problematic and fail to gain consensus, and his edits and comments on neo-fascist apologist Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are always supportive. This is not a good look. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I don't know that those measurements are accurate. But my edits at Linda Sarsour, which is presumably one of the pages JzG is referring to, brought the page to GA status. I helped write the lead at Ilhan Omar, which included the first paragraph about her electoral firsts. I was on the side of some changes that gained consensus on that page, and others that didn't.

The casualness with which JzG throws around terms like "neo-fascist apologist" about the subject of a BLP (none of the high-quality sources about the subject, including the WaPo and NYT, use this language) and suggests some sort of "problematic" pattern on my part because I edit controversial pages in AmPol is both outrageous and a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. This is precisely the kind of disruptive pot-stirring that has occurred repeatedly at Andy Ngo, with good help from JzG with comments like these. [125][126][127]. I also almost missed this: it is ridiculous to characterize my comments as "supportive" of the subject, for suggesting that we don't turn the WP page into another arm of Reddit to bash the subject and follow BLP for mainpage content.

I'll agree to being more dispassionate in my talk page contributions, but frankly there are general and persistent problems at that page with how users are treating it and I think everyone could use a "reminder." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, they are accurate. Ngo's apologia for neo-fascists is in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article state anything about "neo-fascists?" I don't even want to get into this. It's so silly.

The subject is obviously highly controversial. Maybe for good reason. That doesn't mean we throw WP:V and WP:BLP out the window. Bacondrum's latest edits did just that by stating allegations in Wikivoice and suggesting he leveled fabricated accusations, neither of which are true (see BD's last edits here). I and another editor took issue with these changes, and suddenly we're at ANI. Bacondrum could've consulted me on my talk page rather than threatening ANI on the article talk page repeatedly and making accusations of "bludgeoning." Better yet, he could've simply responded to my contents criticisms in a non-personal way. But regardless, I will happily do my part to make it a more civil discussion if BD is willing to do the same. But the comments like the ones I raised issue with above have to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, yes I have behaved badly in the past and I endeavour to do better. I’ve not been eager to come here, I’ve been trying to avoid it, giving you lots of opportunities to calm everything down and have a civil discussion. I’m not asking for sanctions or anything of the sort, just for you to be civil during the debate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I have also been trying to edit that same article and in general I think of Wikieditor as a civil POV pusher. They revert any edits that reflect poorly on the subject of the page and often make spurious accusations of violating Wikipedia's BLP policy for putting any negative content about the subject of the article no matter how well sourced. I also caught them WP:FORUMSHOPPING on a recent RfC I made to push past their dominance of the article: they tried to go to the BLP noticeboard when it became clear the RfC wasn't going their way. Loki (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Congratulations on your incredible sleuth work on "catching me forum shopping" at BLPN, but maybe you didn't notice that I posted a notice about the BLPN thread on the Andy Ngo talk page. This is a user who suggested that a thread going a way they disagreed with is being "warped by POV pushers," and they make similar accusations here. The lead, which I helped write, dedicates three paragraphs to controversies and potentially negative information, so what you are suggesting about me "removing all negative content" "no matter how well sourced" is provably false. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Wikieditor19920 a fairly sharp warning on their page about bludgeoning discussions, specifically the Andy Ngo RFC. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, I hope that takes some of the heat out of discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123

User:John B123 is a regular new page patroller, a largely-unthanked but important task in which most of his edits are constructive. However, in this he has two bad habits that combine badly: he likes to patrol from the new end of the queue, and he likes to draftify articles. Wikipedia:Drafts clearly requires that new articles only be draftified when there is "no evidence of active improvement". I asked for clarification about this a couple weeks ago on Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draftification: How active is active? and the consensus of responses there was that "substantive edits in the last couple of days" would be enough to disqualify draftification. John B123 regularly draftifies articles for which the most recent edit was much more recent, less than an hour before draftification.

This behavior first came to my attention when John moved a new article Danzer's configuration to Draft:Danzer's configuration; if I remember correctly, I was automatically alerted to this because it happened to link to another article I had created. As draftified, the new article was not obviously promotional, had one published reliable source, and had two edits (including its creation) within the hour previous to its draftification, with an edit summary promising more activity (references plural, and figures, promised to come). Many more edits followed soon after draftification. Investigating I found an even more egregious example, Ramón Mellado Parsons, which John had draftified after a pattern of 14 edits over 1.5 hours previous to draftification, the most recent one of which was three minutes prior to draftification. Since then, the pattern has continued, and I was alerted to it again today when I was pinged to User talk:Gumshoe2 over the draftification of Draft:C. Robin Graham (obviously notable per WP:PROF#C3 with one reliable source for that claim included in the article as of its draftification). As I write this, there are 73 draftifications just in October listed in User:John B123/Draftify log, among which I looked more carefully at the history of the first 20. ALL were draftified less than 24 hours after article creation, and 70% of them were draftified within an hour of their most recent edit. (One was later deleted as a copyvio, not noticed by John.)

When I asked John politely on his user talk to justify the speedy draftification of Danzer's configuration, he was unapologetic and defiant, and the discussion soon became testy, and laden with bad-faith assumptions on John's part and (I admit) some intemperate language on my own. Eventually it reached the point where John asked me to stay away from his talk page and find other admins if I ever thought administrative action would be warranted. So, I am taking this here to ANI, where other admins may be found and may take action. My own opinion on what action to take is that it would probably suffice to topic-ban John from draftifying articles within 24 hours of their creation. I don't think removal of his (recently granted) page-move privileges or other stronger sanctions are warranted at this time, but I do think something needs to be done to put this WP:BITEy behavior in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the previous conversation User talk:John B123/Archive 15#Draftification requires no evidence of active improvement is somewhat different how it is described above, so I would ask others to read and form their own opinions. I feel the draftification of C. Robin Graham was justified as per the edit summary: Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Notability isn't the criteria for draftification, an article can be notable but not yet ready for mainspace. I would note (after being moved back to mainspace) that from the edit summary [128] another patroller considered the article should be in draft. --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any input on the general topic at hand but your comment "When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button at the top of the page" about C. Robin Graham on my talk page suggested to me that notability was the reason for your drafting, and is why I moved the page back. (as per my and David Eppstein's comments on y talk page) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A careful reading of this comment indicates a more serious problem: the general notability guideline is the wrong notability guideline for this article. Anyway, we can quibble over judgements of notability but John's response here completely fails to address the actual reason for bringing this here, the timing of his draftifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I would also have a hard time not doing something about it (presumably, draftification) if I happened upon gems like Draft:JDS_Azuma or Draft:Parliament_Election_Maharshtra_2019 in the queue. At the same time, there is an obligation of extending some benefit of doubt to the creator and giving them an opportunity to turn this into something we would not be embarassed to have in mainspace. I would suggest just not patrolling from the red-hot end of the queue, thus avoiding both the itch to somehow clean that stuff up right now, and allowing a minimum of AGF to the author. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these points are reasonable - there are new articles where, so long as we were 2 hours in (in case they were just dropping stuff in), I'd be very concerned about not acting right then. However, in the large majority of cases, a relatively actively improving (if still poor) page can be left unpatrolled but undraftified, certainly on the timescale proposed. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the opening post, I patrol at both the front and back of the NPP. Patrolling at the front is necessary as a first line against copyvio, COI, attack pages etc. It also helps cut down on messages on NPP's talk page along the lines of "the article I created yesterday hasn't been reviewed yet, can you review it". Patrolling at the back of the queue is obviously important too. As per the previous conversation, there are no guidelines or recommendations that NP patrolling should be from the back of the queue.

To put the figures that have been put forward into perspective, during the period of 70 articles sent to draft, I made about 3,500 new page reviews. The percentage sent to draft is a small. I don't know how this compares to other patrollers, but suspect it is more than those who patrol mainly at the back of the queue (where articles that should/could be sent to draft have already been weeded out) but less than those only patrolling the newest articles.

Contrary to what is being suggested, I try not send articles to draft. In the same period, I tagged 131 articles with {{unreferenced}} instead of sending to draft. I haven't bothered to count the number of longer articles with only 1 ref that I've tagged {{refimprove}} rather than draftify in that period.

When I was granted page mover rights is irrelevant. It was suggested to me that I should apply for these rights to save others from having to delete redirects left behind. To try and make out that I've been given a new toy and am overusing it is unjust, and also factually incorrect.

As for not addressing the underlying issue, I have deliberately avoided that to try and avoid this conversation degenerating as it did on my talk page. My patience is growing thin though, as this is the third place the same conversation has been brought up. --John B123 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of long-winded "I do lots of other stuff and deliberately refuse to talk about the timing of my draftifications" is exactly what I meant when I wrote "unapologetic and defiant" above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bow out of this now, as it's heading towards points scoring rather than discussion as the last discussion did. If somebody could inform me of the outcome I'd appreciate that. --John B123 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the difficulty with encountering an article that is a) in a crap state and b) suitable for draftification (e.g. notable subject but zero usable refs) - and then having to pass up sorting it out because it is also c) freshly created. It feels like just ignoring a problem in the making, and let's face it, in many cases all that AGF is actually wasted... if the guy who created Draft:JDS Azuma was thinking about turning this into something viable before next Michaelmas, I'll eat a battlecruiser. My solution to keeping a hand in while avoiding to step on the toes of those who are intending to improve their article, has been a little bookmarks folder where I push all those cases. I check it every few days, and if the thing has not improved or otherwise been dealt with over that period, to draft it goes. It's a little clumsy but works. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish that editors would follow the instruction at WP:Drafts#Requirements for page movers: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD". This is something that should be done automatically, not something that anyone should argue about. I have seen this being ignored by several new-page patrollers, so maybe it should be made more explicit, but I can't for the life of me see how it could be any more explicit than it already is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil, unhelpful input from two different New Zealand administrators

NAC: OP Teelosdomain blocked indefinitely. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was first alerted to an issue with the page Tova_O'Brien from an external source showing vandalism on the page. The vandalism was written in a way that wasn't obvious, but definitely against WP:NPOV. As I did not have anything to replace the biased opinion with, I replaced it with something... slightly more neutral. And then proceeded to create a section on the talk page suggesting that someone more experienced in the area should rewrite the section in a WP:NPOV way or just consider deleting that entire sentence.

Following that, two different administrators have jumped into the discussion. Gadfium and Schwede66. Rather than engaging in good faith, these administrators have simply attacked me and ignored the issue I raised. I propose that these administrators have a conflict of interest on the issue and do not want to address the issue because of the COI, and are choosing to deflect from the issue by attacking me instead. These administrators wish for the biased statement to remain on the page because of their COI, and are shutting down discussion against it by attacking me. If these administrators cannot engage in an issue in good faith then they should stay out of it completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teelosdomain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teelosdomain, the vandalism has been fixed properly in the article, and was fixed before the article was protected. Your edit was as inappropriate as what it replaced. The two admins pointed that out to you, to which you made a hostile response. I don't think there's anything more to be done on the matter. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two admins responded to me in an unnecessary hostile way, to which I responded to them in kind. If they can't handle hostility then they shouldn't be commenting to me in a hostile way in the first place. The article still contains a version that violates WP:NPOV and the administrators refuse to recognise, or even discuss that. All they are doing is deflecting from the problem by citing an irrelevant issue.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teelosdomain, I don't see an NPOV issue but I'm not familiar with the topic. On Talk:Tova O'Brien, please describe the problem you see (with reliable sources, if appropriate), so editors can look at the issue. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I am raising here on ANI is not about the existence of NPOV content on the page. That is for other editors to debate and decide. The issue is that when I tried to propose that there is potential for WP:NPOV, the two administrators attacked me in a hostile way for it. All I had done was replaced vandalism with other vandalism. I raised the issue on the talk page before the article had been corrected to be slightly more neutral. As I said, don't bring up my hostile response. If the administrators can't handle a hostile attack from me, then they shouldn't have initiated with their own hostile attacks.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the page with this edit. This is unacceptable and was brought to your attention on the talk page. Gadfium and Schwede didn't do anything particularly hostile here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was irrelevant to the issue created on the talk page. If they had an issue with it, there are procedures for complaining to me about it, which don't involve derailing a good-faith discussion about WP:NPOV.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the section I edited was already vandalised by someone else. Why does it matter that I vandalised vandalism?Teelosdomain (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the two editors of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? So they can throw their biased administrator weight around? I'm looking for a neutral third party to intervene here. One who doesn't have a conflict of interest towards protecting the individual the article is about.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teelosdomain, it's a requirement, boldly stated at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, Teelosdomain's edit was blatant vandalism. Based on their tone here, they don't seem to be interested in being a productive contributor. Vandalizing and then attacking other editors for not making changes you want is not how this place works. And saying I am personally attacking you in your comments is always a bad thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I spent 3 minutes looking at their history here and have blocked them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've closed and hat'ted the TP discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Billie Eilish discography

WRONG VENUE

This is not the correct place to address content disputes. Start at the article talk page, discuss content only (not contributors), and use dispute resolution processes if the discussion does not reach a consensus. --Jayron 32 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

user:Ellis.o22 will not stop reverting useless information on Billie Eilish discography. He says "Ocean Eyes" was not released commercially in 2016, even though MANY sources do, [129] and [130]. He also thinks songs like "Everything I Wanted" and "Bitches Broken Hearts" are singles from reissues. That is not the case. Many editors that edit music articles agree just because a single is from a reissue doesn't make it a single from that reissue album or EP! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to find consensus through talk page discussions, alerting WikiProjects, and/or WP:RFCs? If not, then this feels like a content dispute that hasn’t really been hashed out yet. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that @The Ultimate Boss: posted this immediately after making two reverts on the article in question. Their edit summary was ridiculous. Will continue to revert. ST47 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:, how does that matter? This user will not stop reverting to information on the discography that is not true. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any problem with reporting another user for edit warring while shamelessly edit warring yourself? ST47 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~@ST47:~~@The Ultimate Boss: the good news is your opened a talk paged discussion. The bad news is you only did it after posting here [131] [132]. Prior to that, the last edit to the talk page was over 4 months ago. ANI complaints largely about content issues tend to be a problem. ANI complaints largely about content issues where neither party has tried to discuss on the talk page tend to an instant fail in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 sorry pinged wrong person. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the comment on the talk page is also a duplicate of what was posted here i.e. with a focus on the editor rather than the content which means even putting aside the timing, it isn't a very good attempt although I guess better than nothing since there was some mention of the content issues. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@The Ultimate Boss:Dear God, I've gone cross-eyed. So what we've got here is a failure to communicate. As has been said before, ANI does not handle WP:content disputes. Less effort should be spent on complaining at ANI and more on discussion on talk pages and relevant fora in an effort to seek consensus and mutual understanding. The above mentioned "ridiculous" edit summary is not demonstrative of a collegial attitude. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jacqueline Jossa, redux

As in my previous report, I'm asking that the page be protected; latest WP:BLP violations be rev/deleted; block evading IP be blocked again; and a user check be made to ascertain a connection between the IP range and Crystal3003 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked only from editing this article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP is blocked and edits rev-del'd RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for a month. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. A good idea to watchlist this--a recurrence is likely based on the history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User 49.180.129.245

This user is being disruptive in a number of areas and has already been left warnings in their talk page:

Leaving abusive messages on talk pages
Poor quality editing in terms of grammar, spelling and SPEAKING IN CAPS IN TALK.
Edit warring on the Bolivia page
Use of primary sources to make statements about controversial issues from a source that is listed as biased in the Reliable sources page.
Quoting organisations in an inaccurate way via the same biased source, namely misquoting conclusions made by Ethical Hacking
Making statements about sources that are not backed up by the source material
In general a lack of detailed knowledge in the subject area which is undoing material that was written in a more neutral way

Any help much appreciated. I have not raised any issues here before, so don't know how it goes. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you are concerned with their editing but they have received several messages from admins so they are aware of this account. Also, Crmoorhead, any time you discuss another editor on a noticeboard, you must notify them. I will do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice on protocol. I will know in future. :) Crmoorhead (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Kwarbai

I encountered Abbas Kwarbai through my work at AfC. They created some 30+ drafts - almost all biographies - often in fairly short succession. These had common problems such as copyvios, promotional issues, irrelevant sources and repeated formatting mistakes. Like other reviewers I thought this pattern indicated WP:UPE.

They left me a series of warnings ([133], [134], [135],[136]) asking me to stay out of 'their' articles. I have tried to explain how they don't own those articles and that anyone may edit them, but they persist, including this statement on their user page which LakesideMiners removed but Kwarbai has replaced, accompanied by this warning.

Our interaction had been positive up until they were named in this sockpuppetry investigation (where I took the view that they weren't a sock), and then later I asked them to explain how they choose who to write about.

Over at Commons, their pattern of copyvio uploads is a cause for concern. They don't take kindly to having their copyright violations being tagged.

They continue to exhibit ownership.

Overall, I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, my concerns over UPE remain, and competence is required. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over Abbas Kwarbai's ("Kwarbai's") contributions. I believe Kwarbai is not, subjectively at least, "not here to build an encyclopedia"; it appears that there is some effort being made to write encyclopedia articles that might be of use, versus truly WP:NOTHERE efforts (i.e. mere trolling, x-warring, and/or political edgeplay). I don't have a comment on the WP:UPE issues but that is, of course, not acceptable under the Terms of Use.

But Kwarbai does not appear at all to understand the notions of WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and should acknowledge an understanding of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations of editors if Kwarbai is to continue without a block (which would reasonably be indefinite given the exceedingly non-cooperative tone of Kwarbai's commentary). Kwarbai's comments to Curb Safe Charmer, and as a matter of record via edit summaries apparently directed to the community at large, are not remotely appropriate, in my view. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have, since my first encounter with the subject of this thread, kept an eye on them. Their edit pattern is very much problematic & have all the tale signs of UPE & sockpuppetry. Their antagonistic approach to constructive criticism is counterproductive & indicative of the fact that they may not be compatible with this collaborative project, add to this; their incompetence(at the moment), unwillingness to learn, repeated blatant image copyright violations & subtle threats at editors that dare to correct them, makes a block to prevent further disruption imperative at this juncture. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on editing protected page

Can a administrator of other language edit a page, which is protected to prevent vandalism?ShazidSharif2001 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shazid, no the admin roles for each language Wikipedia are independent, so an admin on say the Spanish Wikipedia would not have those rights on the English one and vice versa. If there's an edit you want to suggest I would go to the talk page of that article and do so there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HersiliaAramazd

Involved parties

WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
HersiliaAramazd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[137]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by WMrapids

This is a new user who has shown unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and does not appear to be here for encyclopedic reasons. They have made inflammatory comments in their edit summaries in support of Azerbaijan, such as here.

In the first edit I noticed with the user possible canvassing, they pinged other Azerbaijani users on a talk page, saying that my edit in an infobox "seems to be aimed at disrupting the article, and assisting the Armenian POV by hiding the front-line changes" of the Azerbaijan military. I told the user to use good faith with my edits and per the Templates section in WP:CANVASS, I notified the user on their talk page. They quickly removed my notice. Other notices about the possible canvassing were placed in related talk pages, such as here. They then bombarded my talk page with more accusations of WP:BATTLE (to be fair, I did not know it was a level 3 warning as I used the recommended notification from the Template section, but how does a newer user know this much?). After making attempts to disengage with the user, they began edit warring on my own talk page. I strongly believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia and recommend that appropriate actions be taken to prevent this type of behavior from jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HersiliaAramazd

I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report so that it comes to the administrators attention. It all began when the user made an edit moving the map of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict from the top to the bottom of the infobox. (Without even discussing with anybody what-so-ever), he opened a talk page discussion saying he has made the change, and anyone opposing it could comment. (Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa). I told in my comment at that discussion that I opposed it and that I've had found it POV. I pinged 2 user which had recently participated in the dispute to participate in the discussion and see that the user has had opened that discussion. Following this the user has accused me of not assuming good faith. Accused me of canvassing, and left me a level 3 warning at my talk page. And reverted my recent edit without an edit summary of the said map in commons[138] in which I've had added the recent Azerbaijani advances (which can be considered a borderline vandalism). Later, I've removed his level 3 warning which does not substantiate the level 3 added by him, and warned him about the just said violations. From which in less than a minute he deleted from his talk page. I've reverted him to give him a chance to at least read it, following which he threatened to open this dispute if I did, which I immediately did to bring it to administrator attention.

Even now the user is baselessly accusing me in his notice "showing unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions" HersiliaAramazd (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, "Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa" is incorrect. Bold, revert, discuss and our major policy of be bold apply to changes like this. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the user acted boldy, was immediately reverted by another user. Which he reverted again. Do you think that is how BRD is supposed to work or is it borderline edit warring? HersiliaAramazd (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different discussion entirely (templating users), but to the point, the template used by WMrapids was Template:uw-canvass. This is the single warning template for canvassing. So, other than the unfortunate templating aspect of this section, that argument is moot IMO. I have no further comment on the situation at this time. --intelati^talk 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report". HersiliaAramazd, Standing firm is not a problem, but acting with the intention of escalating the conflict instead of working to resolve the problem constructively is a problem. // Timothy :: talk 19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88

A discussion ensued here (perma). I'm not going to even attempt to summarize it because I don't think I can in an objective way, so please read the whole thread (perma) before chiming in. It's not long.

The incident itself is arguably not a big deal (and I'm not without fault), and I would have simply moved on if it was virtually any other user. But seeing Hijiri88's overall unwillingness to engage in a collegial discussion, repeated failure to acknowledge points brought forward (re: /iː/ vs /i/, YouGlish) while accusing the other party of the same, and accusation of bad faith even in the face of the other party yielding, just over a month after an indefinite block was lifted, I thought it important to bring it to admins' attention. Nardog (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is bad faith to point out obvious canvassing. After reading the whole thread Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) seemed reasonably patient with a user trying to push original research into the article and then canvassing when they were losing the argument.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pointing out of the canvassing was valid, I own up to that. What I find problematic is his insinuation that I intentionally omitted information, when in fact that piece of information that I allegedly left out was something I'd been mentioning as a factor for my position from the beginning. Could be an honest mistake, but IMHO that speaks to the way he engages in mere content disputes, coupled with wordings like inaccurate (impossible!) in the section title, So, you are not going to address any of my points and just talk past me?, and patently ridiculous, which leave little room for honest, productive discussion and make interaction with him exhausting (which was not the case with OceanHok in the thread, for example). Nardog (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Could be an honest mistake, so I'm going to assume that it is. Nardog (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some rule defining the limits within which editors may brandish their extreme sensitivities as cause for perceived offenses. Encyclopedias are written by grown-ups, preferably, with some minimalist ability to handle the give-and-take of strong disagreement. It's poor form for editors who can't get their way to engage in personal archaeology, seize on some datum that the opposing editor was once banned, and exploit that to cut the Gordian knot by using the tiff to reinstate the ban. Threads like the one cited are small change compared to most I have seen. I don't think anyone, certainly not the general reader, but an accomplished phonologist understands these transcriptions and pertinacious disagreement over such nugatory minima, to invent a pleonasm, is a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of "lookup word"s later, I believe I agree with the above take. At a skim of the discussion, I can't see gross incivility much less personal attacks, although I do mean skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1

Tvaughan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tvaughan1 registered in 2006 but has fewer than 600 edits. Over 50 of those are at talk:Hunter Biden, and combine the usual mess of "Russia hoax", unreliable sources, belligerence and a few copyright violations revdeleted by EvergreenFir.

Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise", I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked. There are a couple of others at that talk page who are also long on outrage and short on actionable proposals for content, but I expect that will die down in time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged in a good faith effort on the talk page to reach a consensus on WP:NPOV edits to Hunter Biden. Most of my efforts are from months ago and they've been archived. Quoting relevant passages of a newspaper article on a talk page, with attribution should not be considered a copyright violation.I'm not the only Wikipedia editor or person who has pointed out that Hunter Biden is far from WP:NPOV. It's embarrassingly obvious to all but the most partisan. In fact, describing the situation as "meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise"" proves my point. There is a social media and news blackout on that story, and that has become a story in and of itself. Does the laptop not exist? Is it not notable? Are there not reliable sources reporting the existence of the laptop, and corroborating the authenticity of the contents? These facts may be uncomfortable to partisans, but they're widely known and widely reported facts. To defend blocking mention of the laptop Wikipedia editors are citing debunked theories of a Russian disinformation campaign, with no proof whatsoever (at best citing opinions that it must be or could be Russian disinformation). An accurate summary of the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden would mention the concerns of a conflict of interest, at a minimum. Censoring speech isn't the way for Wikipedia to go. The main topic is and has been hotly debated in the US and worldwide, but the article presents only a 1 sided view. This article has been the subject of a number of news stories about Wikipedia's left leaning bias. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, oh do please let us know which reliable sources you think are complaining about our "left wing bias" on this. Breitbart? Redstate? Conservapedia? 4chan? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you're being argumentative. But surely you must have seen this blog post from the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that Tvaughan1 seems to ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy heavily. They have been making edits in the talk page that are up to the line, if not over the line, crossing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy to do so. At Talk:Hunter Biden#Chinese Communist Party they have made these edits by "sourcing" to multiple sites that are considered unreliable and marked in red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including RT (TV network), The Post Millennial, and Breitbart News which "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories" and "should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." I am also concerned about the potential connection to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NationalInterest16 but I had previously asked a different administrator for their advice before JzG posted this discussion here. The specific edit with the bad sourcing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=984976350&oldid=984975986 IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a point on the talk page that it has become an external news story that Wikipedia is biased - specifically because of Hunter Biden, and I linked to a set of articles to make that point to other editors, for their information, on a talk page. I wasn't attempting to cite those articles in a Wikipedia article itself. Accusing me of violating WP:RS for pointing that out is disingenuous. I have no connection to NationalInterest16.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tvaughan1, how can a non-governmental organization ever engage in "censorship"? Please explain your understanding of what constitutes "censorship." Please do not use epithets, perjorative adjectives, or other non-neutral language. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julietdeltalima According to Wikipedia, "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." I agree with that definition.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having standards for reliable sourcing is not censorship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Tvaughan1 I thought I'd start a subsection on this topic. FWIW, the copyvios are because of the amount of copy-pasted text. One to three sentences would be okay. But in the second case you copy-pasted nearly 50% of the article's content. I understand why you did it, and you were right in providing the source and putting things in quotes. But WP:COPYVIO's instructions on fair use directs us to use as little as possible to convey our point. IMO, when you're using more than 10% of a source directly, you're veering into copyvio territory. In the future, please limit copy-paste and use your own summaries (which readers can verify with the linked source). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and I understand WP:COPYVIO but certainly a bit more leeway to quote articles should be given on a talk page, versus pasting quotes into the articles themselves. Given the defensive responses to every attempt I and others made to source facts, I doubted that a paraphrased summary would suffice. But I'll do as you suggest moving forward.Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AslanX89

AslanX89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not here to create a encyclopedia Vandalism on living persons and on Wikipedia, promotes disruptive editing evidently tries to create a Social Media account.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Disruption now includes a threat to evade a block [146]. So yeah, WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of, blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack of editor Miki Filigranski

Editor User:Miki Filigranski attack me personally on talk page Anti-Albanian sentiment with claim that I am been "highly disrespectful toward many Croatian and Serbian editors with my propagation of Anti-Serbian information".[147] I edit article of Anti-Albanian sentiment and enter information based on various sources which concerning that article. My edit is explained on talk page and in edit summary of that article. Please protect me from such personal attacks and I expect an appropriate punishment because talk page is for talk about edit issue not for personal attack. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is making WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS Anti-Serbian edits for almost a week at articles and talk pages of Serbia, Name of the Serbs and Serbia, Novak Djokovic, Anti-Albanian sentiment, and Tribes of Montenegro. Many editors reverted their edits, neglected their arguments, and complained (for example [148]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of editor Miki Filigranski

Editor Miki Filigranski falsely accuses me on Vanjagenije talk page that I told him "if he participate anyhow on "the enemy side" (i.e. Serbian) against me then I would intentionally and immediately (i.e. out of spite) participate in any article or discussion against him."[149] I newer told him nothing to email and there is no evidence that I ever told him that and this is WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. I expect an appropriate punishment from the authorities. That is unacceptable behavior and I expect protection. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We both know what and where you wrote to me. You really went too far with privately blackmailing me and pushing the Anti-Serbian agenda that I became sick of it. If @Vanjagenije: and others administrators agree, I will send them private messages from a Croatian non-Wikipedian forum (Forum.hr) where the editor blackmailed me and then let them give their evaluation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorrt that happened to you Miki Filigranski. I must point out that the same editor is active on Eupedia Forum (under a different name), where some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening. I know that we can't link or give direct information on en.wiki, but I am not sure what's the community consensus in cases like this one?! Surely we can't turn a blind eye to such cases because of potential privacy issues? If this comment is not appropriate, I shall kindly ask admins to remove it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sadko

I would like to point out that this a false report made in order to press the senior editor who is reported, as he promissed to report Mikola22 if that kind of rude behaviour and WP:PLAYPOLICY continues. The comment by fellow editor Miki Filigranski has valid points. Editor making the report is constantly WP:CHERRYPICKING sources (even if it means randomly searching for 2nd class books which would prove a point), looking for ways to game the system and last but not least - major WP:BLUD. If you just take a qucik look at [150] you will witness that the editor in question is waiting for 24h to revert other editors, knowing that he or she has 1RR. WP:BOOMERANG is needed, in my book. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. [151] (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 [152], 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. [153]
- [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. [154]
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. [155] 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. [156] (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. [157]
  - (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) [158]
  - @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) [159]
    - @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) [160]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

(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: [161][162]; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

Community ban for MadMans1019

User:MadMans1019, known more commonly by a name I cannot post here because of edit filters, has been socking on Wikipedia for the past 7 years with no end in sight and constantly vandalizing, making abusive username accounts and generally being one of the largest scale LTAs on the entire website. How this person was not banned years ago is far beyond me, I propose an official Community Site Ban against MadMans1019/User:Essjaey on en.wiki. Dzhenni Shchalich (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account's first edits are tagging accounts as sockpuppets

Dzhenni Shchalich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account last year but only just started editing; they are tagging accounts as sockpuppets (example). This is unusual behaviour for an editor who has just started editing. Linguist111^talk 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because this is a very abusive long term sock master who I want to tag accounts of. Dzhenni Shchalich (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,136: / Line 1,136: @@
 Editor [[User|Miki Filigranski]] falsely accuses me on [[User|Vanjagenije]] talk page that I told him ''"if he participate anyhow on "the enemy side" (i.e. Serbian) against me then I would intentionally and immediately (i.e. out of spite) participate in any article or discussion against him."''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije&diff=985079747&oldid=984792227] I newer told him nothing to email and there is no evidence that I ever told him that and this is [[WP:PERSONAL ATTACK]]. I expect an appropriate punishment from the authorities. That is unacceptable behavior and I expect protection. Thanks. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 :We both know what and where you wrote to me. You really went too far with privately blackmailing me and pushing the Anti-Serbian agenda that I became sick of it. If {{ping|Vanjagenije}} and others administrators agree, I will send them private messages from a Croatian non-Wikipedian forum (Forum.hr) where the editor blackmailed me and then let them give their evaluation.--[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
+::I am sorrt that happened to you {{u|Miki Filigranski}}. I must point out that the same editor is active on Eupedia Forum (under a different name), where some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening. I know that we can't link or give direct information on en.wiki, but I am not sure what's the community consensus in cases like this one?! Surely we can't turn a blind eye to such cases because of potential privacy issues? If this comment is not appropriate, I shall kindly ask admins to remove it. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 00:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 === Comment by Sadko ===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards