Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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: [[1]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[2][3] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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: [4][5]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) 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)

(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))

@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)

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" [17] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [18] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [19]. 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 [20], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

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: [21][22][23]. 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)

@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)

@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 [24] 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 [25], 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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 ([26]) 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)

"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)

Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch

This is a request for administrative attention at

• Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."

The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, I'm not attacking you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm just tired of repeatedly telling you for the past few months that your edits and edit-suggestions has been biased and unneutral so far; removing paragraphs for no reason (Diff 1, Diff 2), deliberately changing neutral word to discouraged words on sentences you disagree with even though you were previously told about such guidelines (Diff 1, Diff 2), adding puffery such as "stunning second quarter performance" and "extremely popular" (Diff 1, Diff 2), using "hounded by" and "beset with" to undermine criticism and included your words that were not even stated on the sources (Diff 1, Diff 2). Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs and to promote ideas or beliefs. You should read Wp:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.

Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.

Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis

I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.

My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:

It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already. (02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff

It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.

When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:

Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest. (17:42, 22 September 2020) diff

I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff, revert being referred to

Really? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff

Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.

From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. Yes, I'm fucking human, and yes, when I get the sense that I'm talking to a brick fucking wall, I might let my fucking frustration show and drop a fucking F-bomb. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I would never say anyone's feelings are wrong, and I've had the same reaction when dealing with certain people in text exchanges like this. Usually, for the sake of maintaining a productive conversation, when drafting my reply I ignore those feelings or wait until they pass. If it gets quite bad or I feel it would be helpful to express those feelings, I try to do so using civil language, like "I found your response frustrating because..." Getting loud and swearing a lot and calling people names might be a natural response and acceptable for a venue like a protest or a bar, but not for a civil discussion forum like a library or NPR or Wikipedia talk pages. That said, we should be able to work through disagreements without getting frustrated at each other, and I'd like to work to resolve the source of that frustration. I don't think it was fair when you said I hadn't read a word you said, as I found many of your responses quite helpful in terms of information content, and greatly improved my proposal. When you say it feels like you were talking to a brick wall, was that because I failed to drop this matter as you requested? -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I find your description of the issue difficult to follow. In the places above which you claim to be quotes, could you give diffs please? And could you also please mark them as quotes, by either using quotation marks (as you did for the first one) or better yet templates like "tq2" or "tq"? Paul August ☎ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough of the swearing comments guys. I would say Beland it seems that you are over reacting a lot. I agree that DV's revert of you with that comment is very unhelpful and unproductive, don't understand what he thinks was going to happen, since nearly everyone would just revert him until he gives a proper reason. From what you have said and provided so far it seems an like overreaction. But I stand to be corrected if you give us more examples of actual incivility. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Personal attacks before continuing with this one. Games of the world (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary mine's bigger so it counts more here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, your incivility is plain to see:

• Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI - NPA, ABF (1).
• DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late - PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)
• Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled. - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3)

• What I am struggling to find in the many links is the efforts to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.

[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.

[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)

[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.

[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:

<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>

[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:

<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>

"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.

LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies Beland you did indeed start an RFC. I'm still not seeing anything worth sanctioning over, Alls I'm seeing is mild frustration from DV but again nothing really sanctionable, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer a frank conversation and rehabilitation to sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. @Deacon Vorbis:, you've survived four years of editing. You should know this already. I know you can do better than the behavior you're currently displaying in this discussion. Happy editing & cheers to everyone. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at Deacon Vorbis' long contribution history, it appears there are many positive contributions, and dealing with other editors acting inappropriately. But there are also other instances of antagonistic behavior, typically aggressive removal or dismissal of messages from other users, inappropriate language, and edit warring. I would hope these behavioral problems could be resolved simply by having a constructive conversation about the harm they doing to the project and how to avoid that while still contributing constructively. And I think being less offensive and aggressive and more conversational would reduce the number of negative reactions from other editors, and increase the number of cooperative edits made after a smooth dispute resolution. Examples:
  • The block log shows they were blocked in January 2020 for a 3RR violation, and in July 2018 for a vulgar personal attack they refused to apologize for (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988), saying the victim deserved it.
  • Example of removal of a talk page message: this case where I think it's worth considering whether the answer to the user's question would be a good addition to the article, and the question highlights a problem with the article lacking references to sources where their question could be answered. (The user wrote as much in response to the deletion but was ignored.) At the very least they could be referred to the reference desk rather than being completely censored, and that could turn up some citations for the article.
  • Here is an example of an unnecessary personal insult. The content that Inedible Hulk posted was indeed weird, though I probably would have replied to it or ignored it rather than deleting it claiming it was "disruptive". I don't find the deletion unacceptable, but I do find the caustic language used on the talk page to be.
  • More gratuitous and uncivil language in edit summaries - "agreed my ass" "agreed, my bloated buttocks
  • Another incident where agressive removal led to an edit war and ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#Deacon_Vorbis_reported_by_User:Count_Iblis
  • Edit warring over a speedy deletion and archival cleanup: [27] and complaint
  • Another incident of removing another user's talk post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Deacon_Vorbis_censoring_the_math_ref_desk
  • An incident that combined overly aggressively removing another user's post and then using uncivil language in edit summaries during the fallout: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Possible_compromised_administrator_account

-- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [28], [29],[30]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, he just changed my AfD talk page comment again by moving it to another part of discussion [31], even after all my explanations on their talk page [32]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Deacon Vorbis: you are certainly on notice that Beland does not enjoy vulgarities, so I would urge you in direct communications with them to eschew the saltier language. Beland, I mean this with all due respect, but less-than-solicitous language is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I would urge you to let a bit more roll off your back. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I rarely encounter such language on Wikipedia and it certainly shouldn't be standard or accepted, as it creates problems with editor retention and may even be contributing to the gender imbalance in the editor population. If I were a sensitive person, I wouldn't be here complaining, I'd just stop editing Wikipedia and go do something where no one is swearing at me for trying to help. Excessive conflict, edit warring, and bullying are problematic for editors of any gender, but have been specifically identified as reasons why some women don't edit Wikipdia. Check out points 4 and 5 at Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Is the process we are currently engaging in top-down or bottom-up? I think of it as a peer-to-peer nudge to be better. The idea that women getting involved with Wikipedia will "snowball" seems like wishful thinking without any evidence. Why wouldn't it have happened already? It's not like there are large numbers of women who don't know what Wikipedia is. Why would it happen for women but not men, especially given the culture of Wikipedia seems to be disproportionately distasteful for women? I do agree that cooperative adversarial processes can improve articles, but the adversarial common law tradition in America has a stricter standard for civility that what you're advocating for Wikipedia, and that's part of what makes it work to the degree that it does. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Beland, by "top-down" I mean asking for an authority to do something about it. Nudging is per se fine by me, and I think I may even have engaged in it to a small degree. As for the "sbnowball" effect, it certainly is wishful thinking to some degree, but I am allowed that after all! I am not sure the answer to women on Wikipedia is any sort of precipitous action, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. And while you're correct that there's a stricter lexicon of civility in the American tradition, I am not sure that actually translates to a stricter standard. Most of that is more in the realm of norms and traditions, which are as often overlooked as honored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• • +1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right, it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Modifying a comment after it's been responded to, changing the context and meaning of that reply is far far worse. From WP:REDACT, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:THREAD also has further guidance on good practice, which I tried to point out, and no acknowledgement was made, despite asking for one. I'm not okay with comments I respond to getting major changes after the fact. My moving the comment was the least invasive way of keeping the chronology of the comments intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right, you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like Please see an additional comment that elaborates on this below the subsequent replies" tacked onto the end of the current comment, as long as the new comment stays after. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, but I have no way of knowing of MVBW would accept it...doing this on my own would have been a more invasive modification to the original, which I was again trying to minimize. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    Honestly, this should be an easy one. Don't edit, move, adjust, or tweak others' comments. Full stop. Just don't do it. If you think they've done something in error, by all means, point it out. This behavior, is, to me, FAR more offensive than all the F-bombs in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

     

    If you want to know what would be an acceptable compromise to the other party, the thing to do is ask. There are plenty of other possible compromises the two of you could come up with if you had stopped to think about it and weren't angrily undoing each other's changes. That's why I would have started the conversation after I was reverted once, whereas you reverted MVBW three more times after it was clear there was a dispute. Though they weren't following the convention strictly, it was pretty clear to me what was responding to what when, especially given that all the messages have timestamps, so I don't see a strong argument for objecting to what MVBW was doing. That sort of pushiness is equivalent to the in-person action of grabbing someone by the elbow while they're on a soapbox and moving them to somewhere they don't want to be. Even if they're not in the conventional location, it's perceived as strongly anti-social behavior. And it's really not worth the fistfight that ensues when everyone should be paying attention to the words that are said and not picky details about how the speech is being delivered. If you actually think it is important enough to argue about, wait until a third editor has weighed in to the conversation to validate one side or another. Either there will be much less resistance to the change you are proposing when it becomes clear it's not just you who holds that opinion, or the third editor will disagree with you and you can politely concede and avoid being accused of unreasonableness or vindictiveness or whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    "If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before." That's not exactly true. People do it all the time when they want to make an important comment to a post that has already been responded to. In this case, the editor was making a de facto "Edited to add" point, which is perfectly valid, as it had a new signature and timestamp and was indented enough to indicate newness in relation to the replies underneath. The point is, You are not the arbiter of posts in AfDs, and need to stop moving, deleting, reverting, replacing, complaining about, mocking, or edit-warring over them. Full stop. If the behavior continues, you are likely to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    that was my comment on AFD. Note that per Editing_own_comments - I did NOT change or modified my original comment, to which other contributors have already responded. I just added a note to my own comment with a reference to the relevant WP guideline (that unfortunately was missing in my original comment). And what Deacon Vorbis does? Moves my note repeatedly to a place where I did not mean it to be, over my objections on his talk page. This is an example of highly confrontational behavior, and without any actual reason, except me making a comment about civility in general in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A while ago Deacon Vorbis was removing my comments on the Math Ref Desk, edit warring to keep my posting there removed, despite the fact that the Ref Desk has the status of a talk page and removal of edits there is only done in case of vandalism. This happened several time, the last such incident led to us both being blocked, even though I did not make any mistakes restoring my comments. The problem with his behavior is not the incivility per se, but his attitude when he sees something he disagree with. The incivility is merely a symptom of that, which may irritate other editors, but I have a thick skin ,so I'm not going to be bothered by that.

His aggressive attitude when his edits are opposed, causes him to not listen to the arguments of his opponents. When I told him that Ref Desk comments cannot be removed, at most they can be hatted, he did not listen. He could have looked up what the policy is if he didn't trust me. It took a few more similar disputes with him removing my comments before he finally understood that Ref Desk comments are not to be removed (unless it is outright vandalism, of course).

If you are angry, then you don't tend to listen. It's not that the person opposing him are right on the judgement about the edits, but if he doesn't listen to what the argument against his edit is, then he obviously won't be able to engage with the issue in a constructive way. Deacon Vorbis should understand that his attitude when he encounters a problem with editing is not going to help make his point in the best way. He should learn to engage with other editors in a more constructive way, and that will also be a benefit for him outside of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Mr rnddude's proposal of a site-wide prohibition against in any way altering other people's posts, on penalty of escalating blocks. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly be a start. A personal 1RR might help mitigate the frustration caused by pushing the 3RR to its limit every time any other editor is willing to do so in return. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Given no positive response from Deacon Vorbis here, he will continue doing the same. Hence this is probably a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN

Per the above discussion, I propose that Deacon Vorbis be formally TBANed from modifying, moving, or removing other editors' comments. In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.

• Support as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 1RR restriction, and also suggest the proposer of this sanction is a much bigger source of incivility problems in their interactions than DV is. --JBL (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• At this point, you should probably leave it to someone else to make these proposals. That you're just sliding a 1RR in there is telling that this isn't actually addressing the above discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was the last thing Beland proposed above. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Also support 1RR since the editor seems to maintain their aggressiveness and shows no sign of having learned or accepted anything problematical about their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all DV in the last few days has disengaged himself from that behaviour of editing other people's comments on talk pages excluding his own. I only see him removing clear vandalism from talk pages. Note there is one issue that he is having, but that is an IP editing DV's comments, but DV has not resorted to the type of language noted above. 1RR is a non starter for me as if he stops editing other people's comments then 1RR is not needed unless someone can find evidence of a current problem of edit warring in articles. In addition restrictions are meant to prevent a current problem and not be punitive; from what I can see the problem has been resolved and as per Mr rnddude's proposal a warning outlining the community's dissatisfaction of editing people's comments to DV would be a much more objective solution for the time being. Games of the world (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossing 3rr repeatedly is as disruptive as editing and removing other editor comments. The above discussion has outlined a continuing pattern of this type of disruptive behavior and uncivil comments. The editor is unapologetic. I agree with one of the other editors above who said a new editor would be indeffed for this pattern of behavior. But we tolerate this behavior from an editor who knows better as long as they occasionally stop the behavior or self revert after multiple disruptive 4rr. We certainly do not apply the rules equally here and I have gotten used to that. Lightburst (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Purely punitive. Whatever the alleged problem is it's cleared up on its own, and the 1RR thing seems irrelevant. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't believe it's necessary here, but I would respectfully suggest to Deacon Vorbis that he just refrain entirely from altering others' comments, and modulate his approach a bit for various editors. While I don't find his approach offensive or problematic, if some other editor does, it can't hurt to try a different tack. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. While the proposal is not unreasonable, this is not a topic ban. This is a behavior requirement, and it is very much obvious. Everyone should follow it simply by default, and almost everyone actually does. If someone needs to be reminded about it on the ANI, it means the user has a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal TBAN. Refactoring or otherwise editing other editor comments, with only a few exceptions, is already expressed prohibited. A final warning that future instances, with the usual exceptions of BLPVIO's, removing obvious personal attacks, etc, will not be tolerated and will be met with escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN (and 1RR). DV now knows where he stands. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment please see the continued edit warring. Edit warring on an article DV nominated for AfD. 1 2 3 4 attempt at discussion deleted by DV. here. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  7&6=thirteen made a bold edit, it was reverted, and then 7&6 reinstated the bold edit with the edit summary Take it to the article talk page. Is that how WP:ONUS and WP:BRD work? No, it's the exact opposite. Then 7&6 posted an edit warring warning on DV's user page instead of user talk page. We all love it when one party to an edit war warns the other party about edit warring. This exchange is an example of problematic behavior, just not by DV. Lev!vich 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the disruption to the encyclopedia ...as always. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored that I had in fact simultaneously posted at the article talk page with an edit warning, and that it was immediately removed here. I just wanted him to stop. I did not go to the edit warring notice board to complain about the 4 reverts and the blatant disregard of WP:3RR. But User:Levivich will not pass up an opportunity and I was summoned here. I was going to ignore this, but I will not have someone malign me and then have someone say I adopted it because I acquiesced and didn't object. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the point of T-banning somebody from something that's not allowed on Wikipedia anyway (i.e. editing other people's comments), and as for a 1RR restriction, it seems less than relevant. Also, in these bleak times, I recommend we all try to have a little more patience with one another, as long as the other is acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, which I'm convinced Deacon Vorbis always does. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC).
• Support 1RR restriction because this user continue edit war [33], [34],[35] right during an active ANI discussion about him. What he is going to do when this discussion will be closed? My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• support Since the problem is still on-going even during this ANI thread, with continued edit warring and personal attacks, I think that passing a formal proposal would be a good idea. Patiodweller (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Undisclosed Paid Editing by Micah Street on Draft:Micah Street

User:Micah Street has submitted Draft:Micah Street to WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, they are believed to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing since the article is heavily biased and at the end of the page, they stated (in revision 973670953) that "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage "Micah Street". We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding." This significantly proves that the editor in question is engaged in paid editing, but they have not disclosed such through:

• a statement on your user page (as of revision 971048430),
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (no talk page found on the draft in question), or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions (as of revision 973670953);

in accordance to policy of the Wikimedia Foundation and English Wikipedia as stated in WP:PAID. Thus, I would like to report Micah Street for violation of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have only notified them - the first such notification by any editor - of our policy on paid editing less than half an hour before raising the matter here (if you have previously done so, please provide a diff). They have not edited since then nor indeed or the last week. Please await their response before coming back here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was reported at WP:AIV, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:

"Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage Micah Street. We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding."

And that was before you notified them. I find no violation here. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• WikiAviator, The user's COI was disclosed on 18 August 2020. The editor in question has not edited since that date. If you want them to declare their COI in a specific place, please leave them a precisely detailed note on their talk page, and give them the policy link, and tell them exactly what to do. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maile66, there's also the username problem -- they seem to be in violation of username policy. Can you deal with that issue? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, the user is already soft blocked for violating the username policy. See [36], [37]. Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user

For a long time, the IP user (IP variables) 2001:fb1:70:9069:29dd:7e84:bb3c:1a40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Marek Reichman ([38]) article, removing sources and information. Repeated many times, but it doesn't help. It gives no arguments or sources, all the time removing only source information. It is likely that it is a Theregan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user who, in a similar vein, also destroys the article and removes the warnings from his discussion page. LechitaPL (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed or attempted to discuss on talk pages before coming here? Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and this was the response.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Also at the article talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs. That seems problematic. Wm335td (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The user (and the IP) continued to edit-war by removing sourced content, and they apparently have chosen not to respond here. I have fully protected the page for three days, and I am inclined to block, but will be happy to have more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The one who has been vandalising this article Marek Reichman for long is the user LechitaPL not me if you look at edit history, and he even accusing me and others with no reasons He wants the article to go his way and views without letting anyone to change it, His claim been proved as irrelevant and fake information, the User LechitaPL has been blocked so many times from vandalising and stubborn behaviour and couldn’t even come discuss in the talk page He can’t just ask the administrator to lock the article for no reason without discussing in the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregan (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that LechitaPL has never been blocked for vandalism, or for any reason whatsoever. MrAureliusR_Talk! 08:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho & LTA socking

The LTA page can be found here. The relevant SPI can be found here.

See the history above. Telsho popped onto multiple editors' radars after filing an ANI report where he claimed to have "stumbled" upon the Adrian Zenz article and was observed by numerous editors to exhibit most of the characteristics of the LTA in question; the CU check found Telsho to be a  Possible sock. However, the August 22 case was later closed (along with subsequent investigations) on September 2 and then archived without any conclusion regarding Telsho. Follow-up inquiries by me and Canucklehead about a behavioral analysis did not receive an answer. I'm bringing this to the community, considering Telsho has continued to be disruptive and has provided additional evidence of quacking since the SPI closure. If this should be redirected to SPI for a second Telsho case, I'll move it there, but I'm not clear on the policy about opening up the same SPI again.

Significant behavioral evidence was provided in the SPI, which I have linked to, but here is additional LTA evidence, regarding subjects the sockfarm tends to focus on

• Singapore (no diffs for this one, since the vast majority of Telsho's edits involve Singapore)
• Culture of Singapore (while sometimes removing mention of other countries): [39][40][41][42][43], multiple edits to bubble tea, the creation of List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries, edits to Michael P. Fay
• Economy of Singapore (a sampling of numerous examples, including some shoehorning in of mentions of Singapore): [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54], Hillion Mall
• Jewel Changi Airport [55] and Singapore Changi Airport [56][57][58], Singapore airlines [59][60]
• Lee Hsien Loong (no diffs needed here, since Telsho is all over the recent history, but diffs of pushing mentions of Lee in other articles can easily be provided)
• articles about Singapore transit: [61][62][63]

Quacking

• Telsho makes his one and only edit to George Floyd protests, which just happens to be a specific point a heavily involved sock was interested in[64]
• The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
  • Japanese Self-Defense Forces[65][66][67][68]
  • Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [69][70][71]
  • Lee Hsien Loong [72][73]
  • removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [74][75]
  • Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [76][77][78]
• A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [79][80][81][82][83][84][85](note that warring over redirects, especially with User:Horse Eye Jack/User:Horse Eye's Back, continues with Telsho and resulted in his current block)
• Tag bombing and edit warring over them, just like Telsho [86][87][88][89][90]
• Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [91]
• Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [92][93]
• This one I put in the SPI and consider a smoking gun, but bears repeating as a one-time visit to an obscure page just to reinstate a sock edit under the guise of reverting vandalism
• There is another connection between Telsho and an earlier sock, but per WP:BEANS I'd prefer to share it with admins privately, upon request

Frankly, you can look at most of the socks in the EIA and find significant overlap with Telsho, which becomes overwhelming once you consider how far-reaching that overlap actually is. I haven't even brought up behavioral problems outside of the sock connections, but there is incessant edit warring, refusal to use talkpages or abide by consensus, resistance to the use of sources (which he has in common with the Feinoa sock), a number of personal attacks, and a persistent use of deceptive edit summaries (some of which can be seen in the provided diffs). I'm happy to provide diffs of any of these behaviors if requested, but I'm trying to keep this report manageable for now and focused on the LTA connection. I propose Telsho's block be extended to indefinite and that he be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets of Ineedtostopforgetting. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([104][105][106][107][108]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.

  That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [109][110][111][112], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [113]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.

• Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.

To summarize my thoughts:

• At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
• At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
• It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just so that everyone is aware Telsho resumed edit warring at Singapore–United States relations immediately after their block expired and is back at the edit warring noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Baprow: Persistent WP:DE and WP:EW; WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE

Baprow (talk · contribs), an user that has seemingly garnered a troublesome collection of edit warring and disruptive behaviour-related issues throughout the last months (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), has engaged on it again on a number of articles. Most of the ordeal has been in place at Talk:President of the Valencian Government and President of the Valencian Government, but the issue has extended to Leader of the Opposition (Spain), President of the Principality of Asturias and President of the Community of Madrid as the user has attempted to engage in WP:GAME conduct in those to prove their point.

The content issue at dispute is actually minor (i.e. design aspects of timeline charts), but their edits are rather random and ultimately based on their own whim, and this has led to a number of severe behavioural issues (mirrored in other articles in recent times, like Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel or Hugo Chávez, with the involvement of users Asqueladd, ZiaLater or NoonIcarus in those cases):

• It's seemingly impossible to make any change to anything of what Baprow edits (with they claiming things such as "I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes. I could ask you the same." diff), which they will frequently (and persistently) revert in a clear show of ownership behaviour. They have backtracked these initial statements ever since, but their own possessive behaviour has persisted.
• In a way to prevent any change from going further, they keep filibustering and gaslighting by raising additional problems when older ones have been addressed (or, similarly, engaging into circular arguments or outright fallacies). This is very evident on the issue of interim presidents: first, they claimed that there were allegedly two concurrent interim presidents and than that was the issue (diff); then, it was that other Wikipedias allegedly did not include those (though this was never backed up with evidence either; diff); then, that the name has to be "put well" (whatever that means; diff); then, that one-week tenures are (for some unexplained reason) not worth enough to be added into the chart (diff); finally, that the name "destroys the aesthetics" of the chart (a truly fallacious argument with no other evidence than their own whim; diff).
• Another example is them reverting justified reverts with statements of the sort of "I was going to answer your verbiage, but it happened. The changes are correct. Point.".
• They have engaged into personal attacks by dubbing me as "incapable" just because of not seeing the alleged "aesthetical issues" that they suddenly claim to exist (diff1 diff2), though this can be extended to their very first reverts when they patronized me by claiming that I "didn't understand" something as in a "But I know the truth!" situation, despite me having previously explained the rationale of my edits.
• There is the aforementioned issue of editing other articles to seemingly enforce their points in the discussion at Talk:President of the Valencian Government (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4).

Note that this extends to the discussion itself, which I had started almost immediately on 14 September in an attempt to give them the chance to explain their motives and seek out a compromise, if possible. This ended badly:

• I asked several times for them to revert their own edits until the discussion was over, for the sake of WP:BRD and politeness (diff1 diff2 diff3). These requests were not only unattended, but also left entirely unaddressed, something which I pointed out to them when they unilaterally edited the article (while the discussion was still ongoing) in a twisted interpretation of a compromise alternative which I myself had proposed for discussion, but with which I had not agreed yet (diff). They seemingly think that "consensus" and "compromise" mean some form of "I will accept your edits if you accept mine"-bargaining chip that can be imposed without further discussion (diff).
• They only keep replying in the discussion as long as any edit is done on the article: once I stop doing so, they go silent. They have done so several times: on 15 September, when they simply stopped replying to my own concerns, and a second time on 22 September; in this case, it was much more eggregious since I specifically pinged them not once but twice (diff1 diff2), with an additional comment in-between that was also unattended (diff3). They only re-started replying briefly on 21 September (after I re-edited the article as a result of they having abandoned the discussion) and today (for the same reason).
• Looks like, since July, they've been systematically removing any warning notices from their talk page (diff1 diff2 diff3). That's their choice to make, as it's their talk page, but this only self-evidences an outright unwillingness to seriously engage in constructive, consensus-building behaviour or to acknowledge their own misdeeds.

Either this user lacks the competence to work collaboratively, or they are simply not here to build an encyclopedia, but to pursue their own personal satisfaction (by essentially enforcing edits that are pleasant to him and him alone, even if they are contested by everyone else). In either case, this behaviour just needs to stop by whatever means required. Impru20^talk 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your base argument is "Your edits are wrong because in Wikipedia things are done the way I'm saying they are done. Look at all these examples!" But when I show you other examples that not all things on Wikipedia are done that way, your counterargument is "Aha, you're using the same argument as me, then I'm right and you're not." And now you are saying that in a timeline there can be names in blue and in black at the same time, something that I have not seen in any other timeline (where the names are in blue or in black, never mixed). In other words, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says or what the majority say, but what you want to impose.--Baprow (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of behaviour I'm speaking about. It's just impossible to have any kind of agreement or compromise be reached when you systematically consider, regard and/or label the other party as an enemy as you do with others. Your editing history is out there, and it shows it's you the one attempting to impose your edits everywhere all the time and than that's the only thing you do in Wikipedia. No one but you has attempted to "impose" anything; in every situation I've linked it's your edits the ones being contested, and instead of backing down and discuss them when you get (legitimately) reverted you keep re-imposing them over, and over, and over, and over again until the other party backs down out of pure tiredom, or until you threaten with extending the disruption to so many other articles that other editors just cave in to prevent it. Please note that this is not a venue to discuss about content, but about behaviour, and yours has crossed the line by a large deal already. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to complain, I would say that it is difficult to reach an agreement with a person whose starting point is "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones", when it is obvious that my editions are as valid as his editions because there is no such closed and unappealable uniformity that he claims (except when it suits him, as can be seen in the case of the time line that he defends, whose aesthetic differs from any other).
It doesn't help that this person doesn't try to make any kind of compromise and doesn't bother to understand what I'm talking about either (another possible explanation is that he doesnt care about). He even allows himself the luxury of telling me what my own words mean and, when I explain it to him, it would not matter if I did it with words or with Morse code, because he has already reached a conclusion and you can't get him out of there and, of course, his conclusions and valorations are the only valid ones.--Baprow (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, care to source your accusations if you will. I've never ever said "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones" nor anything even minimally resembling that kind of behaviour, unlike what you actually did. Baseless claims and personal grudges are of little consequence here. Impru20^talk 20:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:ThatMontrealIP

The above editor has been bullying and intimidating me in edit summaries of Cherryl Fountain, on Talk:Cherryl Fountain and on the talk page of User:Valereee. Please help. I could cope if it stopped. But it doesn't. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any bullying. Please link to a diff. From perusing the different areas provided - their behavior and summaries looks constructive. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: I am truly sorry if my comments have upset you. I could have been more diplomatic, but I don't think any of my comment are bullying. I would encourage you to stop calling me a bully all over the wiki, and also to perhaps take constructive comments less personally. It's not personal. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• The comments aren't bullying, don't constitute harassment, they seem entirely descriptive of editing issues, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes people can come across as terse but it doesn't necessarily imply malice. I'd honestly suggest just taking the criticism on board and continuing, nobody's infallible. SITH (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• There's no bullying or intimidation at all here, but just discussion of Wikipedia edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For example, I published the article Cherryl Fountain and 35 minutes later the editor in question fixed its talk page with wikiproject banners, and used that as occasion to reprimand me for not doing it first. As it happened I was fixing the What Links Here aspect of the new article first. Is there a rule saying that I must fix the talk page with wikiproject banners within 35 minutes otherwise it's an offence? (there is no diff for that because it's two different pages).

The editor in question said that I made up some theory about specific Wikimedia Commons images influencing the artist Cherryl Fountain to create particular paintings in response, which is nonsense. I put the pictures there to show the background context for the art and the artist, because most readers haven't been to Sheldwich and Badlesmere in Kent, England to see it for themselves. But due to that misunderstanding by the editor concerned, I was accused of making things up and OR. That is offensive. If the misunderstanding had been explained to me, I could have re-written and clarified the section with the pictures, or I could have removed it myself, and all would have been peaceful. It was the approach and accusations which were bullying and unnecessary.

Re "constructive comments": it is not constructive to fill in the talk page within 35 mins of publication, before the article creator has had time to do so, and then accuse the article creator of causing problems and suggesting AFC on those grounds. That is inappropriate, it is not constructive. It is intimidating, unnecessary, and therefore bullying.

Re being "personal": It is personal, because the editor concerned kept using the word "you." I kept asking them not to talk to me, hoping to end the conversation, but they kept replying with more issues, such as pretending that I was trying to ban them from the article talk page. Of course I was not trying to ban them from the talk page - I was asking them not to talk specifically to me. The only way to end issues with bullies is to end the conversation. I have tried to end the conversation but it won't go away.

I am not arguing about edits that the editor concerned made to the article. You can see that by the way that I dealt with it by saving any removed elements of the article on the talk page, while carefully explaining the value of those reclaimed sections. My distress is caused by the accusations and insults, and the belittling of the (female) biographical subject. Example of belittling - the editor in question complained that it was not an achievement for the artist to have had work accepted for the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition over 28 different exhibition years, yet if you look at the listing you'll see that that only the minority of artists have achieved that. Storye book (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, cut your losses. Wm335td (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the tone and the content of some of ThatMontrealIP's comments, such as "First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort." Since when are any of these things mandatory for articles? Where is the basis for this statement in policies and guidelines, ThatMontrealIP? Where does the documentation for the autopatrolled right say any of that? So, I will disagree with several of the comments above by other editors. I consider ThatMontrealIP's comments to be inimidating, needlessly aggressive and not based in policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with Cullen on this and go further. While I have tagged many articles for Wikiprojects, there is a reasonable view that it is up to the WikiProjects that are active to tag articles for their Wikiproject. In this case it seems that Storye book agrees with tagging for WikiProjects, they just didn't do so in the first 35 minutes - not something they should be criticised for. As for not rating the article they contributed, is it ever OK for an editor to put a rating on an article that they have significantly edited? Surely we expect editors to let an uninvolved editor rate an article that they have written? I'm sure I have never rated any article that I have started. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I agree with you both. TMIP, autopatrolled doesn't mean "Creates perfect articles from scratch." Why in the world would you start heavily editing an article while the creator is still editing it? Your assertion at the article talk that Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort is both rude and incorrect. I move drafts to article space as soon as I'm convinced the subject is indeed notable and then continue to work on them in article space. It often takes me hours and sometimes days to realize I've neglected to insert default sort and auth control or that, oops, didn't add X wikiproject. And as for large removals, give the creator a chance to get the article where they want it, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I already retracted those comments yesterday. See below. I did not notice this was a new article when I saw it. it was very well developed, as it was two weeks old by the time I came to it. See here for the cut and paste move.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: as I said above I could have been more diplomatic in how I phrased things. The autopatrolled jumped out when I checked out the editor (I have the gadget installed that shows editor permissions when you roll over their name). This article was chock full of the errors mentioned above, and there was a section called "Some rural influences" which was something Storye Brook created from images of Kent found on Commons. That was WP:OR. I also had the sense that the importance of the article subject was being puffed up. Since then, another editor just tagged some claims for primary sourcing and failed verification on two claims, and yet another editor removed a section that was apparently synthesis. There are other items that I mentioned to them on the talk page that, together with the above, make me wonder about the editing being done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, the problem is that the things that you call "errors" are not errors and not required, so when you berate an editor for non-existent errors, you have stepped over a line. You should withdraw the incorrect accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, I am so glad you are an admin. ThatMontrealIP, I think it is a good idea to listen to Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328. Thank you for this. It is all to often that when attempting to rebuff bullying behaviour, one is told to "cut your losses." But I think the main problem is that when people intimidate online, they fail to realise that intimidation online can frequently cause the recipient to either just give up or to turn the problem inwards and consider suicide. Online intimidation cannot be resolved by either denial of intimidation by bullies, or by supporters of bullies saying "cut your losses." I have been editing for Wikipedia for 15 years. I have uploaded over 14,000 images to Commons. Like a lot of other dedicated WP editors I pay my own expenses for research, for travel to research or photoshoot sites and so on. I don't expect anything in return, apart from politeness. Is that really too much to ask? Storye book (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: Sure, I formally and sincerely withdraw the accusation that not having wikiprojects, the talk page, authority control and default sort on a new page is an "error". My claim was not supported by policy. However I would like to point out that it is a reasonable thing to wonder why an editor might be autopatrolled when there are things like WP:OR in an article, which is required not to be there by policy for autopatrolled users. Four editors have made significant edits to the article since it was published, meaning there were some problems to be corrected. I looked at SB's other article creations, and they all looked good. It's strange that this one had so many problems (in my view). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, since "wondering" is a mental process invisible to others, you can wonder whatever you want. But when you assemble a bunch of false assertions and use those to impugn the work of another editor, calling into question their suitability for the autopatrolled right, then you have gone beyond simple wondering to the edge of harassment. I encourage to to rethink your approach to interaction with your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: I'll certainly follow your advice. Note also that I was not the only editor to claim to have found OR in the article: another editor found WP:SYNTHESIS in the article a little later. This is not expected to be something one would find in new articles by users with the autopatrolled right, per the autopatrolled policy. That is a valid concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen this happen before when intimidating tactics haven't worked, and the editors concerned attempt to shorten or weaken the article with the intention of deleting it instead. They are doing this now on the article talk page under the subheading Sourcing. I would like to see the article protected now. What happens is that if you remove enough of the article it no longer makes sense or hangs together. If you remove the sentence about the artist's father and the shooting, the patronage no longer makes sense, and neither does the artist's work, which is full of pheasants and so on. A lot of that material is context. They have removed the links to the pictures from the External links section, so you can no longer see the artist's work with the farm produce, pheasants and so on. I think the page should be reverted to its original condition, then re-edited by a neutral editor (preferably an administrator), because the current editing is no longer about improving the article, if it ever was. This same thing happened with a previous female biography that I created, and it was very fortunate that an administrator came in and called a halt to the editing. The admin then edited the article and it has remained stable since then. Storye book (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: The section you mentioned was about notability. Someone suggested the topic was not notable. I replied that the topic is likely notable, because they are in two museum collections. I went and found the sourcing for the second collection, pretty much guaranteeing that the article will be kept.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"not having wikiprojects... on a new page is an "error"." Articles with no WikiProjects do not get rated, they are difficult to locate, and may lack input from editors with interest in their subject matter. Adding WikiProjects yourself was a good idea, ThatMontrealIP. But accusing the article's creator for neglecting to add them is not a sign of civility, and doing so less than an hour following its creation is unreasonable. The article was still under construction. If you want to help out with a new article, do so without starting a needless fight. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Re my previous comments about non-constructive editing, I am concerned about the removal of mentions of the artist's work on the grounds that the works are described as works and not as exhibitions. Regarding notability, WP:BIO says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This requirement for notability has been met. But there is more to a biography than just notability. (For example, in the Winston Churchill biography, the article has not been pruned of everything that is not strictly necessary for notability. A sentence about his "black dog" depression is still there, for instance. But it is there for context.) All biographies need some sort of context that relates to the subject. To get a rounded picture of an artist's work, you need to read all about as many of their works as possible. However the editor in question has attempted to remove mention of a lot of works by Fountain which are not in exhibitions, and (oddly) a lot of works which were in an important exhibition. None of this is constructive. I ask again that the page be protected, reverted back to its original condition, and re-edited by a neutral editor, preferably an administrator. Thank you. Don't forget that the living subjects of these biographies are reading this stuff, and probably wondering what is happening when so many of their works are deleted when they have been properly referenced and are genuine. Storye book (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Storye book: Now you are really just talking about a content problem, which does not belong here. As I said above the notability is not in question; they are in two museum collections. Several other editors have been over the page and showed no problems with my edits. I think we're done here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, and you need to make your case on the article talk page, and build consensus there. Disagreement about content does not justify full protection of an article. Administrators are not "super editors" and have no more power or authority regarding content than anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll just mention that I have restored the longish section at Talk:Cherryl Fountain, containing posts from 26 and 27 September, that Storye book archived on 28 September. I don't know why they did that, and there is no explanation in the edit summary.[114] Storye book, you can archive your own talkpage whenever you like, but archiving article talkpage discussions that are just a couple of days old is not a good idea. Archiving is for moving old, no longer current, stuff from the talkpage; it's not for putting up-to-date discussions out of sight. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, their explanation, made on Valereee's talk page, is that they contained BLP violations. However all I can see is discussion of the painter's notability in Wikipedia terms. I don't see how that can possibly be off-limits for discussion on a talk page.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I announced my reasons for archiving on the talk page (Why the rush? section), before doing so. After archiving, I announced that I had done it on the same talk page. The BLP tag at the top of the talk page says that if there is contentious and unsourced material about a living subject of the biography in the article or on the talk page, then we must delete it. I did a gentler thing by archiving it. But would you rather that I followed the BLP tag instructions and deleted the contentious comments instead? The talk page is for improving the article. That does not include judging the work of the artist, or judging the artist herself. Expressions like "run of the mill artist" are judgmental and there is no citation for that, anyway. There are other examples of contentious judgments there, if you want a list. Storye book (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I should add that the above resumption of this conversation is about editing (specifically archiving), which I believe should be continued elsewhere. May I suggest that if anyone has more to say, it is continued on the article talk page? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wrote up an answer for this page, so I'll post it here. An explanation anywhere other than in the edit summary is kind of useless IMO, Storye book. People who see your removal, with the single word "Archived" as explanation, ought not to be expected to read through the talkpage looking for the reason. But I'm glad to now understand why you did it. I don't think those are BLP vios, but of course, as you say, they wouldn't be any fun for the subject to read. It's hardly fair to others, though, especially ThatMontrealIP, to unilaterally archive their recent text. If I were you, I would ask on the talkpage if it was all right — you know, "Does anybody mind if if I archive section such-and-such?" Preferably in a separate, clearly headed section, rather than as part of a long post in a mysteriously headed section ("Why the rush?"). Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

Possible widespread birthplace vandalism

• Special:Contributions/140.213.2.27/24

I happened to see a recent unsourced addition of a birthplace to an infobox from this IP (not supported in the article), and then checked the contribs from the associated /24, and I see lots and lots and lots of unsourced additions of birthplaces. I have no idea if any of the changes are accurate or not, but they're certainly unsourced. I also haven't checked any wider of a range than /24. Extra help/eyes in examining this would be immensely appreciated, as would any suggestions in case this is determined to be a problem. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have checked out some of the IP's edits and they are outrageous. For example: Carmelo Garcia is a New Jersey legislator and the only mention of a birthplace within the article is "Garcia was born in 1975 and lived in Hoboken his entire life." but the IP placed the birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. I have currently checked twenty edits and all of them are without sourcing. - Jon698 talk 2:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also edits by 140.213.5.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and similar ranges. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep

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

---

I understand User:DePiep has a long record of incivil behaviour. More recently I recall he was blocked for one month.

I’ve experienced this behaviour myself, including his use of hostile and foul language, and, as a non-Admin, warned him about it

Much as I appreciate his contributions, and have put up with his unwelcome behaviour, his recent behaviour is the last straw for me.

What particularly annoys me is having to waste time writing up this post, when I have better things to do. That said, the time has come for short-term pain (this complaint) with a view to a long-term gain (the end of DePiep’s unwelcome behaviour).

What happened (25 to 26 Sep)
The action takes place here:

A. WP:ELEM Lead PT in PT article
B. Periodic table, article history
C. Template:Element, history
D. WP:ELEM Alkali metal color

Colleagues at WP:ELEM had been having a discussion about how to colour categorise the periodic table graphic appearing in the lede of our periodic table article. WP:ELEM is a small project with about a half dozen active to semi-active members, including DePiep. A few other editors drop in from time to time.

After a considerable discussion within the project, including a survey of the literature, the sequence of events was then:

1.  I posted an updated PT graphic to our periodic table article. [B, 04:44, 25 Sep]
2.  I told WP:ELEM about it and why. [A, 07:14]
3.  Two project members User:R8R and User:Double Sharp asked for a minor easily accommodated change, that is all. [A, 07:45; 09:16]
4.  User: YBG suggested some other really cool options. [A, 08:55]
5. DePiep subsequently reverts my updated graphic. [B, 09:24]
   It is evident that DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners. As a fellow WP:ELEM member he could not be bothered doing his homework and checking for the background to the offending edit, a background discussion which he was supposedly following.
6. I ping to DePiep that, as a WP:ELEM member, and in the context of the subject discussions and supportive feedback, the revert, as opposed to further discussion, was uncalled for. [A, 10:52]
7. I took these comments by R8R, DS and YBG as indicating consensus for the change, subject to some modifications, which I enacted. In the comments to the edit I say, "D please DePiep, rather than R, if you have o/s concerns." [B, 13.12]
8.  User:ComplexRational chimed in saying he was basically happy with the graphic, and provided some further comments. [A, 13:33]
9. DePiep reverts me for a second time. [B, 21:39]
10. WP:ELEM member User:R8R posts a single associated change to the colour scheme for the WP:PT. He did this since WP:ELEM members generally do not like the particular colour shade in question. [C, 14:54, 26 Sep]
11. WP:ELEM member User: Double sharp posts a "like". [D, 16:39]
12. DePiep once again reverts. [C, 21:34]

I have since reverted DePiep’s revert, commenting that he (DePiep) is not the arbiter of these matters.

That was the last straw for me, and is why am here. I begrudge no one the right to revert. But not without context and not within a project without bothering to check the associated discussion. As noted, DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners, even within a project he is a member of.

On a few occasions I may have been tetchy in my interactions with DePiep. I believe none of my these were over the top. That said, if anything I have done is deemed to be inappropriate I am happy to held accountable.

That is another indication that I have reached the end of my tether wrt to DePiep’s ongoing incivility, and his proclivity for same, despite past warnings and a recent 1-month block.

Outcome sought
In light of this incivil behaviour, and DePiep’s record of same, I am requesting that he is once again sanctioned. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Sandbh, you need to provide WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. If you don't know how to create a diff, find the edit in question (either by clicking "prev" or using the radio buttons), copy the url, and post it here inside square brackets, like this random sample diff: [115]. --Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, don't see anything apart from DePiep reverting some what correctly for no consensus. Games of the world (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Sandbh, rather than coming to ANI, and posting accusations about other editors in discussions, per WP:BRD what you should have done is posted [a link to] your preferred final version of the table on the talkpage of one of those pages, pinged every single participant from the discussions, and established a clear WP:CONSENSUS (preferably, with clear "Support" and Oppose" !votes). Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads and in various places, there is no actual consensus. Please go back and establish the actual consensus. If no consensus becomes clear even after pinging all the relevant participants, then create an official WP:RFC. Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD. Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you. And discuss content, not other editors. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bottom line: This is a content issue, and this thread can be closed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that this should be closed ASAP, particularly due to apparent canvassing issues. Games of the world (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I should add to this discussion before it is closed. I’d appreciate a couple of hours’ time to do so.—R8R (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Comments by DePiep

• TL;DR: I claim to have worked by BRD. That is me reverting and engaging in the talk. I asked to point out (or strive for) consensus.

I am a long-time member of WP:ELEMENTS, as is Sandbh. We have had serious and fruitful discussions at WP:ELEMENTS, some taking over a year. Together the WP:ELEMENTS members and contributors have build a strong case and consensus alsmost every time. I have implemented these outcomes loyally.

Recent months, a multitude of ideas and proposals were discussed at the project talkpage, mostly initiated by Sandbh. This involves dozens of threads and many hundreds of edits. Unfortunately, many threads meandered off into a different topic, and not a crisp conclusion (consensus) was reached. Most if not all threads' issues come together in periodic table and its image. So far, all fine. However, since last December there seems to be a chilled, less cooperative atmosphere on the talkpage.

04:44, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the main image in periodic table [116]. It included many changes, both content (the science) and editorial (graphic effects).

09:24, 25 September 2020 I reverted it [117] "undo. not fleshed out, no consensus, too much quirks". One editor supported this revert explicitly [118].

I joined the discussion constructively: [119], [120], and I asked to point out consensus's for the many changes [121].

I also added a question about a subtopic [122], and Sandbh actually implemented a result (albeit without consensus); this is to show that I did engage and that Sandbh acted upon my contribution.

13:12, 25 September 2020 Sandbh changed the image again into the new version, updated (image version history) [123]; I reverted [124] for the same reason.

All in all, this is a straight BRD sequence. (Problematic is that consensus is hard to find in the talkpage for most of the changes; some changes were not even discussed at all, esp. the graphical ones. But this is a content & discussion issue, not relevant for ANI, I think. To me it looks like Sandbh is construing 'consensus' from the presence of the discussion only).

In a separate place I reverted an edit [125], and engaged in the talk with arguments [126] (so BRD again). Sandbh replied with a personal attack not engaging in the argumentation [127].

I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases, constructively. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Comments by R8R

There is a reason why Sandbh wrote those words, "last straw." This is not an isolated disagreement.

To set the stage, here is a couple of my past encounters with DePiep. Here is one of my previous disagreements with them: Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal. The core of that argument was that DePiep interpreted rules in a very particular manner. Even though nobody agreed with their interpretation and five people (including myself) opposed it, they still continued to act as if they were right. These actions included reverting a revert, oblivion to others' arguments (calling the version of the name of element 13 commonly used in the United States ("aluminum") outdated, even though other editors had pointed out that this was not the case), accusing others of misinterpretation of a guideline when the person had only, in fact, quoted it (the editor in question was surprised by this accusation as well as the accusation that they were not "performing this dscussion sincerely", see the same edit), and making an "utterly false claim" about another editor's actions. Save for the first one, I was not the editor involved in these episodes.

Then there was another encounter at Talk:History of the periodic table. While ComplexRational and I were working on improving the said article (mostly if not exclusively CR at that point), DePiep came in and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done.

In this particular case, my input was changing the color of one group of elements. I didn't expect this to be a controversial action: other editors called for that previously, and even DePiep themselves had said changing the old color was "good choice for access reasons" just a few hours before I made that change. In response, I got three consecutive messages from DePiep: in the first one, I was told that it "would be nicer if you had published it" (I will refer to this later), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave (I did not make any edits concerning this issue between those messages). That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw.

At the same time, I am having a discussion (at times peaceful and at times not) with DePiep at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of two particular actions taken by DePiep: one is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page, and the other is using obscene language that was directed at another editor (myself). The former action, as you see, is not their first time doing something of that kind, and the latter action is something DePiep had done in the past, too.

The reason why I wanted to return to "publishing" is that DePiep is often not having an edit unless it had been approved at WT:ELEM, including the two rather uncontroversial edits from this week mentioned by Sandbh and myself. Not that they oppose it, they merely impose having to make a bureaucratic request and have other editors approve it, and the approval must be good enough for DePiep or else it won't pass. This is rather unsettling because it stops other editors from being bold and improving the article without having to undergo our local bureaucracy that nobody is asking for. We do have a habit of discussing things that we find worthy of a full discussion. I want the uncalled for bureaucracy (and undoing others, and not listening to them, and obscene language) to stop so that we can be a part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, again.

I am eager to stand accountable for anything other editors believe I should stand accountable for.--R8R (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Once more about this revert by me ({{Element color}}). In the editsummary, and in my subsequent talkpage post [128], I clearly noted the problem with this change. (For the interested reader: it created two nearly identical colors in the legend - ouch). Also, asking for a proposal/discussion after a bold edit is basic WP practice called WP:BRD; I do not see how that could be worth noting here. I also note that neither you nor Sandbh responded to the actual problem I noted, so evading D. Instead, you turn such regular BRD steps into some constructed nasty attitude you try to smear me with. And btw, the diff you added as "good choice for access reasons" is a misunderstanding on your side, and could easily have been cleared up in the talk had you mentioned it. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing wrong with noting what you think is a problem; that's fine, simple BRD is fine. That's not the takeaway from my mention of it. A normal BRD cycle doesn't result in telling another editor to "grow up and behave," that's the uncivil behavior here.

The claim that I have not responded to your concern is demonstrably false.

Even if I had indeed simply misunderstood you, that is still no excuse for the behavior you have shown. I made a bold change that I believed to be uncontroversial and was reverted with a comment that told me to grow up and behave.--R8R (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R:. You only entered the discussion after I posted a second call to discuss [129].

"grow up and behave" is a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits. In this case: discuss up. Looks like anything I would say would land wrongly with you and with complainer Sandbh [130]. As this thread shows, the two of you had a tendency to turn content issues (or disappointments) into personal behaviour issues (or straight personal attacks). -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

When you have raised your concern for the first time, it was past midnight in my timezone. Of course I didn't react. And from then, it took you thirteen minutes and no action from me to tell me to grow up and behave. I replied to you soon after the midday of the next day (today), soon after I replied to a few other comments that required my attention. I replied twelve hours after you first raised the concern, I'd say that's quick enough, and yet, you decided to present here the argument that I had not responded to the problem you raised; not just that, you even added no further qualifications. Instead, you could have said, "I'm sorry, I was wrong to accuse you of that." In fact, you still can.

"Grow up and behave" is indeed a colloquial address, but it's not by any measure civil; its remarkably condescending. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I told you something like that. But if that's the language you consider fine to be used among collaborators, find those people who agree with you, and talk to them in that manner. I am not responsible for Sandbh's words (and he isn't for mine), if you want to talk to me, talk about me or yourself, and you can discuss his behavior with him. I'll note that quite a while ago, you wrongly accused me of making personal attacks against you, and I've been extra careful since then not to let you be right the next time you make such a statement. Having said that, I'm sure other editors will find a way to assess my behavior here, and yours, too. Dixi.--R8R (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The point is, @R8R and Sandbh: these are a clearcut Bold-Revert-Discuss processes, but you both are turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add. Let me note here that the multiple agressive violent comments like DePiep shoots first and takes no prisoners I left aside -- but only by my choice. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

First commentary by Sandbh: As this is the first time I have lodged a complaint, here are my impressions of the way it has been responded to, aside from R8R's contribution.

1. Thank you User:Softlavender for your advice regarding the provision of WP:DIFFs (URLs) of DePiep's problematic edits/posts. I will do so.
2. User:Games of the world I explained the basis for my impression that I had consensus. I further understood that (a) consensus does not require unanimity; and (b) that consensus does not necessarily require a formal RFC process and certainly not within a project within which the matter had already been discussed at some length, and of which DePiep is a member.
   I further see you have your own record of blocks and taking an undue interest in matters here at WP:ANI. Your comments are not welcome, by me, in this matter. You may like to take note of the advice provided to you on your talk page, today, by User: Girth Summit re, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.”
   Neither is your pile-on request, for an early close of my complaint, welcome, following the request by Softlavender.
3. 1st request to SL: User:Softlavender: I will thank you to (a) not tell me what I should have done; and (b) not refer to my statement of facts as allegations. For that matter, you may like to advise me how I can post a complaint here about incivil behaviour without posting a statement concerning the facts of the matter, or allegations as you refer to them.
   1. Re: “Since the discussion(s) is now spread out over lengthy threads”, no the threads are not that lengthy, and I have provided the times and places of the relatively few posts of concern, albeit without the diff summaries, which I will provide.
   2. Please do not tell me, “Don't bring something here just because you got reverted (twice) per WP:BRD.” All you have demonstrated to me is your lack of understanding of the concise sequence of events and times that I provided. Further, there are three reverts involved in this matter.
   3. Please do not tell me to, “Follow BRD, even if someone reverting you upsets you.” I understand BRD and do not, as I said in my complaint, begrudge any editor’s right to revert. I explained my concern about BRD in this particular case, in my complaint. And please do not tell me to, “discuss content, not other editors.” I came here with a complaint about DePiep’s behaviour, and not for a talking down about how I should not set out the facts of the matter.
   4. I will thank you for not expressing your superficial and unhelpful bottom line opinion that my complaint can be closed (really?) in a matter with which you have had zero involvement and have zero appreciation of the issues at play.
4. User:Games of the world I will thank you to please check your facts before referring to what you regard as apparent “canvassing issues”. If you could have been bothered to do so, as User: Black Kite seems to have done, you would have seen that no such canvassing occurred. As noted, your running commentary is unwelcome.
5. User:Black Kite Thank you for your post. Quite so.
6. My impression so far is that of a stampede to dismiss my complaint ASAP, comments by R8R and DePiep aside.
7. I have worked with DePiep for several years, within the WP:ELEM project. This is the first time I have felt it necessary to bring my concerns to this forum. I did not do so lightly and did not expect my concerns to treated in a manner akin to spectator catcalls from a peanut gallery. I’m looking at you, Softlavender, and Games of the World. 2nd request to SL: Please stay out of this and please stop wasting more of my time (single helpful comment by Softlavender, aside).
8. God help us if that is the way matters brought here are to be treated.
9. I will wait for a real Admin who will give my complaint fair consideration and due process. Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"I claim having worked by BRD all along in both cases". This claim is bogus. BRD says (quoted verbatim): If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again and BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, I don't think you are helping your case by attacking (and name-calling) people who are trying to resolve the matter here, or by putting words in my mouth; I have never used the word "allegations" as you twice claimed. I do see that you have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136].

  And here is you apparently defying WP:BRD, implying that the lack of consensus for your change did not merit a revert: [137]. So at this point, you either don't understand WP:BRD (which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss), or you refuse to abide by it and refuse to demonstrate clear consensus, but rather edit-war and then run to ANI. And it is true there is no clear consensus, as you admitted in that post, and it is true that the discussions are spread over massive threads comprising many lengthy paragraphs in at least two different threads. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh I'm an admin, and I'm definitely real. I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve. You have reported that DePiep has been uncivil, but I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us to deal with. R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation "WTF" - I know what that stands for, but it's a very commonplace way of expressing surprise and/or frustration, I don't think there would be any likelihood of a consensus emerging that it is a sanctionable mode of expression (in the way that I might block someone for repeatedly saying "Fuck you" to someone). Just so that I don't need to click through every one of the links above and read all of the conversations in full, are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?

Failing that, I'd make the general observation that anyone reverting anybody else's work ought to be doing so because they have a specific disagreement with it, and they should be willing to discuss that disagreement on the article talk page - BRD is meant to offer a way to work constructively together, it's not intended to be a roadblock. I don't have the time just now to read through all of the above, click through all the links, and come to an opinion on whether anyone is trying to be obstructive rather than constructive - anybody wanting to demonstrate that would do well to offer a concise summary, supported by illustrative diffs. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I would like to make a clarification. "WTF" may indeed be common in English, but that doesn't mean it's not obscene: for instance, the Cambridge Dictionary lists the abbreviation as "offensive slang." I also note that meaning of a word depends on the context, and both examples I have brought up are aimed at a specific editor, rather than merely feature the abbreviation. As a non-native speaker of English, I was once rather puzzled by the way some words are used in it, and I eventually made sure to learn what is permissible and what is not.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

R8R mild obscenities of that sort aren't prohibited here, unless there has recently been a massive shift in what's permissible that I'm unaware of. Personally, it's not a phrase I would use towards an editor whom I didn't know well, especially if it was someone I was in dispute with; however, admins have only a few rather heavy and unwieldy tools we can use to encourage positive collaboration, and blocking someone's account for using a very common phrase like that would be excessively heavy-handed. It's rather vulgar, but it's not an insult or a personal attack, all I can do about that is encourage the DePiep to try to bear in mind that they should try to choose words and expressions that will make it easier, not more difficult, to collaborate with colleagues. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I'll merely say that this was only one of those things that I mentioned. It's unpleasant to hear something like that and it doesn't help the dialogue, but I wouldn't have come here had it only been that.--R8R (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

3rd request by Sandbh to SL to Softlavender Per my request, unless you are the Admin who will be dealing with my complaint, please stay the hell out it and cease and desist the incivil, unhelpful, unproductive, time-wasting, unwelcome harassment, bullying and associated behaviour. I do not need you to run a damned play-by-play commentary on my behaviour, which I stand ready to be held accountable for, not that it is the subject of the complaint. As I said, and you blatantly ignore, you have zero knowledge of WP:ELEM and zero knowledge of the long-standing relationships involved within that project, and apparently zero knowledge of DePeip's past transgressions and proclivity for incivil behaviour. I am warning you. Any more of your unhelpful, and unknowledgeable pot-stirring commentary and I will lodge a complaint about your unwelcome, unprofessional, incivil behaviour. Go and stick your nose into someone else's business and waste their damed time, rather than mine! It is bad enough that I have to waste my time but I explained the reason for that. Get the heck out of it! Screw up someone else's life! Sandbh (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, crikey - that post was the least civil thing I've seen when looking through this. I get that you're frustrated, and ANI is not a fun place to hang out, but there wasn't any call for that. You might want to consider looking at Softlavender's last post as a useful example of how to make a point concisely, and to support it with diffs. Softlavender isn't an admin, but she's an experienced editor in good standing and I genuinely think she was trying to help resolve this. I hate asking people to calm down, I realise that it often inflames situations rather than having the intended effect, but really - please dial it back a few notches. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, this isn't your personal domain or your talkpage, and you cannot bar people from posting here. This noticeboard is for problem resolution, and welcomes the input and insight of both administrators and experienced editors. Experienced editors add more eyes to the situation and add evidence, especially when evidence is missing or curtailed in the original request. Also of note is the WP:BOOMERANG aspect of noticeboard filings, which is that when you file a complaint about someone, your behavior will be scrutinized as well. If you have not done the obvious steps of resolving whatever dispute you are reporting (in this case the obvious step per WP:BRD would be demonstrating consensus, on the article's talkpage, for the change you wanted), and/or if your own behavior has exacerbated the situation or been equally problematical, then those factors are taken into consideration. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On that note, two useful links:

1. Tips for dealing with incivility

2. ANI advice

--Softlavender (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The 14:13 post by Sandbh re Softlavender is not nice to read, and not helpful IMO even in ANI. Also, I do not wish my current opponent to be judged by this single post. I request that his post be nullified ('as if not existant') and not considered at all. That leaves the rest of the thread to deal with. (So, to be clear: forget about this one post, and process the thread at best everyone. No harm to Sandbh for this one). -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thank you for becoming involved in my complaint. I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can. Sandbh (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Second commentary by Sandbh
@Girth Summit: As I stated previously I will post the diffs as helpfully suggested by Softlavender.

In the context of my complaint I'm requesting due process. That is, a considered examination of the issues of substance and an impartial decision as to whether DePiep's conduct (a) constitutes incivil behaviour; and (b) warrants a commensurate sanction. Now that I look at what I just wrote I am surprised that I even need to set an expectation for due process.

With respect, as I see it, you have so far given my complaint a cursory examination bereft of the context of DePiep's repeated history of invicil behaviour, as has been previously raised in this forum, and the associated sanctions he received.

R8R has been editing for longer than I have and is the most civil, impartial, professional, deliberate, and nonplussed editor I have worked with. That he sees fit to add his concerns to my complaint, concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour, speaks volumes, for what my opinion is worth.

I said this was my first time at WP:ANI. That is after nine years from my first edit, and interacting with DePiep on and off during that time.

What is the first thing that happens? Softlavender chimes in, without announcing their status, and recommends closing my complaint. R8R, who I doubt has ever seen this, "panics" thinking the complaint is to be closed, and asks for a few hours so he can add his voice. His reaction just about matched mine.

As far as my comments regarding Softlavender, I called it as I saw it. I have seen and experienced more egregious unsanctioned behaviour, within WP, outside of this forum. In any event, what I wrote is not the subject of my complaint. That kind of righteousness, holier-than-though commentary and unrequested advice is unwelcome and incivil, as I see it.

I repeat my assertion concerning the unwanted commentary and advice rec'd from the peanut gallery, and that I should or should not do this or that, or read this or that.

4th request by Sandbh to SL: I understand this is not my personal domain. So I will repeat my request to Softlavender. Your running commentary is not welcome to me. If you are a valued editor, kindly desist from commenting on my complaint. I am not finding your commentary to be helpful to me.

User:Mr rnddude's comment (for which, thank you) that, "I am telling you this from years of experience with this board, Sandbh. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Don't start arguing with editors on this board." does not fill me with confidence that my complaint will receive an impartial hearing, with due consideration of the behaviour of concern.

If my own behaviour is of concern to anyone, anyone is welcome to raise that as a separate issue. Please do not conflate the two issues of my complaint concerning DePiep's incivil behaviour with my subsequent behaviour. Separate the two matters please, according each editor involved due process. I have nothing to hide. I stand by my actions and accept full accountability for them.

Regarding your comment, "I appreciate that you have come here looking for a resolution to what you perceive to be a real problem, but I'm not sure how easy it is going to be for admins to resolve." There is no problem needing resolution. Rather, I have raised a complaint concerning incivil behaviour, that is all. I am seeking a fair consideration of my complaint. This includes deciding, in an impartial manner, if there is a case to answer, noting DePeip's extensive history of incivil behaviour and, if so, whether a sanction is warranted. I hope that is not too much to expect of an Admin, whether that is you or another Admin, or Admins.

I speak in the context of decades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct.

Finally I note and thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User:Andy Mabbett, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. On your part Girth, I note your inclination to dismiss R8R's concerns, and to highlight User:Softlavender's (unwanted by me) contributions, in the context of them knowing nothing about relationships within WP: ELEM, including their recommendation to close my complaint, which only caused unnecessary grief for me and R8R.

I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration rather than the near-shambles (as I see and feel it) that I have experienced to date.

The complaint has already burgeoned out far beyond what it needed to, including my latest 750+ words, here. No wonder you may not have had the time to fully assess it, presuming you will take the lead on it as an admin.

I have now marked out my four requests to User:Softlavender to cease what I regard as unwanted, unhelpful, harassment and bullying behaviour. I will not put up with a recurrence of this unwanted behaviour from a supposedly valued editor, in light of my repeated requests to them to stop doing this to me.

Sincerely, Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I intend to address your comments shortly, as concisely as I can. Was this really as concisely as you can? Given your decades of RL experience in conflict resolution and the management of misconduct, how would you rate your own approach to conflict resolution here? Did you adhere to, or stray from, the basic principles of conflict resolution? Did you focus on the problem, or on the people? Did you do more reading (listening) or writing (talking)? Did you validate others' points of view, or dismiss them? Did you identify shared interests, or only your own? Did you propose solutions that everyone can say yes to, or did you approach it as a zero-sum game? These were rhetorical questions. I hope and expect that my complaint, in the fullness of time, will receive due consideration ... It won't. Your responses to the editors who engaged above will not attract more participation in this thread, other than from people like me pointing out with a healthy dose of snark that you have truly bungled your request for assistance. Though this trainwreck of a thread might be fouled beyond repair, should the problem you're having continue, you might try posting here again in the future, but next time, put to use those decades of experience in conflict resolution and present the complaint in a way that actually makes volunteers feel invited and welcome to help. Good luck. Lev!vich 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Your comments add nothing to progressing the management of my complaint. God help us if this is the way a first complaint here at WP:ANI, after nine years of contributing to WP, and a request for due process, is treated. The topic is my complaint of uncivil behaviour by Depiep. Please leave my behaviour out of it, or raise a separate complaint about me. You comment about my decades of experience in conflict resolution and dealing with misconduct Guess what: I followed due process! How novel; is that something that might possibly be extended to the shambolic way I've so far been treated here?

How about considering the good advice of Girth re dial it back a few notches? How about waiting until I de-stress enough to be able to post the diffs, rather than stirring the pot with what I regard as biased self-righteousness, which is only contributing to the problem rather than its solution?

Unlike your contribution, I once again thank the helpful comments by User:Black Kite, User: Pigsonthewing, User: R8R, and User: Mr rnddude. Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Request by Sandbh to all concerned: Please, no more contributions until I have de-stressed enough to be able to post the diffs. Exception: YBG, who has already advised me that, as a fellow WP:ELEM member, they will be making a contribution. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Sandbh: Once I again I remind you that you do not get to control who or what is posted on this thread or anywhere on Wikipedia except your own talk page. If you do not want any more input here (except from people of your choosing), I suggest withdrawing this complaint and going back to the project talkpage and using standard procedures (dedicated threads, polls, questions) to establish what the current consensus is around the image of the periodic table. If you continue here battling with experienced and well-meaning editors in good standing, and attacking them, instead of making the case against DePiep (using diffs as I suggested in my first response to you), you are doing nothing except making it worse for yourself and sullying your own reputation. I posted a link above but I don't think you read it, so I'll post it again: ANI Advice. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created

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

The user above appears to have semi-automatically created thousands upon thousands of pages using WP:AWB in their userspace—e.g. User:Starzoner/3117, User:Starzoner/3116, User:Starzoner/3115, ... see their recent userspace contributions. According to XTools, they have created more than 32,000 pages in their userspace. I was alerted to this situation last night by DannyS712, and I provisionally revoked their AWB access pending an answer to a query about this editing, see User talk:Starzoner#Mass page creation (permalink). Their rationale was I just created some pages so that I can built off of them later. In the future, when I get to them, I can just continue where I started, instead of copy pasting content later on. As I stated on their talk page, I don't fully understand this rationale unless they intended to create a bot that could create articles, which would have certainly needed a WP:BRFA and quite possibly also an RfC before starting. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure what should be done with the 32,000+ pages, and so I could use more eyes. Should they be deleted? If so, I could use some help deleting them. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears the user has also created at least 850 articles in mainspace, most of which are one-line stubs that they indeed used WP:AWB to create, e.g. Schefflera simplex. So it seems this issue is not restricted to userspace. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  They were also massively moving categories out of process recently (manually, not via Cfd) but they stopped after they got a warning (which is still at their talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've come across similar plant stubs in NPP over time and I ask to please not try and move more plant stubs into mainspace when they are a single unreferenced sentence. Numbered stubs are an absolute waste of time. We aren't going to run out of article any time soon, so you don't have to grab them all up. (And if we do, now I know where to find some free ones.) Natureium (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Since he seemed to respond well to the warning, hopefully a firm "request" to not make new pages of any kind until his total number of "incomplete" drafts is under some reasonable number, like 20, AND that he be given an opportunity to ask for a mass-deletion of these drafts. As for the stubs he created, I'll be happy to skim a representative sample for notability. If the fast majority are notable, just leave them alone, if too many are non-notable and have no other page history, mass-deletion under WP:TNT may be the answer. If it turns out he's not willing to play by the rules after being told what they are, well, that's what AN/I is for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of their new articles are about taxons which are all notable. I do not see any issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, I should clarify that they were apologetic in response to my query, and they said they were okay with me deleting the userspace pages if I wanted to. I don't think I'm necessarily looking for any sanctions here, but rather some more eyes to see just what should be done with all these pages. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment continued: He has "page mover" user-rights, which is useful when moving drafts of notable topics, such as the taxons that Ymblanter just mentioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is my impression that Starzoner has previously experimented with an "assembly line" approach to taxon articles, which resulted in plenty of problems and about ten screens worth of comments by me and other NPPs. After some teething troubles, the current stubs are generally fine (although still in need of the odd touch-up) but that seems to be contingent on them not being stamped out from templates - whenever they fall back on that, we get inapplicable refs, deactivated cats, and replicated grammar issues. I'd really hope the take-away from that would be not to mass-produce stubs, and certainly not on that gorgeous scale. Hint, hint. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): I concur with Elmidae's comment. An example is one of the articles moved into mainspace today: Vernonia goetzenii. The species is notable and the Infobox is valid. But the botanical author should always be referenced, in this case the provided reference is fine. Also the botanical author should really be linked if applicable, in this case to Karl August Otto Hoffmann. That it's a perennial plant is not in the provided reference. For a single article these points might be nit-picking. But when we're talking about hundreds of stubs being mass-created, these small things add up. In fairness, I don't think there's a whole lot more than can be said about Vernonia goetzenii, it's a little-documented species. But I'm not sure the same can be said for all the other stubs. And from Schefflera abyssinica (originally created in February) to today, these stubs don't really seem to have evolved much beyond the "is a plant" level of detail. Declangi (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection of the IPNI entry and the supposed protologue, Vernonia goetzenii is a nomen nudum, despite appearing as "accepted" in POWO and the Global Composite Database. As such, it can (and should) be deleted for lack of notability. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the critical monograph (Kalanda & Lisowski 1995) which might explain whether the name has ever been validated or why it remains undescribed. Choess (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good catch and outweighs my "nit-picks" above. And serves as a good reminder of the value of double-checking otherwise seemingly accepted names. Declangi (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Declangi: Actually, it's not and I stand corrected. On closer inspection, a description was added in Götzen's "Durch Afrika von Ost nach West" (p. 382). IPNI seems to have split an entry in Index Kewensis that held a reference both to the nomen nudum and to its subsequent validation. Will try to add a bit of description when I get a chance. Choess (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I disagree about a total ban on mass-producing stubs. However, "you are responsible for every edit you make" should be the rule of thumb. As a general rule I would say when it comes to semi-automated edits with tools that aren't proven to be reliable nearly 100% of the time, the editor should review the edit before saving it. The same of course applies to "assembly line edits" even if done manually. In other words, I don't see any problem running a script or "manual assembly line process" that rapidly creates taxons or whatever kind of stub from a list of clearly-notable topics, where having a bunch of stubs is clearly better than having a bunch of missing pages, as long as I preview each and every one before hitting "save" and take full responsibility for each and every save. If my script is well-written and my input data is good, I should be able to crank out 100-200 stubs an hour this way without harming the encyclopedia. If it's 90% good then I'll have to stop every 10th stub and do fixups, which might slow me down significantly but it will still be faster than doing it all by hand. The problem comes when you don't preview your edits well, or at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they aren't stopping to fix those problems. On 11 August I left a note on their talk page about problems with articles they created in February. They didn't respond, and deleted it with several others (including an earlier message I'd left them about a different problem) rather than waiting for them to be archived. The problems with the articles remain. Perhaps they're waiting for someone else to fix them? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no administrative issue to address here. Having helped out with some of these userspace drafts, I think those objecting are failing to see the forest for the trees. We have an established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles. Frankly, given the number of identified species, we are absolutely going to need some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). BD2412 T 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment)(and new to ANI) They're not in correct shape, despite multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision. What's the next step after a user is unresponsive to these requests? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  The initial complaint raised here was with respect to the thousands of pages the user has created in their userspace. So long as those remain in userspace, it doesn't matter what shape they are in. BD2412 T 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  Does a new issue need to be opened to address our related concerns or can that be rolled in here? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  We can address it here, but the mainspace content issue is a much smaller set of pages. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  "multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision." What is preventing these users from performing some of these revisions themselves? Starzoner does not own the new articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  We are...but since their edits are semi-automated, it takes a lot of one-by-one effort after the fact to fix them each. Better to do it right from the outset, which is why there is are bot review processes, right? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Where is the established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles? Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. You'll find strong consensus at WP:TOL that all species merit standalone articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Hyperik! I think that line in SPECIESOUTCOMES contradicts the global consensus at WP:N that nothing is inherently notable. I see that there is consensus at TOL (apparently since 2012, when SPECIESOUTCOMES was added), but the consensus of a wikiproject is local consensus and cannot override WP:N. Just a heads up, I'm going to boldly edit SPECIESOUTCOMES to match WP:N; I expect I might be reverted, at which point I'll probably start an RFC. Lev!vich 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this why we have Wikispecies? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is, but that is a far less trafficked project than this one. We have previously established that all confirmed species are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which may be a separate discussion to undertake. BD2412 T 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe now is a good time to eliminate that issue by not accepting stubs that are nothing more than a horizontal taxobox. Send them to Wikispecies, which is the proper venue. WSp cannot hope to expand without material. Build it and they will come? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That is a whole other ball of wax. I think it's hard - you can only create Wikipedia once. I would just as soon fold Wikispecies in here. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, nothing more. It doesn't have information on the distribution of the species or about its biology. Even the stub example chosen above as a "bad" example goes beyond the scope of a Wikispecies article on the taxon name, if there was one. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

oh what should I do then? but first, what are the back door discussions where someone is telling another user to keep an eye out? Maybe I should just forget contributing to Wikipedia here and move to Wikispecies since clearly some people have issues with my contributions here. :( Starzoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Notable or not, we don't need a stand-alone page about every species. In fact, that's a pretty poor way to organize the information. Multiple species can be covered on a single page about the genus or subgenus, for example. If all we have to say on a topic is one sentence (or as Atsme says, a horizontal tax box), then there's really no reason to put it on its own page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which should have articles; it's not a database of species containing data on species (that's WikiSpecies). BTW, mass-creating pages with a script is always a bad idea, whether it's articles or portals or redirects, it just adds to the maintenance work without really adding to the encyclopedia. Even if someone reads the stub, they get almost no value from it, because it contains almost no information. It's better to create lists (e.g. lists of species in a genus) than to mass-create one-line stubs (and I wish we could come to consensus on that because there are a number of editors who mass-create stubs by the thousands). Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This right here. We have decided in the past that WP has functions of a gazetteer so that's why we have articles, if just stubs, of every gov't recognized town and village, but I have yet to see anything that says we are doing the function of WikiSpecies here. No notability guideline gives this advice, it's not WP:OUTCOMES, etc. I agree that that higher levels of the taxological classification system will have each item notable but not at the species level, not when that numbers in the millions. --Masem (t) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Species form individual entries in works such as floras and zoological monographs, which are generally structured to provide a description of the characteristics of each species and usually some information on how to distinguish it from other species within scope. I would consider such works, like many other things, a type of specialist encyclopedia; the fact that the first pillar enumerates gazetteers does not alter our charge to subsume many specialist encyclopedias, of necessity unenumerated. Choess (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE is supposed to cover. I don't think WP:OUTCOMES needs tweaking: essentially all of the stubs created in this way, by various people, would meet the GNG with a little bit of digging, and trying to refine the current wording would, I think, create as much trouble as it would solve. But these stubs as written add nothing to the encyclopedia. The rationale for doing so seems to be that replacing redlinks with stub will catalyze the creation of useful articles, but people have experimented with this for years (not just in en.WP; Lsjbot? has mass-created taxon stubs on some of the other Wikipedias) and I haven't seen compelling evidence that the existence of stubs actually accelerates the creation of articles on taxa. Furthermore, the taxonomic databases have a low, but detectable rate of errors (I carry on a more or less regular correspondence to fix them), and these mass-creation strategies propagate and perpetuate those errors. If they added value to the encyclopedia, that might be tenable, but a stub that just re-iterates the taxonomic position of a taxon adds nothing. Putting that in prose adds nothing whatsoever to what one would get from referring to the external database. It's the empty calories of content creation: makes one look very productive and generates big numbers in articles created but doesn't really add *meaning*. We've historically been reluctant to formally raise the bar on minimum viable new articles, for fear of disturbing our incremental content-creation process (although maybe AfC has sapped this), but I'd heartily encourage Starzoner and other users thinking about projects like this to read WP:NOPAGE and carefully consider whether this really helps the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Starzoner: After reading through this discussion, I think the solution for now is simply to slow down. Instead of trying to create thousands of articles at once, shoot for a much smaller number (davidwr suggested 20 above). Try to be more careful when publishing articles—it seems a number of editors have identified certain issues with the articles that you are publishing, which is concerning when you seem to be publishing so many. After reading the discussion above, I don't think there is a compelling administrative need to go through and delete all 30,000+ pages in your userspace, as long as you're carefully the drafts you are publishing to mainspace for quality. I apologize for making you feel that you're contributions are not welcome here. I do appreciate your dedication to the project; I was merely concerned by the rate at which you were doing it and whether that might lead to errors that will affect our readers. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Bcliot33

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

---

Bcliot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bcliot33 is currently blocked for edit warring at Laura Loomer but they have a concerning enough history we might as well go over it now. They started off trying to simultaneously mainstream Loomer (downplaying her far-right politics and removing "conspiracy" from Loomer's conspiracy theory that Ilhan Omar married her brother for US citizenship) while also labeling Rashida Tlaib as "left-wing" or "leftist." ([138][139][140][141]). After this, they tried to add "left-wing" and "radical-left" to the Rashida Tlaib article ([142]), where NorthBySouthBaranof reverted them and explained on their talk page that we normally don't start off articles with "-wing" labels, especially when sourced to an opinion column. He didn't say "we never do this" and he didn't cite policy, but Bcliot33 proceeded to cite this post in the Loomer article to force an all-or-nothing false equivalence before launching into an edit war (still at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bcliot33_reported_by_User:Ian.thomson_(Result:Blocked_for_72_hours_)). The apparent reasoning being that if Tlaib is left of Loomer, and sources don't primarily label Tlaib a leftist, then we can't call Loomer far-right (even if sources mainly note her for her extremism). No matter what anyone else told Bcliot33, they kept citing that post by NBSB over and over, insisting that they were the only person following the rules.

While this was going on, they cited Marvin Stuart Antelman in a discussion about whether Adam Weishaupt was Jewish (a point that is mostly pushed by antisemitic conspiracy theorists and only accidentally reported by a couple of non-antisemitic non-specialists). I pointed to this RSN discussion where other users and I have pointed to the website of the author of the main source in the Illuminati article (as well as other comparable specialists), which Bcliot33 tried to say was me "using a conspiracy theorist website to discredit National Geographic magazine and Winston Churchill". This, in isolation, could be seen as them failing to actually look at a source because they're pissy at me and so opposed to anything I say. Their attempts to emphasize Jewish involvement in the pornography industry ([143][144]) could also be taken as innocuous enough in isolation. Buuut in light of attacking someone for pointing out that the Nazis used the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory to justify the Holocaust, and edit warring to assert that Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) is right about Jews and not a conspiracy theorist ([145][146][147][148])... it's not hard to be suspicious of their motives.

Then there's their activity in the article on fascist mystic and antisemitic conspiracy theorist Julius Evola, where they previously tried to argue that he wasn't a conspiracy theorist (despite advocacy for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and also removed claims sourced to a Routledge-published work to downplay Evola's racism. It's also interesting that he chose to cite the website of Greg Johnson (white nationalist) instead of the original book. And apparently Evola wasn't a misogynist because it's only natural for men to dominate women because women are spiritually inferior (not just a one-off).

Then there's emphasizing the role of Jews in the Communist revolution at Jewish Bolshevism (not just once, or twice). This isn't even touching their previous edit war on Communism to assert Masonic involvement (e.g.), which they didn't abandon.

I think it's pretty clear what we're dealing with here. At a minimum, they need to be topic banned from articles relating to politics and Jewish people. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agh, sorry about the rollback! That was indeed a watchlist misclick. Thanks for reverting, Pawnkingthree and sorry about that Ian.thomson! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Given how the discussion at Talk:Adam_Weishaupt has gone, it seems like User:Mdaviskinodblue must be a sock? --JBL (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

JBL Since people cited me I'll give my two cents. Since XDev was caught lying in the wikipedia and in his article (which was used as source), plus considering the fact other editors have used his article as a "source" to censor information, there is nothing else to do other than people create a conspiracy there is a network of nazis. User Ian.thomson was strongly promoting XDev fraudulent sources for quite some time and this is suspicious. I'd suggest investigating if they were collaborating in using fraudulent sources other than in the "Adam Weishaupt" page.Mdaviskinodblue (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And that response has me thinking that we need a CU to determine if you're either a sock or a Joe-job providing an excellent example of why Bcliot33 needed to be blocked, because I don't see any other options. I would be surprised if you were an offsite associate of Bcliot33's because your behavior is just too similar to his (that and accusing XDev and me of offsite collusion would be extra stupid). The source I was "promoting" (really just pointing to in the RSN discussion on NatGeo) was written by the author of the sources in our article on the Illuminati (which IMO meets WP:SELFPUB). XDev outed himself as that author in question. Now, if you can provide WP:DIFFs showing that either XDev was wholly responsible for the Melanson cite in the Illuminati article and can demonstrate that no one else would have considered citing that source, you might have a point against him... Buuut using that to try to accuse me of offsite collusion comes off as the sort of really desperate attack that Bcliot33 wants to make. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't lie in the article. The National Geographic piece on Weishaupt was brought to my attention by Josef Wages and Reinhard Markner, the two editors of The Secret School of Wisdom: The Authentic Ritual and Doctrines of the Illuminati. They didn't really debunk the errata in the NG articles so I went ahead and posted a more lengthy response. Jeva Singh-Anand was the translator of the previous mentioned book and I have been friends with both him and Wages for years. That I didn't cite the sources Jeva had in turned used to investigate Weishaupt's life was a mistake that I corrected. That is all. As for me "lying" in the talk page. I corrected myself multiple times after investigating further. That's what everyone should do. The Churchill/Webster argument was a big waste of time. Churchill himself cites Webster and Webster's French Revolution. So your point is moot. XDev (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, I blocked the Mdavis account just a few minutes ago for WP:NOTHERE given their comments on the QAnon page and recently removed thread here, and the very likely chance this is a sock of a blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

Here, by Bcliot33 to Ian.thomson. Bcliot33 then self-reverted. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have extended the block to indefinite based on the evidence of POV pushing presented above, plus the legal threat which was blanked but not unambiguously withdrawn. Any administrator who disagrees can reduce the block duration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has blanked the block notices. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, that means they read them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They're now on their third account, Menihn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- it seems like stronger measures (including page protection) are needed. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• CU was warranted and confirmed all these suspicions. If someone wants to start a pro forma SPI, they can do so. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Graeme Bartlett and denying G4s

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

---

User:Techie3/onemanonewoman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Techie3/marriagebox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DAYS after we had a discussion - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination, ending in deleting dozens of similar userboxes, new ones are coming up - and G4 speedydelete is being refused by the admin who recreated the box for his own use

First of all, should User:Graeme Bartlett be recreating a userbox that Wikipedians had just agreed was discriminatory as an administrator, and secondly, about these refused deletions:

• "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted"
• "remove g4 delete, never previously deleted" (different page)

G4s are meant to include things "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Now, this could just be an error, but it smacks rather strongly of POV-editing on his behalf. The first one is basically identical to DOZENS of ones deleted in that discussion, the second is within the range of ones that were deleted, though one would have to look a little harder, so if it had been just that one, I wouldn't have commented.

I've started another MfD for this, but, frankly... this is not how this should work. I really, really didn't want to bring this up here, but it's getting far too ridiculous. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 06:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree that the consensus in the MFD was delete, and that was closed in error.

You'd think an administrator would know better than this. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the edit that created this version of the template has an edit summary reading "(Backup copy of template)". You know, a re-creation. Of something previously deleted. How does that square with Graeme_Bartlett's claim of "never previously deleted"? --Calton | Talk 06:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it extremely distasteful that GB, an admin, copied the code of one of those templates onto his userpage while the MFD was in progress and it was beginning to WP:SNOW. Narky Blert (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

These "backup copies" were made before the MFD was officially closed, on the 23rd and 24th of September. I wanted to change the wording of some of the boxes, particularly the marriage box. I hope this ends peacefully.    Techie3 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

These "backup copies" were made before the MFD was officially closed, on the 23rd and 24th of September. Right. And this is relevant...how? --Calton | Talk 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well these boxes were not been illegal at first,and you could have caught them before the MFD closed. Techie3 (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You copied the content of the user boxes in advance of their coming deletion, as an end-run around process, and your only defense is that you weren't caught early enough? --Calton | Talk 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I will preface this with the statement that I strongly supported the deletions and a brief look at my user page will show I don't support declarations undermining the validity of my family. I do think this issue needs to be monitored and fully support Adam Cuerden and the repost here. But this is a heated subject and I think this might have been done in the heat of the moment, by an otherwise positive editor. They might be having second thoughts regarding this and I think we should wait until they have replied to form any conclusions. Maybe I'm a hopeful optimist, but I'm just trying to assume the best about individuals I strongly disagree with.   // Timothy :: talk  07:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 07:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment As the author of the userpage concerned, I am OK with deletion but wanted improvement.  Techie3 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been closing off speedy deletes after about 24 hours of non-action by other administrators. Any for the case mention I have suggested that Rhododendrites retag the pages listed for G4 to let someone else consider a G4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The pages have now been deleted by JJMC89. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This makes it sound like this 24 hour thing is just a reason you are giving after the fact to try and justify it, besides in one of the two cases you gave less than 12 hours - not that this 'rule' of yours is really meaningful, you could equally apply the logic that you delete pages indiscriminately after 24 hours of nobody contesting the deletion. And you admit that you were looking for a reason to save the page so don't you think you should have realised that you were involved? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think people should know that I am involved, and I should have left those tagged pages alone, and used deletion review instead. THhe hostility of editing environment has been escalated by Rhododendrites' nomination of neutrally worded expressions of opinion that a big proportion of Wikipedia editors would agree with. So what we really need is an RFC on the topic so that more thought can be given and expressed by a wider range of people on the existence of political opinion infoboxes. I don't know how many of these infoboxes were in use. But it is the principle of what can be expressed that should be the subject of the RFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Strange, I would have though an administrator who's been editing here for 16 years might understand WP:CONSENSUS, which the MFD overwhelmingly had -- which you should know as you participated in the discussion and were one of the few "Keep" votes there. --Calton | Talk 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been closing off speedy deletes after about 24 hours of non-action by other administrators. This policy of yours appears to date back for all of three days, as I can find no evidence for it -- or even an interest in speedy deletions in general -- in your edits going back ten months until the sudden flurry of db tag removals on September 25th. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• My question would be to ask why Graeme is still using the deleted template on his user page, just hard coded rather than transcluded. This seems very WP:POINTy to me, and not befitting of an anministrator at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  This. Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• According to Graeme Bartlett, "What is on my user page is not a template or user box", so it must be all right. Oh, and apropos of nothing, he notes that some have been blocked -- not by him, of course! -- for "vandalizing" his user page. User:Fram has removed the Not-A-User-Box, so that's resolved for now, but Graeme Bartlett is rapidly exhausting his credit of good faith. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• General comment- G4 is the speedy criterion that's interpreted more broadly than all the others. This is because there are innumerable ways people try to wriggle their way around a delete consensus at XfD. Whether it's posting the page back with purely cosmetic changes, posting it back under a different title, or any other funny tricks. Although other CSD criteria need to be interpreted strictly, G4 is not one where ruleslawyering will help you. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've always found it shocking that an admin in particular would include such a userbox on their page, being the first person many new users come in contact with and, like it or not, representing one of Wikipedia's powreful class (what a new person would regard as such, at least). But certainly after the userboxes were deleted with consensus that they fall under '"inflammatory or divisive" and "propaganda [or] advocacy"' (via a nomination which, responding to above, I did not initiate but of course supported), to subvert that by recreating it locally seems pretty pointy. If that is acceptable practice, we might as well not have discussions about userboxes (or any divisive/disruptive template) because users can just reproduce them manually on their userpage. I'm glad to see Fram removed it, and that Graeme hasn't restored it. I left Graeme a message about the declined G4s because, well, he was both wrong and involved. Looks like he declined to revert himself but invited me to retag, and as far as these things go, that's good enough. I did not intend to escalate to ANI unless he dug in his heels on the matter. As that hasn't [exactly] happened, at this point I don't know what ANI can do here other than wag a finger and make it clear "you are involved". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is remarkably disappointing behavior from an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I second what GW said. This is absolutely astonishing and merits ArbCom investigation/opinion or T&S scrutiny. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Good lord. It's a userbox. Can't people find something more useful to fight over? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an inflammatory, discriminatory userbox that targets a minority population. That's why it was deleted. That an administrator would deliberately preserve or recreate, and prominently display (at the top of his userpage), such a userbox during or after the MfD bespeaks a serious lack of judgment and of understanding Wikipedia's commitment to be welcoming to all users. Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman." I should think it discriminates and targets more than one minority population actually. Also affected are polygamists and those who would like the right to marry children, animals, plankton, microbes, space aliens and inanimate objects. Perhaps part of "welcoming all users" is allowing a certain licence to the expression of viewpoints that we may find personally repugnant. In terms of reducing divisiveness, I think it was a mistake to ban userboxes expressing one viewpoint on a controversial subject rather than them all.     ←   ZScarpia   16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) This is not the place to relitigate the MfD, and it's really not the place to compare LGBTQ people to pedophiles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC) We're not here to welcome anybody, rather, we're here to make sure no one group is made to fell unwelcome. There's a subtle but important difference. Nick (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC) [EC] Apologies for the facetious tone, but I was trying to make a serious point. A very good job is being done of making one group feel unwelcome, I should think, those who hold traditional views on marriage. I say that as someone who supports the legal recognition of relationships other than traditional male-female ones. As far as trying to relitigate the MfD goes, I wasn't involved in the original discussion and have no interest in undoing the decision. It's just that I think that eliminating the expression of one viewpoint only wasn't beneficial (part of the aftermath is the current case); it would be best, in my opinion, in the interests of cutting down division (the guidelines ban divisive userboxes), if a further move was made to eliminate the expression of the other viewpoints also. I think that it is problematic that selectivity based on subjective judgements about which viewpoints are currently permissible is being allowed. A lot of my editing is done in controversial subject areas, which means having to tolerate views I don't like (and others having to tolerate mine).     ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC) If you look at my editing history and userpage you'll see that I too edit in controversial topic areas. I have no issue with "tolerating views I don't like"; I have a major issue with editors being expected to edit alongside those who express discriminatory and/or bigoted views against entire groups of people based on their gender, race, etc. But again, if you want to contest the deletion, WP:DRV is thataway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC) That's the thing, although it's my choice to do so, I do edit alongside people I regard as expressing "discriminatory and/or bigoted views against entire groups of people." And being in denial about it to boot. I've already said that I'm not interested in reversing the deletion, but extending it.     ←   ZScarpia   17:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC) ZScarpia, if that was really an attempt to make a serious point it failed miserably. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Such behavior from an admin is troubling, and warrants review. Paul August ☎ 15:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Correct. I'll say this now - Graeme is very lucky that I saw this during my break at work today and not whilst I was available to be online for longer. If I had been, I might well have blocked him. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes this was bad, but given that the userboxes have been deleted and the recreated userbox removed from his userpage, I'm in favor of letting it go. The problems have now been fixed (thanks to those who fixed them), and as long as it isn't repeated, there is no further harm. GB does a lot of good work otherwise and has for a long time, this issue makes people emotional, and we're all allowed to screw up now and again. Lev!vich 16:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  I fully agree. This is clearly inappropriate and a lapse in judgement from GB, but people are allowed to have that from time to time. GB seems to be an active editor and admin for over a decade, with (it seems) an uneventful career in terms of misconduct. I do not think it's appropriate to throw around ArbCom/blocking here. Again, I say that the community should probably discuss the underlying issues here: there's now this thread, the loss of an administrator, and a divisive discussion at MfD also spewing out elsewhere. Probably a good indicator that there's underlying issues which should be discussed and addressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Question: I did end up finding this, and im wondering if this is appropriate as well, User:Techie3/christianmarriage, I'm willing to assume good faith, but seems a bit iffy after all that has happened. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Created five hours ago. Yes, that one needs to be deleted too. Techie3 needs to stop his shenanigans, and all of these iterations need to be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Deleted per WP:POINT. User:Techie3 is very close to losing their editing privileges here. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Black Kite, Thanks! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Techie 3 has agreed not to create any more userboxes, I think we are good there. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• I am so sad to see this, from a longtime admin who has done so much for our project. I want to chime in with what TimothyBlue said, and I am also still depressed over Ad Ortientem's departure. But this is just not the place where we can have userboxes that are so clearly divisive and deny some people the right to marriage. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Ad Orientem's feelings...and frankly, I feel like we'd be better off if everything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (especially Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues and its subpages) went away. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. But since there is no consensus to do that at the moment, there are certain points at which we have to draw the line, as this particular MfD did. It should be fairly straightforward really - the community doesn't actually care which of your beliefs you want to stick on your userpage, as long as those beliefs do not demean others, or their rights. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Between this discussion, the previous ANI one, the discussion on Jimbo's page, and the current MFD on the alt right ones, its clear there's a problem of how we deal with editors with controversial ideologies that other editors are uncomfortable with; userboxes are only the tip of this. And it is disconcerting that we actually have editors that seem to promote the idea that even if the editor with a very controversial view but otherwise behaves as expected (civil, non-disruptive, no POV pushing, all that), we should not welcome them because they promote a controversial view which is completely contrary to both WP:NOT#CENSOR and the General disclaimer, as well as the general purpose of this being an open wiki that should be accepting of all voices regardless of their stance. We have to make a distinction between harassment and abuse that is directed at specific WP editors which we absolutely much act on, and this attempt to right great wrongs by cutting off those voices we don't want because it makes some editors uncomfortable due to their more general, non-specific message. This is basically thoughtpolicing, the last thing that WP stands for.
• The short term solution, of course, is to get an RFC going on whether any political/ideological userbox should be allowed, period, and/or refining where the line is on being "divisive" as used in this MFD (to avoid the double standard as pointed out by Ad Orientem). But this is the tip of an iceberg based on my own observations of the last 5-6 years triggered by obvious external events. --Masem (t) 18:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, userboxes that indirectly target a minority group are not acceptable, period. It has nothing to do with "discomfort" and everything to do with trust and safety, and a welcoming environment. Controversial views are fine if they do not directly or indirectly target a minority group and/or their rights. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• But where is that line that "indirectly targets a minority group" is drawn is a problem. I can argue a box that says a person being a Republican does that given the GOP's nature. Same with a box that says a person is a Christian. (obviously not suggesting we delete these specific boxes). I've argued that when the group in question is specifically talking about hate crimes and violence towards a group as in white supremacy or the like, absolutely these are a problem, but anything less than than and you have this massive gray area that is now creating a double standard. --Masem (t) 18:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is no grey area. A userbox that says "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman" is effectively saying "This user rejects gay marriage as invalid". I don't see how it could be interpreted in any other way. Would we allow a user box that said "This user believes a marriage consists only of people of the same race"? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Time over time there has been comparisons between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, and it is sad to see this argument persisting even in this ANI. I have repeated the argument multiple times in different venues, including in the MfD why this comparison is completely invalid, though those arguing for the other side have so far not been able to offer a valid rebuttal to my argument. I invite users to read the following two statements: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. (Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. (Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and then they will be able to tell why same-sex marriage still isn't internationally recognized, and is simply not comparable to interracial marriage. And no, I do not intend to relitigate the situation. But I have to make this point when I see others pretending the debate for same-sex marriage has been settled with assertive statements such as There is no grey area. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• While I understand that you feel the UDHR is the decisive authority on what is and is not an unacceptable denial of a person's rights, not everyone agrees. The English Wikipedia community certainly hasn't agreed to use it as the basis of policy anywhere I'm aware of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• No. There is no grey area in terms of what I said in my first two sentences. You may argue that the interracial marriage analogy is invalid, but the userbox that I gave as an example should not be used here. We are not here to litigate the various attitudes of country X to gay marriage, we are pointing out whilst an editor is quite entitled to their particular beliefs, since it clearly demeans a certain demographic then they should not be entitled to display it on this website. I don't think that's a difficult concept. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare and Black Kite, I understand and respect your opinion. To clarify, what I feel was inappropriate is not the outcome of the MfD, but the analogy of SSM with interracial marriage, and worse yet, slavery and nazism, which were all present in the MfD discussion and elsewhere. As I said, I think this should be a settled issue now. As much as I disagree with the outcome, the community has spoken and I call upon my fellow editors respect the consensus, and, unless and until the community decide otherwise in a RFC or DRV, stop with the SSM templates and move on. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Dps04, nowhere in those declarations of rights do either of them in any way declare marriage to exclusively be between one man and one woman. Softlavender (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nope. Stating a religious or political-party affiliation does not target anyone. Stating an institution or right should be restricted to certain majority groups targets the minority group(s) that is excluded. Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect Masem is referring to the current MfD about alt-right userboxes, where he has been arguing that despite the fact that the alt-right is an explicitly white nationalist movement, its users may not always hold discriminatory/bigoted views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a slightly different issue, because it requires the reader to make a logical step from the user's political stance to their actual beliefs on any particular issue. That's not the case here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is why we can't have nice things. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No this is why we can't have fabulous things.Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I really don't get the idea of this userbox: it looks like pretty much the definition of a straw man. I mean, is there anyone who supports the institution of marriage, but would deny the right of one man and one woman to take part in it? Or is it really about the denial of rights to others rather than supporting anything? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They are fairly easy to decode. Even the mildest "This user believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman" has the unstated corollary that "This user believes that other types of marriage are invalid". Some of the others in the MfD included views from "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman" (pipelinked to heterosexuality) to "This user opposes the legalization of Gay marriage" to the charming "This user does not recognize same-sex relationships.". In the end, though, they're all effectively coming from the same place. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• They're dog whistle statements, just like All Lives Matter. As BK says, this sort of stuff is easy to decode if you know what to look for. As a historical example, I cite rootless cosmopolitan; and, more recently, as a single example among very many by far too many people, Boris Johnson's suggestion that Barack Obama holds a grudge against the UK from an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire". Narky Blert (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I was being deliberately disingenuous in the course of making my point. Of course I understand that the subtext to this userbox is that any editors displaying it would deny the right of marriage to anyone who doesn't fit their definition of "decent people". It just so happens that a significant part of Wikipedia's editorship doesn't fit this definition, so the userbox is an insult to them, and another significant part of the editorship (including most people in most liberal democracies) supports everyone's right to enter into a married relationship, even if they themselves are in a traditional "one man one woman" marriage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone defending this behavior should think about it this way: If the user box said "This user believes marriage should only be between two white people" would you still be defending this as "just a harmless opinion"? It's the same thing as stating that it should only be between a man and a woman. It's still telling everyone that you don't think two different people should be afforded the same rights. Its still offensive. To the people who would equate this with "the other side". If it's offensive to you that other people show support for not discriminating to support inclusiveness, then you should probably find another hobby. Maybe Stormfront. Valeince (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Having the opinion that marriage is only between a man and a woman is, in Western cultures, is now the minority view in the prevailing culture, no doubt, and there's no question that those that are LGBT would be offended by it. I don't question the concern. But I stand by the fact that WP has made it clear that we are not a safe space per NOT:CENSOR/General disclaimers, nor are we righting great wrongs, in that editors are expected to be encountering those with controversial views, which may include views that they would find discriminatory towards them, and are expected to cooperatively work with them. (I'll point out this example of a safe space poliy used for a 2020 community summit which is about the extend that I see on WP). When it comes to direct harassment and other forms specifically targetting editors, that's different and we probably don't do enough there to make it safe environment for editing. We judge editors only based on their behavior not what they say about themselves with minimal exceptions. Further, the slippery slope logic here is that if we remove the userbox, editor may just move that to user userpage prose, or may mention it in passing in talk page discussions: do we ban those editors immediately? That's thought policing which has become an increasing problem in the last several years, and absolutely not part of the foundation of WP. It's less a concern on the specifics of the marriage box or the right wing box or whatever ideology or political movement is at the center of this, but the fact we are specifically targeting broad ideologies that may be controversial but do not specifically target any WPians, and saying to those editors that hold those views they are personas non grata before we can judge how they actually contribute to WP, potentially turning away valuable contributors and creating double standards related to other ideologies. It's why its better simply to get rid of all userboxes related to ideologies and politics, warn users they shouldn't really talk about these on WP (though aren't restricted), and let their actions in terms of how they edit speak for themselves, so that we're not engaged in any type of thought-policing. --Masem (t) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem, userboxes that indirectly target a minority group are not acceptable, period. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with trust and safety, and a welcoming environment. Controversial views are fine if they do not directly or indirectly target a minority group and/or their rights. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion userboxes that indirectly targets ANY group aren't acceptable, minority or majority. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about removing editing rights or other stifling editing here in anyway. It's just taking removing a form of expression that is deemed not acceptable for Wikipedia. Your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water because the next step is NOT banning anyone it is just continued enforcement for the rules set forth by Wikipedia users. One of them being do not display anyting that is divicive or racist or homophobic. The MFD was enforcement of those norms, the MFD did not create any new rules or anything. Hate and bigotry are not ideolgy or a political movement, despite what proponantes try to do to legitimize their views, and trying to defend these as such reflects on the person more than the reality of the situation.Valeince (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, I figure a userbox that makes only a purely theological statement about marriage - for example, "This user thinks polygamy and gay marriage are not biblical" - would be acceptable? Unlike the deleted userboxen, such a userbox would not say anything about the universal definition of marriage, only about the biblical definition. You can draw conclusions about my beliefs based on me asking this, but your conclusions will likely be wrong. PJvanMill)talk( 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep

Previous discussion

First and foremost, I should explain why there is a topic on the issue on which has already been raised and discussed once. That is because my understanding is that the complaint was deemed incomplete the first time due to the lack of diff URLs, and there has not been a verdict per se; rather, the issue was not decisively considered. I have participated in the previous discussion, and since most of my commentary, which I believe added a lot to the case, was not properly considered (I somewhat understand that: it was more important to establish the claim by the original claimant first, and I understand the case as it was presented did not look particularly strong), I decided I'd change the original statement to some degree and expand upon it with what I have.

Here's what happened in the last few days.

Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Sandbh replaced the lead picture in periodic table with one of his own design and noted the change at WT:ELEM. A discussion ensued. At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words. At the same time, I noted that one color in our periodic table color scheme was disliked by editors (including myself). I figured that softening the color a bit would be fine with everyone, and so I did that, and I announced my action. The first reaction I got was a "like," but from there, I got three consecutive messages from User:DePiep, that announced it "would be nicer if you had published it" (in the sense explained above), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave. I did not make any edits between those messages, and this breach of civility came out of blue. That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw that brought him here in the first place.

Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020

At the same time, I am having a discussion with DePiep, at times peaceful and at times not, at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of a couple of particular actions taken by DePiep. One is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page. In short, the blurb initially had an image, then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design, then I undid that edit and quickly provided a rationale for my edit. Shortly before DePiep made the second revert, they replied to my reverting, "improvements [to their image can be made"] (whereas mine was "unacceptable" due to the wrong kind of brackets). For some context, Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours. Also shortly before reverting a revert, DePiep made this edit; I remark the uncivility here. (In this edit, DePiep uses a TFA talk page to set up a section that is titled by my username and that does nothing other than reprimand me and my "habits," claiming that I habitually "simply deny arguments" and "never aim to improve." -- added at 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Uncivil behavior on this page

When Sandbh started his ANI, I pinched in, too. In the brief discussion that followed, DePiep made a demonstrably false claim that I had not tried to discuss the matter with them. When I pointed out I in fact had engaged in a discussion, it was claimed that I didn't answer quickly enough (twelve hours after the original post, most of which were nighttime in my timezone) and that "grow up and behave" was a "colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits." When I hinted that apologizing for the incorrect claim that I refused to discuss was still an option (I thought the hint would be taken: after all, that would be the civil thing, and the title of the discussion was, "‎Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep," so it was high time to act civilly), I was told that I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." No evidence whatsoever was presented to support such an outstanding claim against another editor (myself). I again remark the uncivility of this kind of discussion. (In truth, DePiep did bring up one Sandbh quote, but that was after I explicitly noted I was not responsible for Sandbh's words.) The discussion, as the title said, was actually about DePiep, but DePiep chose not to bring themselves up in that last quote.

Previous uncivil behavior

Unfortunately, I know that DePiep wasn't just having a bad day, this perfectly falls in line with their previous actions. In the end of the last year and the beginning of this one, ComplexRational and I were working on Talk:History of the periodic table (back then mostly, if not predominantly, CR). CR had improved the article significantly by April. In April, DePiep chipped into another discussion of ours and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done.

A year and a half ago, there was an incident at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal. The core of that argument was that DePiep interpreted rules in a very particular manner. Even though nobody agreed with their interpretation and five people (including myself) opposed it, they still continued to act as if they were right. These actions included reverting a revert, oblivion to others' arguments (calling the version of the name of element 13 commonly used in the United States ("aluminum") outdated, even though other editors had pointed out that this was not the case), accusing others of misinterpretation of a guideline when the person had only, in fact, quoted it (the editor in question was surprised by this accusation as well as the accusation that they were not "performing this discussion sincerely", see the same edit), and making an "utterly false claim" about another editor's actions. Save for the first one, I was not the editor involved in these episodes.

Final remarks

Time does not help. We have run into this sort of problem with DePiep before where they don't listen to others' arguments and/or act uncivilly, as I have presented above. We've been here, this sort of problem should not have emerged again. Yet it has. I am genuinely sorry to write a complaint against DePiep, there is no good outcome in this situation as I see it, because they have been helpful with our graphical design, and losing such a member is a bad outcome. However, I believe that continuation of this behavior is worse.

In the previous outcome, it was noted that "a. he [Sandbh] does not get to control who responds to an ANI thread, b. he is supposed to provide diffs, when he accuses another editor of disruption, c. when reporting another user, a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility." I do not intend to claim control over this thread, anyone willing to say a word in a civil fashion and listen to other editors' arguments is welcome as far as I am concerned. I believe the number of diffs should be sufficient for my case. I stated in the previous discussion that I was eager to be held accountable for my actions and I stand by that, though I would like the editors to note that my behavior that is not directly related to the described events is not the topic of this discussion, and a detailed discussion of it is best held outside of this section if there is enough desire to discuss it.--R8R (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC), amended at 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it was not just about difs. There was nothing there to admonish anyone when referring to two BRD edits. Games of the world (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, yes, that may be the case. I was not watching that particular discussion very closely in its entirety; I was rather surprised to get involved in the first place, and my main discussion with DePiep was occurring on a different page. I only started to learn more about it as I was starting this section and while I was re-reading the post, I forgot to pay attention to the first paragraph, or else I would've altered it. My own message merely touches that discussion.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Before I reply, this procedural question for more serious admins: Salvio giuliano closed the previous, same topic discussion earlier today [149]: No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. So I ask advice: is this a correct reopening, and am I supposed/advised even to respond as if this is the first complaint? If not, may I expect a quick, zero-effect closure? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball. No materially new info or points have been put forward since the previous closure, and even the accusation (title) is identical. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what DePiep said in the last two statements is partly misleading and partly incorrect. Contrary to what DePiep said, new information has been presented: first, it is one specific colorful edit from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020 (the last sentence in the fourth paragraph), and even more importantly, it was the claim (middle to end of the fifth paragraph) to which I referred to as "outstanding" in which a very serious accusation was made against myself but no evidence to support it was presented. That last claim occurred on this very page, during the last discussion, and it was not pointed out the last time, but it would not be appropriate to let such an accusation slip.

As for the misleading part, those claims I did bring up the last time were not considered during the last discussion at all (again, I understand how this could have happened since I was not the nominator and the nomination was not complete), barring one specific claim that I did not repeat in this section; if one does not read carefully enough, they may think that the claims were opposed, which they were not. I have referred to this in the opening paragraph of this section. If they had been discussed and found insufficient for any charge, DePiep's plea not to reopen the closed discussion would be understandable. However, they had not, and it is only appropriate that the behavior DePiep displayed is held up to scrutiny.--R8R (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• R8R, this 1400-word wall of text is overwhelming. Assuming it demonstrates a pattern of obstructionism and/or incivility by DePiep, what do you propose as the solution? By the way, Euryalus placed DePiep under several editing restrictions four months ago in May 2018 [150]; namely [151]:

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

--Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC); revised 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Softlavender: Assuming it demonstrates ... -- are you serious? Please tell me, SL, which accusations you did not find am I supposed to clean up here? Is that all you can find, plus the feeding but not finding a Boomerang? R8R reopens a closed thread, under the same accusation, cannot demostrate points of trouble (that were refuted before), and we are supposed to start talking about the sanctions? -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, you are not helping yourself here. R8R has opened a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions, of apparently problematic behavior from and interactions with you. If your only response is to attack me and the OP, this will doubtless not turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responding, and first of all I did question openly the newness of this thread. Only now you have established that, thank you. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, as noted in the links, DePiep's sanctions were placed by the Wikipedia Community after that ANI discussion not by any admin. Euryalus was simply the admin who closed that discussion, assessing the community consensus and logging it etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I may be wordy at times, unfortunately that much is true. I have divided the text into parts by subheaders; I hope that makes reading easier.

The solution I've had in mind is a ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. Unfortunately, I don't know what duration of such a ban would be sufficient; there was a serious accident a year and a half ago (that I have brought up above), and in the last ten days or so, there were three accidents. I am somewhat hesitant to ask for an indefinite ban myself though I think that is a valid solution.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support: A ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. I declare a conflict of interest in light my previous closed grievance regarding alleged incivil behaviour by DePeip. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I think you mean incident not accident. Anyway it's probably not worth going into details about the older stuff. The editing sanctions, even if it postdated them, and the long blocks are enough to established there's a historic problem with the editor's editing. Concentrate instead on demonstrating the most recent edits are enough or a problem to justify some sanction. Since the thread has several responses, I'm not sure if you should delete parts of your original comment but you could use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse the part about historic stuff. Edit: I see that the previous incidents includes both stuff from 2019 and April 2020. April 2020 was after any block so I guess some may consider it relevant. However while I have not looked carefully at your diffs, your description of them doesn't make me think there's anything there that will raise the communities concern. An editor expressing an opinion an article is crap is for better or worse, acceptable behaviour provided there isn't some other underlying problem. (E.g. an editor pursing another to always say their work is crap.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since you say that the block record is enough to make my point, I'll let go of the past events. In any event, I believe that what happened in the last ten days stands out on its own account: I was, entirely out of blue, told to "grow up and behave"; a section at a TFA talk page was added with the sole purpose to disparage me; I was publicly accused of turning legitimate edits made in good faith into personal attacks, and not a single piece of evidence was presented to substantiate such a claim.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: when you open a thread, you should always expect your related behaviour to come under discussion in that thread. It's not the norm to discuss it in a separate thread since it's more confusing when were are discussing related things in different threads. As was noted before, a WP:Boomerang i.e. where the only action is against the thread starter is a perfectly common outcome of noticeboards complaints. If you don't welcome this, your only real solution is not to complain about other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yes, I see what you mean. When I wrote what I did, I had in mind the unvoiced accusation; I believed that had such an accusation existed and been related to this discussion, it would've been presented, but it was not, and thus whatever there was, if anything, was not related to the present case. Of course I agree that what behavior I displayed in those cases I mentioned should be used to hold me responsible if other editors believe that it warrants such responsibility. I have amended my original post. I believe that now, it reflects well what you have said; if not, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, haven't read this thread in detail but got the ping re sanctions I placed:- noting as a mild addition that these seem to date to 2018 rather than earlier this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus, I have corrected that now. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(considering a reply) -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Polite comments by Sandbh: Ordinarily, I'd be satisfied if DePiep would observe Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". That said, in my experience, DePiep shows a pattern of incivil behaviour. I have looked the other way for many years, since DePiep brings other gifts to WP:ELEM. Given recent actions by DePiep, I chose/choose not to tolerate his behaviour any more.

I'm not sure how to interpret the status of WP:BOOMERANG, which says, "This is a humorous essay." I don't see the relevance of humour in this forum and not when it concerns allegations of incivil behaviour. For what WP:BOOMERANG is worth, it does say:

Responders: Investigate fully: When you encounter a reporter who wasn't blameless in the incident, or who posts a report in the heat of the moment, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the reporter is the sole problem without looking at the context. Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell to Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her.

Upholding that recommendation would be appropriate, in my view. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What was the purpose of this edit. Not very civil Sandbh and is on a par with what you are repeatedly accusing DePiep of - making demands that you see as unreasonable and not necessarily put in a friendly way. If you want him sanctioned (which I'm struggling at times to see anything sanctionable), don't be surprised if you get sanctioned as well for the same type of behaviour (that's the point of boomerang). The point is Sandbh, you would have a stronger case if you don't do the same behaviour that you are accusing him of. In that light, I ask you, what makes you think that your edit that I've linked above is more acceptable than some of the other stuff that has been linked to showing "inappropriate" behaviour? You don't need to answer per se, just to reflect on it. Games of the world (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Boomerang may be an essay, but it still documents how things often work at the noticeboards. Someone posts about some allegedly bad editor. When people investigate, they find the reporter is actually the primary problem. The reportee is left be, the reporter ends up with some sanction, probably blocked. Editors don't need to be perfect to make a report, but their behaviour should not be worse than the editor they are reporting. I'm not saying this is the case here, but all editors should always remember just because another editor's behaviour is problematic doesn't mean it's okay for them to respond in kind or be even worse. (This applies both ways.) Putting that aside, especially with long reports it's imperative that you ensure you focus on examples that are a clear problem. As I mentioned above, I don't think there's any question DePiep's editing has historically had major problems. But when people have looked at any of the complaints in either of these threads about recent behaviour, they haven't seen anything that warranted sanction. The more people see this, the less likely they are to investigate further since it doesn't seem worth it. The editor complaining views on what sort of behaviour warrants sanction seems to be far from the communities. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: for the better or worse, it seems the rules on this are not set in stone, and I therefore could not check if the rules state that or not. It appears this is left to judgment of those editors who take part (please correct me if I missed something), so I'd like to ask you a question to make sure I understand the thinking here.

If I, entirely hypothetically, started a section titled "User:Nil Einne" (or any other user of your preference) on this very page and wrote that what you're saying here matches the standard you've set previously, namely, that you simply deny what arguments you are presented and you never aim to collaborate, would that kind of behavior not warrant sanction against me? To me, it appears that this sort of behavior should be punished. And let's say you responded in a civil manner, reminding me that I could apologize, and I wrote for everyone to see that you were just attacking me personally without bothering to back up my words? Would that not be it, would I not deserve a ban after that? And let's say I also had a record of having been blocked before, so it is unlikely just words will make me stop doing this for a substantial period of time. Would all of that not be reason enough to impose a block on me? Should I as an editor who has just done that be allowed to walk away freely? As you can see, what I'm suggesting in this entirely hypothetical situation precisely matches what DePiep has done lately, or if not, I genuinely don't see the difference.

Please don't take what I wrote personally, but I genuinely don't understand why you're saying such behavior does not warrant sanction, and I hope you could either rethink that or explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world: Thank you. The purpose of that edit, within the WP:ELEM project, was to respond to DePiep’s comment that he did not understand. I feel I spoke plainly to him, honestly setting out how I felt about his behaviour e.g. double reverting fellow project member R8R. I asked DePiep, as a fellow project member, to please consider Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" aka Don't be a jerk against boldness. The word “jerk” is not mine; it is set out in the article in question. I used bolding to emphasise my request. DePiep will know that I very rarely use bold text for this purpose. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you. I remain perplexed as to how a self-described “humorous” essay could be taken seriously. What place does humour have in the context of incivil behaviour allegations? As to my closed complaint and R8R’s follow on, mine arose in the context of what I regarded (alleged) as repeated uncooperative and disruptive behaviour by DePiep, within our WP:ELEM project, ignoring preceding contextual discussions, and requests to desist (so to speak). R8R has set out essentially the same concerns and recent experiences. I did not take my action lightly nor, based on my interactions with R8R over nine years, did he. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

While it may be only an essay, it does reflect norms here, i.e. that the behaviour of everybody, including the reporter is up for scrutiny when someone raises an issue here, and that poor behaviour by the reporter may rebound on them.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Brief note: the essay was tagged as humorous in the most recent edit to the page. I don't know why, as Soumya is not an author or contributor to the essay, their only edit to the page is adding the tag, and there's no note on talk explaining the tagging. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: Re, "it does reflect norms here". Are there any protocols setting out how grievances re incivil behaviour are handled here at WP:ANI, including "the norms"? I could not find anything like that. For example, there is no reference to WP:BOOMERANG. In contrast, for example, the protocol for considering featured article nominations is quite well set out at WP:FAR. Sandbh (talk)

Long term addition of unsourced quotes, trivia and WP:BLP violations

I came across Khaosjr (talk · contribs), because I've watched the hellacious edit history at Rollergames. These edits encompass many articles over an extended period, culminating in recent dreck at List of twins, where we've been graced with unsourced celebrity miscarriages. Please have a look at the edit history, and consider a long block. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, in addition to all the unsourced trivia, this is what I mean by BLP garbage: [152]; [153]. These are not encyclopedic contributions, and may merit rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For someone to write HONORABLE MENTION, in caps, and then list the miscarriage of twins, is absolutely repulsive. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • See also related account 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs), sometimes used in tandem to restore deleted edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reporting user : BH72

BH72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user randomly comes on and repeatedly do disruptive changes, disruptive reverts to the page and copyright violation. I am not sure if the user acknowledge EdJohnston warning. Kent Bargo (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kent Bargo:Just FYI, two of your linked diffs were the same. Both of the diffs linked are definitely bad edits, but I'm sure someone needs to dig deeper. Also, you should just paste the diff links, and not wrap them in ref tags. Just wanted to let you know in case you accidentally copied and pasted the same diff twice. Also a note to those reviewing this, Kent Bargo (talk · contribs) reported this same user 7 days ago for edit warring. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

1st source fixed. It was suppose direct to the earlier report, but i am now reporting user again for disruptive behavior again and obvious copyright violation. Kent Bargo (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

User:Temp

Temp (talk · contribs)

I have recently blocked this user for 48 hours for vandalism/edit warring. This is their response. My inclination is to ignore, remove TPA, and increase the block to indef, but thought I would post here for further review first. GiantSnowman 11:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, would find it hard to object to that. WilyD 11:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, except probably for Temp. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. GiantSnowman 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised they've been around for so long, considering this edit from 2015 and the four immediately preceding it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Could be a compromised account, as those edits back in 2006 look sound, at least the few I looked at were. Quite a big break from editing in between then and now too, although a moot point with TPA revoked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Censorship and legal threat by MianHusnain007

MianHusnain007 has been blanking images for religious reasons and expressed an intent to officially file a case against Wikipedia for this blasphemy. See [154].— Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, indefinitely blocked. Glen (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there a policy regarding such depictions? Shritwod (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Shritwod, it would be WP:NOTCENSORED LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Shritwod See also Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent Pigsonthewing, thank you. I suspected there'd be something more detailed somewhere. Shritwod (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley vandal

An IP has spent much of September vandalizing articles by adding a false writing credit to "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley tm".

Editors include

• 2600:100B:B122:3D0C:0:32:B4FA:DB01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B112:6E16:0:44:8F7D:7801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12B:D5BF:0:4B:E3ED:6801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12C:E73A:0:43:63D2:5401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles include

• Where Are You Christmas?
• Long Trip Alone
• Sugarland
• Stay (Sugarland song)
• Firecracker (song)
• Me and God
• All My Friends Say
• Long Trip Alone (song)
• Anyway (Martina McBride song)

They started back up this morning on All My Friends Say and Where Are You Christmas?. Is there anything that can be done short of watchlisting ever article hit and reverting? Helper202 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is vandalism. Looking through the articles provided it seems the IPs are trying to add information about the writer of these items... "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley". I do not know if this information belongs in the articles. I could not be bothered to look. Lightburst (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not finding evidence that this writer (ELEWP) had anything to do with the songs. But I will see if any other editors find something. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no source to show this at all anywhere. Revert if it's changed, and handle it like normal vandalism. If possibly a range block might be used as it's coming from one IPv6 range it appears, however I'm not an expert on range blocks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone has been adding that false credit to various lyric databases which are user edited. The only other mention of a person of that name is a blogspot blog and a similar facebook page where the person makes some less then credible claims about being "Katrina first responder, NASA, FEMA, ARMY,05-08. Liaison to President George W. Bush. Member of Cambridge Who's Who 09. Prayer/Pledge bill. Katrina Renaissance Village Art by eloris presley in 4 museums. Obama aid. Contract with Guinness World Record." Helper202 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate for an edit filter, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solicited by a group to edit Wikipedia

I offer copywriting services on freelancer and Upwork and it's not out of the usual to get approached by 'fake' clients who offer to buy my freelancing verified account. They mostly target verified users from European/NA as they can then fetch decent gigs for a higher price than they normally would if they were verified in a third-world country. Anyhow, I was approached on freelancer with an offer to apply for paid Wikipedia jobs through my freelancer and Upwork verified account. I was told I wouldn't get into any trouble and I'd simply have to apply to the jobs that I'd get a heads up on. I turned them down, but being the inquisitive type, I cross-referenced the user on Upwork and alas, they seem to be really be in the business and it's not actually a scam. The user's profile (https://www.upwork.com/fl/franciscopiano) is open and the job history even has a screenshot of a completed Wikipedia job (talk about precautions): Neysa Blay. There are many other Wikipedia jobs completed on the profile and I know paid editing is prohibited, so I thought I'd give those spammers and fake clients what's coming to them. - jwaznsh49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaznsh49 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neysa Blay: deleted once as G11, then NPP-accepted on the second try, but should probably swing by AfD based on the sources (1 x dead source, 3 x self-promotion, 3 x listing). Exbio: has not made a peep about having been paid for this job (as well as the Spanish version), neither on their user page nor on the article talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• AfD would probably be the better option. G4 doesn't apply to PRODs and in fact a PROD can be restored on demand even after the fact. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. In view of this conversation on Seraphimblade's page, which is obviously not truthful on Exbio's part, I have blocked Exbio indefinitely as an undisclosed paid editor. I've taken a screenshot of the relevant Upwork page with the Neysa Blay article given as an example of their work, in case the page should happen to change once I've blocked them. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

• Update: my crystal ball worked good. The profile that Jwaznsh49 links to above was open when I looked the first time, but now it can only be seen by logged-in Upwork customers. I'm glad I took that screenshot. Bishonen | tålk 20:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

Did you see any other articles listed on the screenshot, Bish? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No. There was a link titled "Want to see more?", but I didn't follow it, and didn't think it likely to contain more Wikipedia pages, but other kinds of jobs, from the way it was phrased and laid out. Perhaps User:Jwaznsh49 followed the link? I only took one screenshot, out of a longer page, partly because the rest didn't contain any smoking guns (it was mainly recommendations from satisfied customers), and partly out of a non-outing instinct. I have just tried in vain to upload it to Wikipedia, while being asked a bunch of questions that don't fit, but I'll be glad to share it by e-mail on request. BTW, of course Exbio's Draft:Andrew Kingslow is now under suspicion, to put it mildly. Bishonen | tålk 04:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

• @Jwaznsh49: "I know paid editing is prohibited" It isn't; please see WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Paid editing isn't in and of itself against the rules, but the Terms of Use for Wikipedia and its sister websites requires that you be honest about it and disclose who's paying you and where edits under each arrangement will be made. The issue with Exbio wasn't that he was a paid editor, it's that he didn't disclose and lied about his paid status. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:JIMBOB8

I'm bringing this to AN/I rather than the 3RR noticeboard as I think there's a broader issue than just edit warring.

JIMBOB8 (talk · contribs) I think is showing some real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendencies, and probably also WP:NOTHERE. He has been blocked for edit warring before, but he doesn't appear to have learnt from that. He's spent a good portion of today and yesterday edit warring on Marcus Rashford, by my count violating 3RR. Communication is something he tends not to engage in, as he regularly refuses to explain his edits or go anywhere near a talk page, including his own. In fact, his talk page is a litany of warnings, which makes me think he's WP:NOTHERE, but you wouldn't know as he keeps blanking it — Czello 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like he self-reverted his last revert at Marcus Rashford, so there's a sign of hope. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Random numbered subpages of Draft:Sample page

• Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page

As of this edit there are 119 eight-digit-number subpages of this nonexistent draftspace page, all created since mid-August. Some of these do look like very weak drafts, but most I've checked have been patent nonsense, outright hoaxes, or pages that are otherwise unsuitable for the project. The fact that they all seem to be created by IPs with either "created sandbox" or another canned edit summary suggests this is part of some Wikipedia welcoming process, but there's no indication as to what. All I can see is that an IP created the main "sample page" on 28 July as a redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox, which was deleted a few minutes later. Does anyone know what's going on here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted some of these Sample pages that were tagged for deletion but I don't have an answer for you, Ivan. Recently, I have noticed a lot of speedy deletions that were pages made for a young editor's video game character...I'm beginning to think that it is part of a game dare or quest to create a Wikipedia article for your avatar. There are so many streamers on Twitch these days, I can see someone offering this idea up as a challenge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this in July 2020 at WP:AN here. Hope this is helpful. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, yes that is very helpful, and relates to Help talk:Introduction#Adding interactive components. @Sdkb: your implementation of custom sandboxes for logged-out users is causing the draft namespace to be filled with randomly-numbered test pages, some of which contain material which is unsuitable to host here. Did you ever look into an automated way of cleaning up these sample pages? I see an adminbot was suggested in one of the prior discussions. Also, the random number generator doesn't seem to be very random: several of the billion-or-so possible page titles have already been reused several times, unless unrelated IPs are somehow finding the deleted pages and recreating them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It looks like you've found the origin discussion; in short, the sandboxes are designed to provide new users a more interesting environment to experiment with than a blank page. Most are going into subpages of userspace for logged in editors, but for users who ignore the advice earlier in the tutorial to log in, they're sent to draftspace (thus why they're kinda bottom-of-the-barrel). I don't know of an admin-bot that's been created to clean them up yet; it should hopefully be pretty easy to create since the pages all have the same form. We'd certainly be grateful for anyone who decides to code that or comes up with another way for IPs to have a sample page to experiment with. Also, if I recall correctly one of the links was changed following the previous discussion, which didn't do much since it wasn't the main one. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sdkb, and good work on improving the intro by the way. I guess the way forward is a bot request. I'll see what I can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Puri (surname) page overwritten then moved

Puri (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was overwritten, then moved twice to Aayush Puri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The page needs to be restored and history cleaned up. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

All mopped up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing similar behavior, randomly moving pages around to different titles, from User:Meaning Translated and User:Mastersofediting if anyone could check on these two accounts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: It looks to me like all pages moved by either of those accounts have either been deleted or moved back already. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I was concerned about the editors, not the pages. I cleaned up after Meaning Translated earlier today and then I noticed Mastersofediting did something similar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: The accounts are  Unlikely to be related; they're editing from different continents.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked Mastersofediting from article space indefinitely. I am familiar with their WP:G11 deleted drafts and see this as an attempt to bypass WP:AFC, FWI, they have a PAID declaration on their user page. Feel free to reverse if you feel I have over reacted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Meaning Translated has also move warred from draft to article space with that page now deleted per WP:G11. They have made requests at WP:REFUND for restoration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked users are appearing again to disrupt the debate.

Hi~

I previously reported a blocked user threatening me and he was blocked. [[155]]

He appears on the discussion page after he regenerates his ID and is interfering with the discussion.[[156]] His ID 'Vamlos' His claims and actions are just like his previous dolls. There's no doubt about it. He even indirectly testified to the same person as the blocked IP [[157]]

I don't want to repeat Sockpuppet investigations. He is causing too much damage to the Wikipedia.Bablos939 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To the wikipedia admins please understand that Bablos939 had been warned multiple times for wrongfully accusing many editors as sockpuppets because of opposition to his opinion

Bablos939 had been repeatedly warned before of opening SPIs by not giving evidence of any claims. He accused many accounts as sockpuppet and were proven wrong by never providing evidence. I also like to point out that many previous users knows he is a Korean and that he writes anti-Chinese edits in wikipedia.

Editor/or admin RoySmith in 13:18, 8 June 2020 said " If you have specific evidence that there's socking going on, please present it in the form of diffs, i.e. editor1 made this edit, and editor2 made that edit. Vagues assertions of socking, links to talk pages, etc, aren't useful. At this point, this is borderline disruptive because it's making a lot of work for people to process your requests." --

And I also found this, forgot to edit this too " Closing this with no action taken. I have requested that Bablos939 refrain from participating in SPI until they get more practical experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)"

Bablos939 has a history of accusing many editors withouth edvidence.

My first post to the diccussion page is that there was perharps sockpuppetry going on in casting aditional votes. And I present my evidence with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sockpuppetry#Casting_additional_votes

IP address of 116.123.12.44 shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea

IP address 220.117.225.165 also shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea ( if you search the IP with another it shows Seongnam a satellite city of Seoul )

Bablos939 also shows that he from South Korea based on the fact that he has Korean google translation.

All 3 of them shows a clear Korean link and could be casting additional votes to help eachother and I suspect they are all Bablos939. An Ip address sockpuppet investigation should be done to see if all 3 are related if this continues. Because not only are they all from South Korea , they are all basically from the same city. Vamlos (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos: how is it you know so much about Bablos939's history considering your account only started editing a few days ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've known him through several months already. People have posted his username in multiple online forums. I've recieved a message in my inbox from reddit and was provided a link to wikipedia and to other forums. I didn't interfere though since the others were handling it

FOR EXAMPLE. In these Noticeboard forums.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/

https://samreally.rocks/showthread.php?t=776742

Everything he wrote was anti-Chinese, insulting Chinese women and defaming Chinese men. Also when I first read that forum I though he had obession with Chinese women and people but in general I realize what he really hates is Chinese men. Vamlos (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Second reply to Nil Einne

I also want add 2 serious reports about Bablos939 which are extremely offensive. I want to add of these IP address and accounts. 41.34.93.140, 102.44.199.16, 41.232.35.139, Bamnamu, Shinoshijak 70.77.154.228 , that Bablos939 had falsely accused repeatdly. My own opinion at least half of them recieved the same message I did or learned it through, this is my own speculation. But all of them were checked and found to be unrelated with eachother but that doesn't stop Bablos939 from accusing everyone as a sock by making false claims and lies on all of them.

Bablos939 completely abuse his wikipedia authority, over-exceeding, repeateadly SPAMMING the same repeteaded accusations to a total of 6 admin editors or people in charge. And lkater reported on the administrator board wt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmartin969 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartin969&diff=962664818&oldid=961763647 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=960504938 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7&diff=prev&oldid=960332846 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=prev&oldid=962848475 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_B123&diff=prev&oldid=960357945

Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782

Extreme racism and offensive insults against Chinese women, in a aggressive manner

Under his own talk page ( at the bottom ) someone wrote a message of peace to him and he wrote extremely offensive things towards Chinese women and Chinese people

It's under his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939

That was in Bablos939 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020

And in a talk page he wrote this the same thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage&diff=980938562&oldid=980920514

That was in 10:31, 29 September 2020, he said this two times without and his last one was a racial attack and far offensive than last one Vamlos (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Major Concerns Regarding Briscoe Cain

After putting a little work into touching up and expanding the Briscoe Cain article the other day, I couldn't help but notice a number of COI red flags throughout the entire revision history of the article, many indicative of the possibility that the page is being routinely monitored and revised by either individuals associated with the subject, or possibly the subject himself. This was first brought to my attention last night, after user Marquardtika (talk · contribs) had reverted every edit I had made to the page over the course of the past few days (many of which were no more than grammatical fixes or structural improvements) with the only rationale provided being "these don't look like improvements. Tweets aren't WP:RS, for one." As far as the claim regarding the Tweets goes, I assume he was referring to the two instances in which I had used Tweets made by Briscoe on his verified, personal account, which I was (and am) under the impression were, given the context, appropriate sources as per WP:TWITTER. Regardless, and as I alluded to just now, these only accounted for two of the numerous changes I made out of good faith to the article, without so much as even leaving a talk page message explaining why.

After reviewing the article's revision history in its entirety, it came as no surprise to discover that Marquardtika was the page's original author, and is quite obviously engaged in some degree of OWNING. Following a subsequent review of Marquardtika's user page, it appears as though they claim to be a former journalist from the same city as Briscoe Cain, and furthermore appear to only be interested in creating and editing articles concerning Republican politicians from Texas (for the record, I too am an American conservative, and by no means am presenting this with the intention of persecuting Marquardtika for their political leanings). I'm not sure if this behavior would fall somewhere within the NOTHERE range, but it would most certainly be worth looking into imo.

I also happened to notice a huge body of suspicious IP edits in the article's revision history, including the second and third edits ever made to the page, which originated from an IP address that appears to belong to the Texas State Legislative Counsel, and has a reverse DNS entry on state.texas.us.

So to say the least, it seems like something super fishy is going on here. I'm not sure exactly what, but hence why I'm here. felt_friend 01:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Felt friend: It would likely be better to bring the COI stuff up at WP:COIN. About the disputed edit, I see a lot of use of the subject's personal website and other primary or not very good sources like the Texas Legislature bill history page, and at least one of the Twitter things looks very dodgy since it seems to be an attempt to make the subject look bad sourced solely to the subjects Twitter. So I'm not particularly surprised it was reverted. But in any case, as always, take it to the article talk page, and use WP:dispute resolution if you can't solve it by yourselves. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the OP didn't notify me of this discussion as is required. Beyond that, if I'm Briscoe Cain, I'm sure doing a shit job of managing my page 😂 Marquardtika (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil behavior by user TowlieRocks/193.56.252.196

The user above, due to disagreeing with an edit made on another page they were watching, has followed me on my Contributions page and reverted edits in bad faith on TheReportOfTheWeek under both their username and IP address, despite having been warned to cease such disruptive behavior. Needless to say, said behavior is highly inappropriate and violates Wikipedia's high standard of behavior for those engaged in the editing process, and the matter must now be regretfully brought before the administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have just warned the user! Happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 02:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Contacting Wikipedia directly

Good evening. I am hoping someone can advise how to contact Wikipedia directly, the actual people who operate this site, about an issue concerning a banned user who also is now deceased. Basically, over the past two years there has been an issue with this user's real world identity being researched pretty heavily by a small group of people who then apparently contacted his employer, family, as well as institutions with which he had been associated. In the beginning, we tried to contact parties on Wikipedia directly, however every time we did we either received no reply or quite a nasty response. At this point, we are just trying to stop these incidents of unwanted messages, especially to places like universities, libraries, and government agencies who are still getting emails to this very day about this user and how bad he was on Wikipedia. I am also not posting the banned user's ID here, since that too has often led to messages being ignored or, in a few rather disturbing cases, accusations that he wasn't really dead and that this was some scheme to get his account re-opened. This is not about his account, but rather what is going on with this investigation of his identity and emails being sent to 3rd parties. PS, we already contacted the oversight email address already. They were helpful but didn't address the emails that are being sent to 3rd parties about this user. Thank you for your help. This is a good website and I don't believe most of the people here would support or condone what has gone on with this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4001:4460:B045:4922:DC2:468E (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. There are no "actual people who operate this site" other than the volunteer editors and administrators who are active here on Wikipedia and many of whom watch this page. We have no bosses here and trying to find them is a waste of your time. If random people are sending unwanted emails, then please block those email accounts and encourage other people to do so as well. The oversight team can help with things that take place on Wikipedia but not elsewhere. I am not commenting on this specific case because I do not know the details, but there have been a number of cases of Wikipedia editors whose misconduct was so intense and compulsive that it negatively affected the real lives of many innocent volunteers. Of course, people want to look into that for the purpose of stopping the harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. THey ae better equipped for this sort of situation that the Wikipedia Community, which is just for encyclopedia building. Their contact page is HERE. Perhaps that would be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If this is true, doesn't this seem like a bright-line T&S off-wiki harassment scenario? Contacting the WMF is almost certainly the right play here, especially the Trust & Safety team. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you register an account you can use the "email this user" facility to contact me, or any other admin you think would be supportive, and we will courtesy-blank the user space and watch for any mentions of the real world name. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to hear this. However, I'd like to mirror the suggestion that the first place to contact should be the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team. Contact details are available at Trust and Safety team. I'm am not sure what can be done unless those continuing the harassment have accounts here, but I belive that T&S would be able to confidentially advise you on how best to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, User:Bilby, that's what I was looking for. Their email is cawikimedia.org --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-stop disruption and block evasion by some IP hopper: Range block request

• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:583F:48A7:1EE4:EA28
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:1830:B4FE:69F3:61BE
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:3575:8B07:14E5:28BB
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:C9B9:3026:7270:5C7
• Special:Contributions/2601:646:8F81:8770:F11D:DAC1:17E1:B385

This IP range belongs to blocked user Special:Contributions/Xana. Xana is blocked for their nationalistic rants and personal attacks on Talk:Kurds. After the block, an IP hopper appeared on that talk page and continued Xana's quest. The talk page was protected[158] but it seems it was not enough to stop that user because they have returned again. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated semi-protection for a month on the talk page (may be revised by another administrator who examines the situation). Note, I have not carried out a checkuser review of the IP range to check for collateral damage, so have not considered blocking the IP range. Another checkuser may feel it appropriate to do so. Risker (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Semi-protection is helpful but the blocked user is obsessed with that article/topic. If the used IP range is not shared/dynamic, I suggest 1-year range block. Just blocking anonymous editing. If the blocked user creates new accounts, SPI will deal with them. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The /64 is stable going back ~8 months on Talk:Kurds. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2601:646:8F81:8770::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one year for block evasion. /64s in the most common configuration are one user, equivalent to a discrete IPv4 address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Wario-Man (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Everton F.C.

Seems to be an edit-war going on here!! Govvy (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Both users warned. GiantSnowman 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

This bot's edit male the cusabo article false — Preceding unsigned comment added by CusaboEmpress (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@CusaboEmpress: No, it's working correctly. Articles don't use "I" in them. Imagine reading any other article and seeing someone's personal notes there. Doesn't make sense for a collaborative summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, right? We don't use original research or personal claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually "we" and "this person" [159], the "I" [160] only came after the OPs complaint and wasn't reverted by Cluebot, but same point. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand the question, nor the answer. This could be one of the reasons why I am unable to provide a meaningful comment. Pldx1 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The context is, this is a WP:SPA who is trying to edit the article to reflect their personal POV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose account repetitively adding the same unsourced content

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

---

Cihangir751 (talk · contribs) seems only here to add dubious unsourced information on some obscure Ottoman character, erasing sourced content; deliberately ignores invitation to discuss on TP, claims to be a descendant of the subject, having therefore the right to deny other people to interfere. What other solution except block or thema-ban?--Phso2 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Request for review of request

Hello,

Few hours ago I placed assistance request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#How to deal with this?. It seems it is still unattended. Frankly I do not know what is right course of action and when to inform on admin notice board. I hope some one can review that request.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Wapow legal threats

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WahPow Several legal threats. Warning user on ani thread now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, blocked as soon as I made this post. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Our predictive blocking works once again! GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

MujeebMalikPK

MujeebMalikPK keeps disregarding TP messages and recreating pages, sometimes slightly changing the name. Some have been CSDed, others redirected. Shabqadar MC-3 is back now. It doesn't appear that anyone has looked at the overall pattern. MB 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/Mujeeb1715, blocked a few weeks ago for nearly identical edits. Captain Calm (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed socking. I'll go through and clean up what I can.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE issues

• Abbie Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Munich Philharmonic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tom kearsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned about Tom kearsey (talk · contribs)'s agenda, with edits on behalf of Abbie Conant across the platform and addition of non notable musicians to several articles. A persistent addition of WP:BLP violations to make a point here: [161]; [162], with a reliance on primary sources and court documents. Hasn't responded to WP:COI message. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs) hasn't helped, twice restoring the unacceptable content and warning me for edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:INACCURATE, outright removing the content which you deem suspicious is not the solution to this matter. Your edits have been reverted for content removal. Please see WP:RMV for more information. Thank you. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to include After Celibidache's sudden death in 1996, the alleged child sex offender James Levine took over as chief conductor of the orchestra, serving until 2004. To lean on WP:INACCURATE as justification begs the invocation of WP:CIR. This, or a variation, has been added to the article four times, twice by Transcendental36 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this a WP:RELIABLE issue exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong. but there exists 5 reliable news sources backing that statement. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit in question for reference Transcendental36 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There ought to be nothing inherently wrong with trying to amplify the voices and include women in these lists who have been neglected or ommitted in reference. Just because their articles don't exist yet should not mean they can't go on the list with good references. It is ignorant to call any of these people non notable. Mentioning that Levin is an alleged sex offender should not be precluded from his mention in ANY context. To actively suppress these allegations is abhorrent.

I'm sorry about being a Wikipedia novice and making a big section on Celibidache's sexism without proper page talk concensus. I have acted on other fellow users' comments to include it in a more appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom kearsey (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Transcendental36 is an account created just five days ago, but very clearly not a new editor. They have 148 edits in the article namespace, and every single one is a revert. That does not look like someone who is here to build an encyclopaedia to me (I noticed this discussion when looking at their edits after they reverted one of mine with an inaccurate edit summary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.152.81 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@46.208.152.81, I must disagree. I have recently taken an interest in fighting vandalism here in the English Wikipedia, and wish to contribute as best of my abilities that I can. The contribution you made included additional content that did not seem referenced, and so I reverted the edit in good faith. Transcendental36 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit did not include any additional content. If you cannot reliably describe an edit, you should not revert it. And your sudden appearance just five days ago, zealously reverting and warning and quoting policies at people, is beyond suspicious. I hope someone is looking into your history. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• While the SPA concerns seem valid, this is not a "non-notable musician". The harassment that Ms. Conant received after passing the (then-unusual) blind audition made a lot of headlines in the specialist music press, and was something of a wake-up call for orchestras in Germany especially, but also the US. A woman making a living as a lead trombone is a Very Big Deal Indeed (brass are quite unreconstructed, ask at the bar after any classical concert, if you can get to it through the crush of brass players). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the article on Abbie Conant is OK with respect to policy (maybe a bit promotional), but the Munich Philharmonic article ought to be rolled back to the 26 September version and fully protected. This would allow time for discussion of the contentious items on the talk page. There is probably no defamation, but there could be questions of WP:Due weight that would need editor consensus to resolve. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Bogus Shield

I hope this is the write place to post this. If not, my apologies in advance: Could you please look into the entry for Columbia University? The user User: XXeducationexpertXX had initially uploaded a bogus shield for Columbia University, which was a photoshopped amalgam of Columbia College crown + shield + seal all put together in this mish mash. I removed that and put the official shield of the school approved by Columbia and published in their visual identity guide: http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf The user User: XXeducationexpertXX continues to remove the correct shield though on bogus claims. This is the correct shield: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University#/media/File:ColumbiaUniversityShield.png This is the bogus photoshopped shield made by the aforementioned user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_Shield.png Thank you, Karl Montague (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that needs to go to Talk:Columbia University. Karlmontague, you were warned to not edit war and then you reverted again. I'm not going to block as I'm involved in this a bit, but another admin might take action. only (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extreme racist and offensive attacks on Chinese women and people. And spamming his own repeated accusations on many editors

BLANTANT RACISM AGAINST CHINESE

Bablos939 have been warned of his behaviours by any editors previously because of his edits against Chinese women and Chinese men

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939 Despite several warnings and reports he continues to be offensive to Chinese.

Extreme racism and offensive insults against Chinese women, in a aggressive manner. Under his own talk page ( at the bottom ) someone wrote a message of peace to him and he wrote extremely offensive things towards Chinese women and Chinese people It's under his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939

He wrote this in 11:24, 17 June 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939 ( is right underneath at the bottom, I also removed many of his fake links that he added with exaggerations that get's in the way of readin)

I was fed up with your madness, so I looked for the cause. Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. Mongolians owned most of the Chinese women. "

And wrote it again recently just 2 days ago in 10:31, 29 September 2020 ( He made it more offensive ) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage&diff=980938562&oldid=980920514

Numerous Chinese women have been sold to Korean men and U.S. soldiers. According to the data, many Chinese women seem to prefer Korean men. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of Chinese women are marrying Korean men. htMongolians owned most of the Chinese women. Maybe you are jealous of Mongolia, Korea ,Arab for this reason. but I have no interest in Korea or Mongolia that you hate. I'm not interested in your fight. If you have any objections, go to the Chinese media or the Korean people and complain. Don't disturb the debate "

FALSELY ACCUSING ALL EDITORS WITH OPPOSITION TO HIM

He had falsely accused many wikipedia editors for having a opposing opinion to him. Accusing editors with no evidence and had been warned of not providing accurate evidence. A sockpuppet investigation had already been made previously but he accuses all of themhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive and had been warned.

41.34.93.140, 102.44.199.16, 41.232.35.139, Bamnamu, Shinoshijak 70.77.154.228 , that Bablos939 had falsely accused repeatdly. My own opinion at least half of them recieved the same message I did or learned it through, this is my own speculation. But all of them were checked and found to be unrelated with eachother but that doesn't stop Bablos939 from accusing everyone as a sock by making false claims and lies on all of them. Bablos939 completely abuse his wikipedia authority, over-exceeding, repeateadly SPAMMING the same repeteaded accusations to a total of 6 admin editors or people in charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmartin969 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartin969&diff=962664818&oldid=961763647 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=960504938 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7&diff=prev&oldid=960332846 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=prev&oldid=962848475 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_B123&diff=prev&oldid=960357945 )

Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782

He was previously warned in ISP but ignores it anyway ( Roysmith replied to Bablos939 twice all at the bottom ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive

Vamlos (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe 'Vamlos' is 'Buzinezzs doll.[[163]] He's using an external website to blackmail me.[[164]] He repeatedly created IDs to attack me and talk page. He repeats his comments about Korea on a topic that has nothing to do with it. He repeats over and over again.......[[165]] Users who participated in the debate is at the point of getting sick.....Bablos939 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts repeated removal of maintenance tags

Lugnuts seems to have a problem with people adding maintenance tags to articles he has created, often manually reverting them without explanation. [166][167][168][169]

They also seem to have an issue with the existence of the noplot template, going back for a while now [170][171][172]. They chose not to respond to attempts to discuss the topic at the time and the behavior does not appear to have changed since then. [173] Greyjoy ^talk 23:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Greyjoy, seems reasonable to me. Plot summaries are a haven of WP:OR. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, if I am incorrect in thinking this is a problem I will happily leave it alone. Greyjoy ^talk 23:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are very much a matter of opinion, with some viewing them as more useful than others. Particularly, stylistic ones applied to stubs that are obviously missing significant things are often viewed as completely unhelpful. The only one in the diffs that you linked that was potentially identifying a significant policy problem (one instance of {{blp sources}}) was being removed from someone who had recently died. Overall - yes, communication could be better, but removal of low-priority maintenance tags is generally allowed. ~ mazca ^talk 23:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok looks like it was a misunderstanding of policy on my part, apologies to Lugnuts. Greyjoy ^talk 02:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate maintenance tags. I think Lugnuts is on point more often than most. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding maintenance tags to stubs annoys me, also. If it's an article needing some scrolling to finish, and the tag is on point, I don't mind it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry from User:Albertheditor

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention 'sockpuppet' at any time. I just had the founded suspicion that you were using 2 accounts, which, as I later added, it's allowed by Wikipedia: Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what's mentioned at the above link, he keeps removing the ANI notice from his talk page. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what he's trying to do on his talk page now.... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)​ What Albertheditor seems to be doing is blanking their user talk page which is what they're allowed to do per WP:BLANKING. You notified them of this discussion as your required to do; so, please don't do this again because it won't help resolve the other issues you seem to be having with this editor. When an editor removes a notice, it's going to be assumed that they've read the notice; you shouldn't keep re-adding it if they remove it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I do note that they tried to add the semi protect tag on their page on the misguided notion that that would semi protect their page. Which would not work anyway since only admins can apply semi (a fact that they seem to have realised) and semi only works against IP and non-autoconfirmed accounts anyway. On the substance of the complaint, accusing editors of socking better be backed by evidence. Suggest that Albertheditor be warned about this. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)